New GM...

[JeffQuery]

Bill Parcells (Good assembler of talent).

Better than Tee Tee, anyways..

 

[PackersRS]

Parcells would be awesome. Holmgren would be awesome... But don't see it happening...

 

[Hauschild]

Here's a piece from a journalist that appears to be interested in the truth - I know, I know, these aren't the "times" for the truth, but humor the traditionalists, like me, anyway ...

It's the Truth: Favre's proving Thompson wrong - NFL News - FOX Sports on MSN

 

[bad93ex]

That article has been discussed before here on the forum but it ringing more and more true as time passes.

 

[Hauschild]

Bill Parcells (Good assembler of talent).

Better than Tee Tee, anyways..

If my memory serves me correctly, Parcells wasn't interested in the Green Bay job pre-Sherman days. There seems to be something "corny" about running or coaching the Green Bay Packers because GB never seems to attract really "big" talent, save Wolf. The big dogs seem to thumb their noses at Green Bay, so it must have something to do with the way the organization is run, or something else I cannot finger at the moment.

The only big fish that interests me at this point is Cowher. Parcells is old and cocky, Holmgren doesn't have the drive any longer. I want passion and fire.

 

[Hauschild]

That article has been discussed before here on the forum but it ringing more and more true as time passes.

Yet, half the Packers fans will refuse to accept this as possibly ringing as true as Brett being a selfish, egotistical maniac. The proof is in the pudding. And, some will have me believe Favre is an *** because he no longer wanted to be a part of a fly-by-nite, nickel-dime outfit??? Please.

I don't know much of Whitlock, but this piece is about as unadulterated and truthful as any you'll find. Brett is MVP and it ain't even close - something I've been claiming since the San Fran game.

 

[SCpackerfan]

Of course someone has to bring brett into this whole thing...MOVE ON!!!!!!

 

[Hauschild]

Of course someone has to bring brett into this whole thing...MOVE ON!!!!!!

Does moving on mean accepting failure for the Packers??? If so, count me out.
:yu:

 

[PackersRS]

:sFun_DeadHorse:

As far as MVP, he sure is in te conversation, but Payton Manning and Drew Brees would have something to say as far as Favre being the "clear cut favorite"...

 

[SCpackerfan]

No im just talking about moving on from Favre. He had nothing to do with how bad we played at Tampa or for the matter this entire season.

 

[Hauschild]

:sFun_DeadHorse:

As far as MVP, he sure is in te conversation, but Payton Manning and Drew Brees would have something to say as far as Favre being the "clear cut favorite"...

Maybe - it's tough. But, sometimes the answers are easy to see. I could make a case for Drew Brees, but he's basically got the same weapons he's had for years, except Darren Sharper, so why is 2009 suddenly magic for Brees???

I would never vote Manning - he's had a stellar O-line for 10 years now. He's got the happiest feet I've ever seen. He's rarely pressured, but when he is, he's not good. I point to the way New England often beat him senseless during the playoffs. He's good, though, but not Brett Favre good.

I still claim that throw during the 49ers game - because of the context it was done in - meaning, the Vikings were in no man's land - not far enough away for a Hail Mary and lucky break, and too far away for a quick slant or lob into the back of the end zone. No, sir. THIS throw had to be balls-on, accurate. It had to be delivered at the EXACT time, in the EXACT amount of space for it to be successful. Favre has instincts that cannot be taught and I even get tired of hearing people talk about instincts, but it is true. Brett bought the right amount of time and chose the BEST read and delivered an astoundingly accurate throw - again given the conditions and the TINY margin for error. We're basically talking about a defense that had the game in the bag and played perfect coverage for that final play. If the throw is 6 inches to Lewis' left, it's a knocked down, game over. I'm not sure I've seen a more dominant throw in my entire life.

What really caught my eye was some NFL.com footage of the play in which one camera caught a conversation between two 49ers players and they had the attitude and speak that the game was in the bag and they were producing idle chatter and suddenly in the background you could see them standing on the tips of their toes, the crowd going wild and the player in front slowly turning around to his runnin' buddy with eyes like saucers and his mouth wide open and you could tell he wanted to speak, but no words were coming outta his pie hole. It was really a sight to behold.

