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!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

What difference does it make?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Packerlifer, Aug 19, 2009.

  1. Eclipse612

    Eclipse612 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    85
    Ratings:
    +0
    People seem to just not realize that we Packers fans wanted him back last year; and the team also wanted to hear from him before committing to Aaron Rodgers. If Brett said "Ok, I'm in" in March 2008, there would have been no problem. It's not like TT or MM suddenly shut the door upon him. That's why fans are so pissed off about him playing for a division rival, because he could have handled things in a more respectful way and everyone would be fine. By trying to jump into training camp last year, he was clearly putting himself over the team and that's unacceptable, be him the best ever or an unknown rookie.
    If the Packers just refused to take him back on March 2008, then he could even be playing for the Bears and everyone should respect his decision.

    In the end, I think Brett just made us cheeseheads dream for years playing football like a fan of the game; it was never like he was giving a passing game clinic, he was always having fun and making big plays and big dumb choices. More TDs than anyone, more INTs than anyone. But we all felt that emotion every time he pumped his arm, not knowing what to expect. He was by no means similar to the "surgical accuracy" of Micheal Jordan, his playing was all heart and little head. He made us dream and we forgave his big on field mistakes, because that's Favre, take or leave. From that kind of person, I was expecting a little bit more attachment to the green and gold. That's why I (and I guess many other fans) am so pissed off about it.
     
  2. dansz15

    dansz15 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +35
    All I can say is lets all sit back and watch the complete breakdown of this team. Favre is like a cancer these days, lingering until he wants to do what he wants and it seems like some teams are dumb enough to give in. These teams are giving into his ego. He wont be able to fit into the dome with the size of his head. Let him go, let him "Bring them to the Holy Land" like everyone says.

    They said the same about the Jets. Watch the Pick-friendly Packer D to have a fun time against a pick-friendly QB. At this point, the packers are betrayed and the defense is likely itching to drill him to the turf and make some interceptions.

    Vikings have given into the controversy that is Brett Favre. Now let them deal with it.Its gonna be a bumpy ride, thats for sure.
     
  3. D.Levens

    D.Levens Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    167
    Ratings:
    +1
    Ahhhh...Time to Let the rationalizations fly..eh, America?

    'Late season fades, eh'?

    4-12, 8-8, 14-3...doesn't seem like he was fading at all, especially with the sh*t that Ted Thompson was giving Favre to work with in '05 and '06...You're probably one of those guys who blame Sherman for being a lousy GM, and then turn around out of the other side of your ignorant mouth and spout that "Favre should have won with those teams"...

    And as far as the Jets go. They were an awful team. Favre got hit and sacked more times than ever last year, and his receiving corps was downright pitiful....Then you gloss over the fact that Favre was INJURED last year...

    I like how you "twist" and "spin" your facts to suit your arguments.

    You are a joke, and I'm sure you never played the game.

    And Favre is not the most turnover prone player in the game. It's been shown over and over that Favre's turnover to completion ratio is right around John Elway's and Dan Marino's...so once again you are proven wrong and don't know what you are talking about...
     
  4. Packerlifer

    Packerlifer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    732
    Ratings:
    +251
    Brett the Jet: How great was he really? True, he had big days against the Cardinals and in the second Patriots game and giving Tennessee their first loss. But even before his injury look at how he fared in Week 2 vs. New England, WEek 3 at San Diego, a week 7 loss at Oakland, a near defeat the next week at home vs. KC, Denver & San FRan shutting him down in the two weeks after the Tennessee game. In the next to last week of the season he could only generate one field at Seattle. With Favre the Jets went from 4-12 to 9-7 but the guy they kicked out for him, Chad Pennington, took a 1-15 Miami team to 11-5 and won the division. And it wasn't the team he had around him. Thomas Jones was AFC rushing leader. They had receivers: Laverneus Coles, Jericho Cotchery, Chris Baker, Dustin Keller, Chasi Stuckey. He had c Nick Mangold, guard Alan Faneca and tackle D'Brickashaw Ferguson protecting him. The defense was decent. Favre gave everything he could but in the end it wasnt enough anymore so why should it be any better a year later and older.
     
  5. America

    America Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Messages:
    77
    Ratings:
    +2
    So, are Marino and Elway in the game any longer, or is reading just not your strong suit?

    And another personal attack on top of it. Are the moderators around here ever going to give you some time to think about what you're doing, or are they waiting for someone to retaliate in the same vein?
     
  6. IronMan

    IronMan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,087
    Ratings:
    +8
    D. Levens, name calling will not be tolerated here. If you can't make a post without calling someone "ignorant" or a "joke" then don't post at all. Show respect to others please. If this type of behaviour continues, you will be suspended or banned. Thank you.
     
  7. D.Levens

    D.Levens Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    167
    Ratings:
    +1
    Originally Posted by America [​IMG]
    1) It was a 14-4 season, not 14-3.
    2) I love it when people celebrate ignorance as a good thing. "I don't know what the Football Scientist has to say".

    Gee..I guess it's the second guy who gets the flag around here...

    This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I respond in kind, yet the initial perpetrator acts as if he's innocent of something he just did....

