1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

PACKERS ARE DONE...HERE'S A PROPOSITION...

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by P@ck66, Oct 4, 2005.

  1. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    The Green BAy Packers are in dire straits...

    1. They Have no o-line..therefore, no running game or qb protection....
    2. Receivers...they have none...Fergy sucks..Driver can't do it all...(at least they've thrown to the tight end a couple times..i guess that's something)
    3. DB's suck..plain and simple...i know they're rookies..but they still SUCK!
    (D-Line and LB's seem to be playing better than last year though)
    4. Play calling is HORRIBLE...(when you have no running game because your line is decimated and sucks..why try to run on 3rd and 3 for a 1st down against a 5 man front?) Why throw shovel passes and screens that don't work?....i'll tell you why...because Rossley and Sherman are morons that don't what they are doing..that is why!
    (What they should do is try to work the middle of the field with the tight end and receivers behind the linebackers to soften the defense up a little)

    The Packers have become a very ONE-DIMENSIONAL TEAM people...You can't blame Brett Favre for this fiasco..Hell..one ball was right in Ferguson's gut and he let the DB snatch it away..what the hell?

    Here is my proposition TT...i hope your listening....

    TRADE BRETT FAVRE TO THE JETS..OR ANY OTHER TEAM THAT NEEDS A QB AND THAT LEGITIMATELY HAS A SHOT AT THE PLAYOFFS THIS YEAR...AND HAS SOME RECEIVERS AND TALENT ON IT.....I'M SERIOUS...SHERMAN HAS RUINED THIS TEAM..AS I HAVE PREDICTED!

    It is the only decent thing to do, since you've basically deserted him and left him bereft of talent....perhaps on purpose for your "rebuilding project"

    You at least owe him that much....If you are really serious about rebuilding..TRADE HIM for a first rounder next year and start Aaron Rodgers....you will not win more games this year...or be better off without him...but the team is yours now..and you have your 3-5 years to rebuild...

    There basically is no team left anymore and you are starting from scratch anyway...so let him go...He deserves better coaches than these IGNORAMOUSES...!
     
  2. HatestheEagles084

    HatestheEagles084 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,423
    Ratings:
    +1
    if any effort is made to have favre end his career for any other team...i will set fire to every piece of packer merchandise i own...no
     
  3. Raider Pride

    Raider Pride Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,868
    Ratings:
    +2
    "You at least owe him that much....If you are really serious about rebuilding..TRADE HIM for a first rounder next year and start Aaron Rodgers....you will not win more games this year...or be better off without him...but the team is yours now..and you have your 3-5 years to rebuild."

    Any GM in the NFL who would give the Packers a First Round Pick for Brett would lose his job faster than Sherman is losing his.

    Reality.... Please. Brett looks so pissed off right now that I would not blame him if he just jumped on a flight down South and never came back across the Northern side of the Mason Dixie line again.

    Think about it 66.... Who on earth would give a first rounder next year for Brett?

    RP
     
  4. musccy

    musccy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,854
    Ratings:
    +1
    As usual, you contradict yourself 66...all last week you were begging and pleading for screens, more running to keep the defense honest, more passes to the TE, dump offs to the rbs...they do that and you still piss and moan.
     
  5. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    the Jets will RP..the Jets will...

    Do you mean to tell me that ANY other QB in the NFL could have done what Favre did in the 4th Qtr. tonight...with the talent..or lack thereof, that he has at receiver....what more do you expect out of this guy? Nobody else could do it...it wouldn't even be close....

    Bullshit musscy...it was all Favre...he is the sole reason that GB even had a chance tonight...HE makes the players around him better...and yes..finally in the second half they started going to the tight ends and RB's..why hadn't they in the first three games? Because pigheaded Sherrosley did not know what to do when the running game didn't work...

    plus..let's face it...he doesn't have the talent at receiver that other teams do..he makes these guys good...and still they f*** up (et tu ferguson?)

    Does Brett Favre have to reinvent the wheel every goddamn season?

    Apparently so....
     
  6. musccy

    musccy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,854
    Ratings:
    +1
    Pack66, I never said that Brett wasn't a great player.

    I have said, however, that in some losses (in particular playoff games) Brett goes off the deep end and is as influential in the loss as he can be in packer victories. That's just what you get w/ him...and the Pack have lived and died by the sword w/ him. When he starts winging up prayers and forcing it, sometimes it has worked, other times it hasn't (this was even the case back when the Pack would go vs. Dallas in the early/mid 90s).

    as for your other pts....you say the Packers never adapt...did you notice how the Packers were passing out of their U71 package tonite...could we have seen more screens tonite just because Carolina was rushing 5 dls at times?!? You claim the Packers never adjust or think about their play calling, but obviously they do. Are they the best at adapting to a defense...probably not...but do they just pick plays using the dartboard technique that you seem to believe they use? No!