I think often times, fans and writers want to be able to explain things away rationally and neatly, so they put players into the boxes of their choosing and for the most part, are never questioned. Then, they attempt the same with Brett Favre and find he is truly an enigma - you can't rationalize or explain exactly what he brings to the table. Just when you think you've marginalized him, BOOM, he smacks you alongside the squash. I love guys that refuse to live within boundaries they do not define themselves.:happy0005:

 

[Hauschild]

No im just talking about moving on from Favre. He had nothing to do with how bad we played at Tampa or for the matter this entire season.

Then, you didn't read the article completely. This was one of the sticking points - Favre very well COULD be the reason for the Pack's failures. Whitlock pointed out that TT drafted Rodgers (5 years ago) for the future, but the irony is that Brett REMAINS the future, because he's still playing and playing much better than Rodgers.

Of course we all have to move on, but this "moving on" stuff is so abused nowadays that I think it has lost its original meaning. When I hear people clamor to "move on", I can't help but get a picture in my mind of the spoiled kid who gets frustrated in the neighbor's back yard and grabs his ball and goes home - the inherent meaning being - if I'm miserable, I'm sure as hell gonna do what I can to make everybody else's life miserable as well.

 

[PackersRS]

Maybe - it's tough. But, sometimes the answers are easy to see. I could make a case for Drew Brees, but he's basically got the same weapons he's had for years, except Darren Sharper, so why is 2009 suddenly magic for Brees???

I would never vote Manning - he's had a stellar O-line for 10 years now. He's got the happiest feet I've ever seen. He's rarely pressured, but when he is, he's not good. I point to the way New England often beat him senseless during the playoffs. He's good, though, but not Brett Favre good.

I still claim that throw during the 49ers game - because of the context it was done in - meaning, the Vikings were in no man's land - not far enough away for a Hail Mary and lucky break, and too far away for a quick slant or lob into the back of the end zone. No, sir. THIS throw had to be balls-on, accurate. It had to be delivered at the EXACT time, in the EXACT amount of space for it to be successful. Favre has instincts that cannot be taught and I even get tired of hearing people talk about instincts, but it is true. Brett bought the right amount of time and chose the BEST read and delivered an astoundingly accurate throw - again given the conditions and the TINY margin for error. We're basically talking about a defense that had the game in the bag and played perfect coverage for that final play. If the throw is 6 inches to Lewis' left, it's a knocked down, game over. I'm not sure I've seen a more dominant throw in my entire life.

What really caught my eye was some NFL.com footage of the play in which one camera caught a conversation between two 49ers players and they had the attitude and speak that the game was in the bag and they were producing idle chatter and suddenly in the background you could see them standing on the tips of their toes, the crowd going wild and the player in front slowly turning around to his runnin' buddy with eyes like saucers and his mouth wide open and you could tell he wanted to speak, but no words were coming outta his pie hole. It was really a sight to behold.

I think often times, fans and writers want to be able to explain things away rationally and neatly, so they put players into the boxes of their choosing and for the most part, are never questioned. Then, they attempt the same with Brett Favre and find he is truly an enigma - you can't rationalize or explain exactly what he brings to the table. Just when you think you've marginalized him, BOOM, he smacks you alongside the squash. I love guys that refuse to live within boundaries they do not define themselves.:happy0005:

Ok, you think Favre deserves the MVP. But you don't get a vote in it, or do you?

Neither do I, but from the voters perspective, he's not the clear-cut favorite. It's Manning and Brees. If I had to bet, it would be Manning again. Last year it should've been for Brees and Manning won it, so now that he's actually playing lights out, and is undefeated, they ought to give it to him...

Then, you didn't read the article completely. This was one of the sticking points - Favre very well COULD be the reason for the Pack's failures. Whitlock pointed out that TT drafted Rodgers (5 years ago) for the future, but the irony is that Brett REMAINS the future, because he's still playing and playing much better than Rodgers.

Favre COULD remain the PRESENT. Not the Future.

And, actually, he doesn't either. He no longer remains with the team. So that's why it's beating a dead horse. You're discussing COULDA SHOULDA WOULDA... That will not do any good for the Packers...