    This is what I mean about FACTS...

    They are a dangerous thing..

    Some People don't seem to like it when you point out the facts...
     
  8. mateus

    mateus Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +0
    i gave you more than your moneys worth and you have yet to reply to any of it so my question to you is: what are you afraid of when facing the facts given?
     
  9. D.Levens

    D.Levens Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    167
    Ratings:
    +1
    Ted Thompson was trying to get rid of Favre from day one (5 years). Anybody who doubts it is either delusional, or a liar....

    Thompson could have signed some people to help the Packers win now with Brett, and not compromised his "plan", but his tremendous ego didn't want to do it that way...He wanted Brett gone...so he wasted 5 years..

    He could have signed Moss and others, but he chose not to. That's why Favre was discouraged with the Packers and wanted to leave...

    The TT apologists are going to try and make him look innocent in all of this and villify Favre, but it is far from the truth if you would just open your eyes to it.
     
  10. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,743
    Ratings:
    +2,983
    this is the most rational post you ever made..

    But he didnt refuse to sign Moss they had a deal in place..Then Tom Brady got a hold of Randy and talked to him,but yet where was Brett? According to Moss they never were able to talk..So dont blame Ted when he had a deal with Oak...



    You claim that he wanted Brett gone (can't deny or confirm it ) but your reason is because he didnt sign people

    So one would assume that with Brett gone Ted would go out and get other people..

    What players did Ted get in offense that would suggest your theory?
     
  11. mateus

    mateus Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +0
    nice deflection but that still doesnt answer my post.
    i can deflect too and say that because TT is a drafting GM that he was building a team to grow around Brett. see how that works?
     
  12. America

    America Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Messages:
    77
    Ratings:
    +2
    Ted Thompson was HIRED to move the Packers beyond Favre.

    After Favre's appalling 2005 season, Thompson and McCarthy went to see Favre in Hattiesburg and they told him point blank that they wanted him to come back, but that he couldn't just play like he did the previous year.

    I know that doesn't jibe with your belief that Thompson was trying to get rid of Favre from day one, but it is true. It is also true that Thompson several times extended the deadline and told Favre to think about it for a while when Favre said "If I have to make the decision now, I'd decide to retire".

    If TT's agenda at that time had really been to get rid of Favre he'd have set a firm date and kept to it.

    After the 2007 playoff meltdown...to go along with the meltdowns of 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001, there was considerable sentiment in the organization, from top to bottom to move forward with Rodgers (that can all be read in the McGinn column written when Favre retired).

    And when Favre retired, that enabled that move. But when he started having second thoughts around the first of April the Packers took him back. In fact, it was reported that TT broke the tie (I'm assuming M3 didn't want him back but Murphy was in favor).

    Again, if your assumption is true, how does that explain Thompson's behavior?

    It is true he didn't accede to Favre's personnel requests, but Favre's job is to QB the team and Thompson's job is to look after the long-term interests of the team. Those two things are not necessariliy compatible. And I still don't see how having Randy Moss prevents Favre from throwing the NFCC game away.

    Here's the true story: The Packers are better off at QB today than they've been in quite a while.
     
  13. mateus

    mateus Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +0
    and Levens will come in to Deflect this comment in...3...2...1...
     
  14. America

    America Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Messages:
    77
    Ratings:
    +2
    Levens can say whatever he wants, but I think the facts support the following:

    1) Thompson was hired to improve the Packers long term, and that almost certainly implies moving beyond a 36 year old QB who had flirted with retirement for at least two years. The Executive Board which hired him supported Thompson's efforts during the 2008 retirement/unretirement incident.
    2) Favre was unable to committ to the team on a full-time basis, and hadn't been able to committ on a full-time basis for several seasons....with the exception of the 2007 season.
    3) Favre had several shaky Decembers in a row and a significant string of playoff stinkers.
    4) Aaron Rodgers was ready to play and was committed to the team on a full-time basis.

    Demonizing Thompson for improving our QB situation speaks to an agenda that is more concerned about Favre than it is about the Packers.
     
  15. pbateman

    pbateman Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    79
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think you are wrong here about Moss, although there are many conflicting stories about what happened. A number of NFL experts reported that Brett and Moss did in fact speak and that when Brett approached TT about getting Moss, TT was annoyed and said no. This was enough for Brett to get frustrated and think about moving on from the team. Like I said, there are conflicting stories about exactly what happened, but you can't say definitively that TT was all set to acquire Moss.
     
  16. Eclipse612

    Eclipse612 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    85
    Ratings:
    +0
    Talking about football, without considering Brett, do you think it would have been wise to sign Moss? He was some kind of locker room risk, even if to a minor extent than TO; plus, we were developing a few young guys who in the meantime have proved them great (Jennings, Jones, and recently Nelson). Give Moss a big albatross and then you put yourself in a position where you can hardly add talent to the team (especially on defense, which needed to be improved) because of cap room. In 3 years, I think this has proved to be a smart move. It doesn't seem like we needed more than we had at WR position in any of the last seasons.
     
