Timing is everything

[JbShell]

When hearing all the media and everything else i have did some digging into the past three years and Bretts impeachable timing. Now I dont know who is ultimately responsable for the leaks in the organization. (if there are any at all) (see Bus Cook).
It seems like the past three years have been like watching a spoiled child pitch a fit when he does not get his way. Only to do a 180 when the heat of caring eyes( the fan) turn from support to angst.
This bs about Randy Moss and Brett retiring only a day after the Pack failed to aquire him in free agency is a point in case.
I have oftened wondered if the retirement was a ploy cooked up by Cook to get TT to suddenly change course in regards to aquiring a big name free agent or pursuing a trade.
As we have all seen TT is the gambler as well and did not waiver in his approach to the overall health of the team. I think Bretts agent totally miscalcuted the speed at which the organization would move on without Brett.
There was no weeping and nashing of teeth in the front office just a steady movement forward to the future.
I firmly believe that this is why Cook has pressed the issue and has did the preliminary foot work on trying to get Brett back in the line up.
I hope that Brett will come out and be honest with all this. That his retirement was in haste. And if He comes back that he would welcome an open competition with Aaron Rogers. He gave up the presumptive starters role when he retired.
Also in closing as far as Brett being the best chance for a quality team to make the superbowl. I can recall 4-5 times in the last 10 years that Brett led the talent that could have acheived the pinnacle only to lose it to a badly time throw or two. So goes the team so goes Brett not the other way round this time

 

[all about da packers]

You bring up a good topic: should the Packers have done more to get Favre to stay?

A recent interview with Favre's mother suggests that Brett thought the Packers (and TT specifically) did not do enough to try and get him to come back when he was contemplating retirement.

The funny thing is that Favre's mother ends by saying that Brett has never said this to her (or anyone), but that she "sensed" that is what Brett felt.

I don't think the Packers' brass staying away from Brett to let him make up his own mind is a bad thing, Brett should decide if he wants to play, not have someone try and convince him he should return.

The sad thing about all this is that despite the Packers' brass not getting involved in Brett's year-end "to retire or not retire, that is the question" debate, Brett's yearly retirement issue has still become a circus.

 

[arrowgargantuan]

i can't wait until the season starts.

 

[Raider Pride]

i can't wait until the season starts.

Without Brett.

 

[nathaniel]

i can't wait until the season starts.

Without Brett.

Agreed.

 

[RedSoxExcel]

When hearing all the media and everything else i have did some digging into the past three years and Bretts impeachable timing. Now I dont know who is ultimately responsable for the leaks in the organization. (if there are any at all) (see Bus Cook).
It seems like the past three years have been like watching a spoiled child pitch a fit when he does not get his way. Only to do a 180 when the heat of caring eyes( the fan) turn from support to angst.
This bs about Randy Moss and Brett retiring only a day after the Pack failed to aquire him in free agency is a point in case.
I have oftened wondered if the retirement was a ploy cooked up by Cook to get TT to suddenly change course in regards to aquiring a big name free agent or pursuing a trade.
As we have all seen TT is the gambler as well and did not waiver in his approach to the overall health of the team. I think Bretts agent totally miscalcuted the speed at which the organization would move on without Brett.
There was no weeping and nashing of teeth in the front office just a steady movement forward to the future.
I firmly believe that this is why Cook has pressed the issue and has did the preliminary foot work on trying to get Brett back in the line up.
I hope that Brett will come out and be honest with all this. That his retirement was in haste. And if He comes back that he would welcome an open competition with Aaron Rogers. He gave up the presumptive starters role when he retired.
Also in closing as far as Brett being the best chance for a quality team to make the superbowl. I can recall 4-5 times in the last 10 years that Brett led the talent that could have acheived the pinnacle only to lose it to a badly time throw or two. So goes the team so goes Brett not the other way round this time

I really don't understand when people say that whole "I can recall 4-5 times in the last 10 years that Brett led the talent that could have acheived the pinnacle only to lose it to a badly time throw or two"

Can you please explain to me the 4-5 times your talking about? Of course one will be the Giants game when apprently its Brett's fault that the defense couldn't keep Eli off the field and Grant ran for no yards.

Please refer to my post:

http://www.packerforum.com/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14323

I am not insulting you, I'm just actually curious about that whole theory people have that we had so many "Super Bowl" bound teams and which years they are talking about.

 

[Stroz]

i can't wait until the season starts.

Without Brett.

Agreed.