    As for the lack of talent. 1) you can, in part, thank TT for that.
    2) I don't argue that the Packers aren't as talented as they have been in the past, but do you think Brett is the only qb in the league w/ out phenomenal talent surrounding him? I would say that the offensive talent surrounding Dilfer and Delhome is comparable w/ the Packers, yet they're still able to get by.
     
  7. IndiPack

    IndiPack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    76
    Ratings:
    +0
    re

    Trade Favre? Not quite. Besides, he wouldn't leave the Packers for love or money.
    You're right about the defense, though, excepting KGB's effort (Mike 'the predator' Mckenzie would come in handy about now). Take away critical defensive penalties and GB's 1 and 3. Carolina is nothing special but they played 3 quarters to GB's 1.
     
  8. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    so musscy..

    if you're saying Delhomme and Dilfer are better than FAvre..you're more cracked than i thought you were....

    i'll tell you one thing that these guys have that Favre doesn't ...COACHING...your loverboy Sherman just plain sucks..there's no way around it...

    another thing he doesn't have is a running game..or a solid offensive line...or a talented receiving corps...as these other teams do...

    But i guess you are saying he doesn't need these things..because these other "QB's" get by and Brett Favre doesn't..it's something innate in Favre...

    Favre hasn't had a premiere receiver since Sterling Sharpe retired...yet he's supposed to be superman and get it all done by himself...

    What you don't know Musscy is ALOT...

    I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT YOUR PRECIOUS SHERMAN COULD DO IF HE DIDN'T HAVE FAVRE ALL THESE YEARS....DO YOU KNOW WHAT HE WOULD BE....LINDY INFANTE...AND HE WOULD HAVE BEEN LAUGHED OUT OF THE LEAGUE YEARS AGO...
     
  9. musccy

    musccy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,854
    Ratings:
    +1
    Pack, yes, Brett is better than Dilfer or Delhomme, but they've been more successful this season w/ similar talent because they play w/ what they're given. Brett did a great job of that last night...utilizing the TEs more, not forcing the ball as much, spreading the ball a bit more. That was the difference between Dilfer and Brett in the Cle game, IMO, not so much his or the team's talent, but what Brett did w/ that talent.

    I do acknowledge that the Packers aren't quite as talented as they have been, but before you blame everything in sight on MS, shouldn't you consider TT? I understand that he's building for the future, but the fact is that under his watch 2 guards left, and his replacements have been subpar which has restricted the packers offense and the plays they've called, IMO.

    Brett has had no talent at wr/TE? Rison, Glenn, and Keith Jackson were studs prior to coming GB, meaning that they weren't good just because of Brett. Guys like Walker, Freeman, Driver, Brooks, Chmura were also very compotent wrs/tes... I'm not saying this to tear down Brett, and I'm not saying there won't be a lull after he leaves, but it's not going to be the end of life as the Packers know it, either.
     
  10. carol k

    carol k Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    592
    Ratings:
    +0
    I certainly disagree about trading Favre. In the first place, Favre wouldn't go anywhere else. Watching NFL after the game last night, I saw a Favre that looked really down in the dumps. That guy tries so hard to do things to win the game--sure he makes mistakes at times, but you know, he is human. He needs some players to help him out, and he doesn't seem to have that. I don't know why in the world, the Pack let Wahle go. It sounds as if he wanted to stay. Well, we still have Sunday to look forward to. That may be the start of something BIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  11. net

    net Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    979
    Ratings:
    +86
    This entire thread is idiotic. It presumes there's a team out there willing to trade away the future for the possibility of a portion of now.

    Also, the Packers would appear to be villians in this trade, not victors.

    Stupid. Really, really stupid.

    Why not concentrate on the reality?

    1)With much of the same personnel as a year ago, this team has slid into the craphole. Why?

    A little history lesson. The Green Bay Packers won their second Super Bowl and Vince Lombardi left coaching to be the GM. It wasn't entirely that Lombardi was burned out. He wanted part of the team and that wasn't possible. He also recognized that his iron will had propeled an aging team to the championship, and they nearly got knocked off a couple of times along the way. Phil Bengston was handed the team that Lombardi knew was old and the rookies weren't that good, then left town after the team went into the tank the next year. Lombardi left town with his image nearly intact, and Phil Bengston was left with a team that was slowly rotting.

    It had much to do with drafting and personnel. It was the Packers weak spot until Ron Wolf arrived. Wolf made some blunders, but overall gave Mike Holmgren more than enough talent to win.

    The mistakes Sherman made while GM (by the way, he made many good moves, too) have come home to roost. This coupled with Ted Thompson's desire to find new affordable faces has put this team where it is.