 

[SCpackerfan]

Ok, you think Favre deserves the MVP. But you don't get a vote in it, or do you?

Neither do I, but from the voters perspective, he's not the clear-cut favorite. It's Manning and Brees. If I had to bet, it would be Manning again. Last year it should've been for Brees and Manning won it, so now that he's actually playing lights out, and is undefeated, they ought to give it to him...

Favre COULD remain the PRESENT. Not the Future.

And, actually, he doesn't either. He no longer remains with the team. So that's why it's beating a dead horse. You're discussing COULDA SHOULDA WOULDA... That will not do any good for the Packers...

Thats what i was implying when i said "move on."

 

[JeffQuery]

No im just talking about moving on from Favre. He had nothing to do with how bad we played at Tampa or for the matter this entire season.

Don't worry...I'm sure there are many STILL in Packerland that will figure out a way to blame FAVRE for this years Packer play...hahaha...

PackersRS...Would that be the worst thing in the world for you if Favre won the MVP or the SB? Or how about both?

:rotfl:

 

[PackersRS]

Don't worry...I'm sure there are many STILL in Packerland that will figure out a way to blame FAVRE for this years Packer play...hahaha...

PackersRS...Would that be the worst thing in the world for you if Favre won the MVP or the SB? Or how about both?

:rotfl:

Worst thing in the world... No. My life isn't just football.

But worst thing in the NFL would be THE VIKINGS winning the SB. If Favre would win the MVP I couldn't care less. It's not like he doesn't deserve. I just think he won't, because of what I've said. And I agree with that thought process...

My football life doens't consist of Favre... it consists on the Green Bay Packers... And an ocasional Notre Dame game (who also sucks, BTW... coincidentally, both teams have fat bastards as coaches...)

It really amazes me that you trully think that everybody is either with or against Favre, and that everything that happens in the NFL has something to do with Favre...

I mean, the guy generates A LOT of excitement, and is sure making you happy right now, but when he retires, you won't have anything to do with the NFL... Or at least, it won't be the same for you...

 

[longtimefan]

Why in the hell is a thread that started out as a new gm talking about Brett

Good gawd

So who would want Parcells?

Who wants Holmgren

Who wants anyone but Ted?

Lets get it back on topic or make a new thread on a Brett debate...

 

[angryguy77]

Why in the hell is a thread that started out as a new gm talking about Brett

Good gawd

So who would want Parcells?

Who wants Holmgren

Who wants anyone but Ted?

Lets get it back on topic or make a new thread on a Brett debate...

It's all a conspiracy to give you grey before your time LT. How else would we make you sigh?

 

[longtimefan]

It's all a conspiracy to give you grey before your time LT. How else would we make you sigh?

I have no hair to turn gray as I am bald LOL

 

[JeffQuery]

You see..it worked..

We turned you BALD...

:rotfl:

 

[bad93ex]

Could we get the BK guy as our GM?

That guy would be clutch!

 

[longtimefan]

You see..it worked..

We turned you BALD...

:rotfl:

Sorry ex wife took care of that :comando:

 

[Hauschild]

Favre COULD remain the PRESENT. Not the Future.

And, actually, he doesn't either. He no longer remains with the team. So that's why it's beating a dead horse. You're discussing COULDA SHOULDA WOULDA... That will not do any good for the Packers...

You're not understanding my points. They weren't so much about "coulda-shoulda-woulda" as much as they were about TT being too preoccupied with the future, which ironically, might have cost his future, as it certainly has had a detrimental impact on Green Bay's future, which now happens to also be its present.

You should direct the preponderance of your angst towards Packers' brass instead of Brett Favre because while there's nothing to be done about the latter, there are things to be done about the former.

One positive thing Brett Favre has done for the Packers faithfuls with his refusal to retire is to shine some light on the inner-workings of Packers' management. Brett Favre was nothing more than one of the catalysts in the reaction. Had Brett stayed retired and not played for the Jets or Vikings, the Packers very well could be 6-2 and many of us wouldn't truly understand there are problems with the Packers until further down the road - but the problems would surface at some point.

However, you guys can choose to accept what you want to accept - no skin off me back.