I shudder to think...

 

[Timmons]

When hearing all the media and everything else i have did some digging into the past three years and Bretts impeachable timing. Now I dont know who is ultimately responsable for the leaks in the organization. (if there are any at all) (see Bus Cook).
It seems like the past three years have been like watching a spoiled child pitch a fit when he does not get his way. Only to do a 180 when the heat of caring eyes( the fan) turn from support to angst.
This bs about Randy Moss and Brett retiring only a day after the Pack failed to aquire him in free agency is a point in case.
I have oftened wondered if the retirement was a ploy cooked up by Cook to get TT to suddenly change course in regards to aquiring a big name free agent or pursuing a trade.
As we have all seen TT is the gambler as well and did not waiver in his approach to the overall health of the team. I think Bretts agent totally miscalcuted the speed at which the organization would move on without Brett.
There was no weeping and nashing of teeth in the front office just a steady movement forward to the future.
I firmly believe that this is why Cook has pressed the issue and has did the preliminary foot work on trying to get Brett back in the line up.
I hope that Brett will come out and be honest with all this. That his retirement was in haste. And if He comes back that he would welcome an open competition with Aaron Rogers. He gave up the presumptive starters role when he retired.
Also in closing as far as Brett being the best chance for a quality team to make the superbowl. I can recall 4-5 times in the last 10 years that Brett led the talent that could have acheived the pinnacle only to lose it to a badly time throw or two. So goes the team so goes Brett not the other way round this time

I really don't understand when people say that whole "I can recall 4-5 times in the last 10 years that Brett led the talent that could have acheived the pinnacle only to lose it to a badly time throw or two"

Can you please explain to me the 4-5 times your talking about? Of course one will be the Giants game when apprently its Brett's fault that the defense couldn't keep Eli off the field and Grant ran for no yards.

Please refer to my post:

http://www.packerforum.com/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14323

I am not insulting you, I'm just actually curious about that whole theory people have that we had so many "Super Bowl" bound teams and which years they are talking about.

I can't speak for the "Superbowl" teams, however, here are Brett's playoff stats:
Brett's Playoff Stats

The most recent NYG game could be blamed on him.
The MN loss in 95 is with 4 INTs.
The 2003 game against Atlanta is questionable. Our team was seriously injured. Anyway, 2 ints.
2002 St Rams. 6 Ints.
1999 - SF - 2 ints.

I'd put four of those on Brett. The Atl and SF games are questionable, however two INTs during a playoff game is not what we're looking for.

 

[Devil_Doc]

When hearing all the media and everything else i have did some digging into the past three years and Bretts impeachable timing. Now I dont know who is ultimately responsable for the leaks in the organization. (if there are any at all) (see Bus Cook).
It seems like the past three years have been like watching a spoiled child pitch a fit when he does not get his way. Only to do a 180 when the heat of caring eyes( the fan) turn from support to angst.
This bs about Randy Moss and Brett retiring only a day after the Pack failed to aquire him in free agency is a point in case.
I have oftened wondered if the retirement was a ploy cooked up by Cook to get TT to suddenly change course in regards to aquiring a big name free agent or pursuing a trade.
As we have all seen TT is the gambler as well and did not waiver in his approach to the overall health of the team. I think Bretts agent totally miscalcuted the speed at which the organization would move on without Brett.
There was no weeping and nashing of teeth in the front office just a steady movement forward to the future.
I firmly believe that this is why Cook has pressed the issue and has did the preliminary foot work on trying to get Brett back in the line up.
I hope that Brett will come out and be honest with all this. That his retirement was in haste. And if He comes back that he would welcome an open competition with Aaron Rogers. He gave up the presumptive starters role when he retired.
Also in closing as far as Brett being the best chance for a quality team to make the superbowl. I can recall 4-5 times in the last 10 years that Brett led the talent that could have acheived the pinnacle only to lose it to a badly time throw or two. So goes the team so goes Brett not the other way round this time

I really don't understand when people say that whole "I can recall 4-5 times in the last 10 years that Brett led the talent that could have acheived the pinnacle only to lose it to a badly time throw or two"

Can you please explain to me the 4-5 times your talking about? Of course one will be the Giants game when apprently its Brett's fault that the defense couldn't keep Eli off the field and Grant ran for no yards.

Please refer to my post:

http://www.packerforum.com/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14323

I am not insulting you, I'm just actually curious about that whole theory people have that we had so many "Super Bowl" bound teams and which years they are talking about.