    I notice Dallas isn't setting the world on fire. I wonder if Bill Parcells has forgotten how to coach? Dom Capers will likely be let go in Texas. He has had success in the past, has he forgotten how to coach?

    I've always found the complaint about playcalling to be laughable, purely laughable. Until this year the offense always ranked near the top of the league. Playcalling complaints merely show the originator's lack of knowledge.

    This team has changed. Beightol this morning in the paper said they were going with Klemm and Whittaker instead of Wells and Ruegemer for the "long term good". That's all I need to prove this is the Packers rebuilding year with aging players(Green) retiring players(Favre) and underperforming players (Harris).

    Instead of assuming the Packers must win every football game, why not assume the team is in transition, and after a rocky road will be in position to win in the future?
     
  12. musccy

    musccy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,854
    Ratings:
    +1
    excellent post net!!!

    The bottom line is that TT et al were walking a fine line. He obviously is setting up the team the way he likes, and retooling but provided just enough talent that if everything went perfectly, the Pack could still be competitive.

    Lots of blame to go around, but the fact is that this team is rebuilding, and it probably be ugly for a little while here.
     
  13. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    net said:

    "A little history lesson. The Green Bay Packers won their second Super Bowl and Vince Lombardi left coaching to be the GM. It wasn't entirely that Lombardi was burned out. He wanted part of the team and that wasn't possible. He also recognized that his iron will had propeled an aging team to the championship, and they nearly got knocked off a couple of times along the way. Phil Bengston was handed the team that Lombardi knew was old and the rookies weren't that good, then left town after the team went into the tank the next year. Lombardi left town with his image nearly intact, and Phil Bengston was left with a team that was slowly rotting."

    So NET..is Sherman Lombardi or Bengston in this scenario..or both..
    since he left HIMSELF with his own crappy rotting team that he put together as an incompetent GM?

    net also said:

    "With much of the same personnel as a year ago, this team has slid into the craphole. Why?"

    four words...Mike Sherman and Tom Rossley...next question...


    then net said...

    "This entire thread is idiotic. It presumes there's a team out there willing to trade away the future for the possibility of a portion of now."

    No net..it is not idiotic..but your reasoning is....

    I don't think a team is "trading away their entire future" buy giving up one first round pick for a chance to be VERY competitive for the next few years...Once again net you are putting WAY too much emphasis on the importance of a first round draft pick.....many times they do not pan out...

    Playcalling is not trivial net...i don't care how many statistics the Packers had or where they "ranked"...that doesn't win games...but knowing what plays to call to score more points than the other team does...(as exemplified in Mike Sherman's "stellar" playoff record 2-4...his home record, and embarassing playoff loss to the Vikings last year....

    They may have racked up alot of statistics with Green and the o-line in the past..but Rossley and Sherman are lost this year because they don't know how to adjust and compensate and make do with the players that they have now...

    it's a little thing called "coaching" net....
     
  14. net

    net Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    979
    Ratings:
    +86
    As usual PackIt, you couldn't figure out which hand has five fingers.

    I wasn't saying Sherman was Vince Lombardi. What I was saying is the situation is set up similarly to then, with the old guard leaving and the new players not ready(or as good). See it's all there, but it does require some interpretive skills.

    Sherman and Rossley are also part of the reason the Packers have WON as much as they have. Or doesn't that fit into your "reasoning skills"?

    Playcalling hasn't been the problem. You are so frickin' focused on that that you can't see that the main problem with the PACKERS IS THEIR DEFENSE. THEY GAVE UP 32 POINTS LAST NIGHT. THE PACKERS SCORED ENOUGH POINTS TO WIN. See PackIt? It isn't so hard to think.

    The Packers also have several coaches who are considered among the best in the league. Larry Beightol...Jim Bates...Nunn...Mike Sherman doesn't make every call, as much as people with limited reasoning would like to assume so. So the coaches suddenly are all bad, Sherman is stupid and it all points to him.

    Mike Sherman is partly responsible for the 0-4 start. But the large measure of the problem this year lies in players that are fading(Henderson and Green) new players(the o-line) and yet another defensive coordinator trying to find players who fit the system. It also stems from a veteran-based approach Sherman used when he was GM, to a draft-based system that TT uses.

    Tennessee has(had) a similar problem to the Packers. Notice they went from perennial playoff contender to loser, even with Steve McNair. They lost the players that got them there. Jeff Fisher suddenly didn't become an idiot because they started losing, something you are implying Sherman and the coaching staff have become.

    Sorry you're having trouble grabbing onto the situation.
     
  15. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    net, all season long, and last night for the entire first half, that defense was put in a bad spot by our inability to hang onto the ball, and to manage a decent possession. 3 and outs will kill a defense when they get no breathers. The defense, contrary to your assumption, has played good enough to win damn near every game...IF the offense only did their job and kept them off the field every now and again.
     
  16. PackerChick

    PackerChick Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,143
    Ratings:
    +1
    Trade Brett? NO WAY. I would never accept that proposition. Shame Shame Shame. Hes had a good run until now. No one stays on top forever.
     
  17. LambeauLeaper

    LambeauLeaper Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    239
    Ratings:
    +0
    net, while I agree with the vast majority of what you're saying, I'm going to have to disagree that the problem with the Packers (and the reason they lost) is their defense. Don't get me wrong, I don't think our D is great, but when you give the other team the ball at the your own 7 yard line it kind of puts the defense in a bit of a pinch. It's not to say that the defense hasn't had it's share of problems, but it's hardly the main reason we're losing.
     
  18. PackerChick

    PackerChick Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,143
    Ratings:
    +1
    Yes, Brett has no support around him. I changed this post if you dont mind. Hes carried the team for too long. He needs a supporting cast and is just not getting it.
     
  19. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    That's the problem chick..nobody seems to understand...

    It is not Favre's fault...

    IF his receivers can't get open and he throws the ball away thereby avoiding trying to "force" something that isn't there and throw an interception..than digs and musscy will complain about "3 and outs" being hard on the defense...

    If Sherossley's play calling is predictable and unimaginative and the defense has every one covered like a blanket..same thing...throw it away or try to force something....

    Brett Favre is in the unenviable position of being in a "no-win" situation...because he doesn't have the talent around him...and he is getting the blame...

    It's not because he has "lost it" ..or "doesn't have it anymore"...we saw that last night he certainly does still "have it"....what he doesn't have anymore is a football team and coaching staff that can "win" anymore...
     
  20. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    66..in the event you have not been following for...well, eternity, I am generally in agreement with you concerning Sherman's/Rossley's game plan and playcalling, and their ability to motivate and bring the best out of their players. And, for the record, as long as the playcalling is appropriate to the game situation, 3 and outs are just a matter of getting beaten by a better opponent. You don't like it, but you understand that the team is outmanned. My gripe for most of the season is the fact that I, and MOST knowledgeable fans know hat is coming before it is called...a reflection on the poor gamemanship of the offensive playcallers.

    In the end, I agree with many of your points...if you would take the time to READ and COMPREHEND what I have been posting. But, clearly, you just want to bitch...so, go ahead and let er' rip, big fella. Chew me a new one for AGREEING with you to a great extent about MS/TR.

    For the record, I must give you credit for Sherrosley. A bright spot in your otherwise erratic career.
     
  21. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    PACKERS ARE DONE...HERE'S A PROPOSITION...

    Should we still consider trading Brett?
     
  22. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    PACKERS ARE DONE...HERE'S A PROPOSITION...

    Honestly, yes.

    PROVIDED THAT:

    1. Brett comes back.
    2. In conversation, Brett says to TT/MM something along the lines of "I wanna come back and see how far this team can go..... you know I'd love to get one more shot at the SuperBowl, play with a real contender...."
    3. A team that is a QB away from competing is interested (a team like the Jags maybe?).
    4. The Jags offer at least a fair deal, or if they offer you a deal that is too good to be true.

    I think at this point, speaking from a Packer's perspective, you start to think about life after Brett more seriously. If trading him (SHOULD BRETT EXPRESS THE DESIRE FOR A LEGIT SHOT AT THE SUPERBOWL) makes you better for the future, I say do it.
     
  23. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    PACKERS ARE DONE...HERE'S A PROPOSITION...

    I don't know if Brett would want to go through learning another new system like the Jags. Maybe the Eagles or someone who runs a similar offense?

    What would be fair compensation for a three time MVP who has a SB ring and virtually every meaningful passing record attainable in the next season or two?
     
  24. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    17,833
    Ratings:
    +3,479
    Re: PACKERS ARE DONE...HERE'S A PROPOSITION...

    He aint doing it...Didnt he bluntly say he wont go anywhere else..

    Strike that, he did say something like..I wont play for another team..Even tho he also added he didnt foresee it happening but things change..But I think he is 99.99999999999% sure he wont play for another team
     
  25. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    PACKERS ARE DONE...HERE'S A PROPOSITION...

    That field would be narrowed to a very small window. I mean one or two teams that could use Brett MAY have a better chance to win the SB than we do. I say maybe.

    We pick up a couple of key players and our shot next year is as about as good as anyone elses. I think Favre knows that and would think he would way more prefer to try with the Pack than go anywhere else.

    Last year was a year to think that way. Brett's chances now would be best staying right where he is.
     

Share This Page