I can't speak for the "Superbowl" teams, however, here are Brett's playoff stats:
Brett's Playoff Stats

The most recent NYG game could be blamed on him.
The MN loss in 95 is with 4 INTs.
The 2003 game against Atlanta is questionable. Our team was seriously injured. Anyway, 2 ints.
2002 St Rams. 6 Ints.
1999 - SF - 2 ints.

I'd put four of those on Brett. The Atl and SF games are questionable, however two INTs during a playoff game is not what we're looking for.

The game at SF in 99, had instant replay been available, we never would have lost that game.

 

[IronMan]

The game at SF in 99, had instant replay been available, we never would have lost that game.

Here's proof: (I used to have the video. I'll see if I can find it)

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Zombieslayer]

The most recent NYG game could be blamed on him.
The MN loss in 95 is with 4 INTs.
The 2003 game against Atlanta is questionable. Our team was seriously injured. Anyway, 2 ints.
2002 St Rams. 6 Ints.
1999 - SF - 2 ints.

I'd put four of those on Brett. The Atl and SF games are questionable, however two INTs during a playoff game is not what we're looking for.

My God. Besides Joe Montana, almost everyone had stinkers in the Playoffs.

Someone please find some John Elway Superbowl stats. Goes to show, Elway must suck, right? All I ever heard when Elway was playing was about his greatness, yet he really stunk it up in the big games until he had a monster RB.

Or Peyton Manning. Stunk it up last year in the Playoffs. He's just lucky Lovie Smith is the biggest idiot in all of sports.

Like I said a million times, the Giants beat us. They played a better game. Favre brought us back from 3 deficits that game, and he completely rocked against the Hawks.

Geez, give the Giants some credit instead of putting the blame on our players.

 

[ElleBlue]

Yes, the Giants really came together in that game and the game against Dallas. Sure we make a couple of blunders, but that is normal. Everyone has their not so good games.

 

[Devil_Doc]

When hearing all the media and everything else i have did some digging into the past three years and Bretts impeachable timing. Now I dont know who is ultimately responsable for the leaks in the organization. (if there are any at all) (see Bus Cook).
It seems like the past three years have been like watching a spoiled child pitch a fit when he does not get his way. Only to do a 180 when the heat of caring eyes( the fan) turn from support to angst.
This bs about Randy Moss and Brett retiring only a day after the Pack failed to aquire him in free agency is a point in case.
I have oftened wondered if the retirement was a ploy cooked up by Cook to get TT to suddenly change course in regards to aquiring a big name free agent or pursuing a trade.
As we have all seen TT is the gambler as well and did not waiver in his approach to the overall health of the team. I think Bretts agent totally miscalcuted the speed at which the organization would move on without Brett.
There was no weeping and nashing of teeth in the front office just a steady movement forward to the future.
I firmly believe that this is why Cook has pressed the issue and has did the preliminary foot work on trying to get Brett back in the line up.
I hope that Brett will come out and be honest with all this. That his retirement was in haste. And if He comes back that he would welcome an open competition with Aaron Rogers. He gave up the presumptive starters role when he retired.
Also in closing as far as Brett being the best chance for a quality team to make the superbowl. I can recall 4-5 times in the last 10 years that Brett led the talent that could have acheived the pinnacle only to lose it to a badly time throw or two. So goes the team so goes Brett not the other way round this time

I really don't understand when people say that whole "I can recall 4-5 times in the last 10 years that Brett led the talent that could have acheived the pinnacle only to lose it to a badly time throw or two"

Can you please explain to me the 4-5 times your talking about? Of course one will be the Giants game when apprently its Brett's fault that the defense couldn't keep Eli off the field and Grant ran for no yards.

Please refer to my post:

http://www.packerforum.com/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14323

I am not insulting you, I'm just actually curious about that whole theory people have that we had so many "Super Bowl" bound teams and which years they are talking about.

I can't speak for the "Superbowl" teams, however, here are Brett's playoff stats:
Brett's Playoff Stats

The most recent NYG game could be blamed on him.
The MN loss in 95 is with 4 INTs.
The 2003 game against Atlanta is questionable. Our team was seriously injured. Anyway, 2 ints.
2002 St Rams. 6 Ints.
1999 - SF - 2 ints.

I'd put four of those on Brett. The Atl and SF games are questionable, however two INTs during a playoff game is not what we're looking for.

What about the defensive strategy against the Giants, does that not count as something to blame it on? If you wanted to blame it on anything that is....

 

[Zombieslayer]

What about the defensive strategy against the Giants, does that not count as something to blame it on? If you wanted to blame it on anything that is....

Oh, agreed big time. I think our D was way more to blame than our O in the loss to the Giants. The D coaches failed to make adjustments.

 

[RedSoxExcel]

When hearing all the media and everything else i have did some digging into the past three years and Bretts impeachable timing. Now I dont know who is ultimately responsable for the leaks in the organization. (if there are any at all) (see Bus Cook).
It seems like the past three years have been like watching a spoiled child pitch a fit when he does not get his way. Only to do a 180 when the heat of caring eyes( the fan) turn from support to angst.
This bs about Randy Moss and Brett retiring only a day after the Pack failed to aquire him in free agency is a point in case.
I have oftened wondered if the retirement was a ploy cooked up by Cook to get TT to suddenly change course in regards to aquiring a big name free agent or pursuing a trade.
As we have all seen TT is the gambler as well and did not waiver in his approach to the overall health of the team. I think Bretts agent totally miscalcuted the speed at which the organization would move on without Brett.
There was no weeping and nashing of teeth in the front office just a steady movement forward to the future.
I firmly believe that this is why Cook has pressed the issue and has did the preliminary foot work on trying to get Brett back in the line up.
I hope that Brett will come out and be honest with all this. That his retirement was in haste. And if He comes back that he would welcome an open competition with Aaron Rogers. He gave up the presumptive starters role when he retired.
Also in closing as far as Brett being the best chance for a quality team to make the superbowl. I can recall 4-5 times in the last 10 years that Brett led the talent that could have acheived the pinnacle only to lose it to a badly time throw or two. So goes the team so goes Brett not the other way round this time

I really don't understand when people say that whole "I can recall 4-5 times in the last 10 years that Brett led the talent that could have acheived the pinnacle only to lose it to a badly time throw or two"

Can you please explain to me the 4-5 times your talking about? Of course one will be the Giants game when apprently its Brett's fault that the defense couldn't keep Eli off the field and Grant ran for no yards.

Please refer to my post:

http://www.packerforum.com/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14323

I am not insulting you, I'm just actually curious about that whole theory people have that we had so many "Super Bowl" bound teams and which years they are talking about.

I can't speak for the "Superbowl" teams, however, here are Brett's playoff stats:
Brett's Playoff Stats

The most recent NYG game could be blamed on him.
The MN loss in 95 is with 4 INTs.
The 2003 game against Atlanta is questionable. Our team was seriously injured. Anyway, 2 ints.
2002 St Rams. 6 Ints.
1999 - SF - 2 ints.

I'd put four of those on Brett. The Atl and SF games are questionable, however two INTs during a playoff game is not what we're looking for.

1) The SF game is even mentioned, seriously??? The Packers were up.

"The score capped a nine-play, 76-yard drive after Brett Favre put the Packers up 27-23 on a 15-yard touchdown pass to Antonio Freeman with 1:56 remaining."

The reason we lost is because 1) Jerry Rice did fumble and it wasn't called and 2) Steve Young mad an unbelievable drive.

2) The ATL game, seriously??? Look at my post. Vick drove on the Packers on will. VICK? Yes, Vick.

3) The NYG game, THEY BEAT THE COWBOYS, PACKERS AND PATRIOTS (18-0)!!!! THEY ARE A GOOD TEAM - can someone finally give them some credit. They outplayed us in every aspect of the game, look at the defensive scheme against them. What about Ryan Grant? Also, no one gives any credit to Favre for the Seattle game. We were down 14-0 within mins. I believe Favre led the Packers are 6 straight touchdown drives?

4) I will give you the Rams game, though I stand by that the Rams were a great team that should have beat the Pats.

And overall, I don't get this "we're not looking for 2 INT's". When does a QB have to be perfect in order ot win playoff games. Look at Bradshaw's playoff stats. Ironman posted this:

1974:
touchdowns:3 ints: 1
1975:
touchdowns:3 ints: 5
1978:
touchdowns:8 ints: 4
1979:
touchdowns:6 ints: 4

It's not that simple, you need a great team, how many QB's won a Superbowl without throwing INT's at some point. Maybe its time people realize our teams wern't as good as everyone thinks they were. Plus I still think the Pack dropped the ball on coaches. Ray Rhodes, Sherman, come on. Look at Favre under Holmgrom v. these other coaches. McCarthy is good though, little too late though.