  17. pbateman

    pbateman Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    79
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'd have taken him in a minute. He gets compared to TO, but if you look at his history he's never been nearly as divisive as TO. Moss going to New England is a prime example of what sets that franchise apart from us and so many others in the league. They have a great system, takes some risks bringing in guys like Moss and despite losing the Super Bowl, they did go 16-0, so they are doing something right. Not bringing in Moss is just another fail on TT's part.
     
  18. danielchile

    danielchile Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    282
    Ratings:
    +2
    Moss trashed the Raiders every week. Of course, they are the Raiders and Al Davis deserves to be trashed every once in a while.

    But Moss career was heading south. He needed a place to find himself and that place had to be New England. Not against MM or TT, but they have been on fire for just too many years. They had a 3 time SB winning team/coach/qb while Moss was having a hard time in Mn and Oak.

    The Packers weren't what Moss was searching. A young coach, a young team and an aging (despite great) qb.

    Moss wanted a chance to get to the SB and the Pats were ready for it. 2007 was no fluke por the Pack but we had no idea that the team could develop so well.
     
  19. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    I don't know if Arod was ready to play. And can't quite agree with the #3 also. But yeah, his performances have been deminishing late in the seasons. IMO it was because he didn't prepare himself accordingly. The rest it's pretty much what it is. People demonize TT for rebuilding. They should direct their anger to the Board, that hired him to do so (correctly, IMHO. We were showing signs of decrease with the roster Wolf built.).
    -
    Not accepting Favre after his retirement/unretirement had nothig to do with ability IMHO. It had much more to do with team plans and commitment.
     
  20. America

    America Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Messages:
    77
    Ratings:
    +2
    You aren't sure that Aaron Rodgers was ready to play last year? Wow. He sure looked ready to me. And M3 and TT had both been quoted as saying that Rodgers was ready and just needed to get on the field.

    As regards the December swoons of Favre, take a look:

    2008: December passer rating=53.3
    2007: 85.5 (10 points lower than his season ave.)
    2006: 62.7, his lowest month and 25 points lower than September
    2005: 49.6, 20 points below his season average.
    2004: 78.6, by far his lowest month of the season.

    Some quick math puts his December passer rating over the last 5 years somewhere in the low 60s.
     
  21. D.Levens

    D.Levens Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    167
    Ratings:
    +1
    How do you explain 6-10?

    Is this a team game, or what?

    Or does one rule apply for Favre, and a completely different rule apply to Aaron Rodgers....???
     
  22. America

    America Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Messages:
    77
    Ratings:
    +2
    I explain 6-10 very simply. Our defense played A LOT worse in 2008 than it did in 2007. Some of that was injuries but the defense just let us down time and again, especially late in games.

    Rodgers played very well in 2008. In fact, it was one of the best seasons of any Packer QB in the last decade. Could he have played better? Of course, but he played well enough for us to win if the defense and special teams showed up for us in 2008 like they had in 2007.

    The NFL is an ultra-competitive league and then margin between 6-10 and 10-6 is razor thin. If Crosby makes a field goal against Minny, another against Chicago, and one at the end of the first half against Atlanta the Packers go 9-7 and win the division.....even with a defense that gave up 80 more points than the one the previous season.

    It is a team game. Absolutely. And the QB is the most important piece of that team. And that's why the Packers made the switch......you need your most important piece to be committed to the team on a full-time basis.
     
  23. mateus

    mateus Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +0
    this is what i don't get about you.
    when we try to explain that its a team game and that Rodgers can't do it himself you blow it out saying Favre could. but when we say that Favre was going through rough times then suddenly the team game matters?
    Brett Favre | Green Bay Packers live it, love it and leave us alone.
     
  24. D.Levens

    D.Levens Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    167
    Ratings:
    +1
    Ok..I'll spell it out for you since you're not getting it..

    Was it a team game in 2005 when TT signed sh*t, there were multiple injuries, and the Packers were a joke...or was it ALL FAVRE's fault..which is what you seem to be implying. Even if you look at that season, the Packers were in every game just about even though Favre had crap to work with...same goes for 2006.

    How many game ending interceptions did Rodgers throw last year...3..4? How about the fact that Rodgers held onto the ball too long and wasn't very adept at reading defenses...or was that lost on you because his name wasn't Favre?

    It is well known that Sherman's teams had crappy defenses...yet Favre got the Packers to the playoffs year in and year out. How do you explain that? I know what you're going to say, and it's not true...

    I love how you guy's rationalize 14-3 as an anomaly..but want to stick the crappy Sherman, TT years on Favre...

    hahaha
     
  25. Packerlifer

    Packerlifer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    732
    Ratings:
    +251
    The defenses were better during Sherman's time than a lot of us seem to remember. Not great but usually good enough. The only really bad year they had on D was 2004 and the club still won 10 games and the division. They also had some of the best rushing offenses in Packers history. But from the playoff game at Lambeau against Minnesota, in which the Packers lost as Favre threw 4 picks, the "cycle" of present day NFL team life had been reached. Players were hurt, getting older, the club had maxed out its sal-cap so it was time to rebuild. The Sherman years weren't crappy but they were filled with squandered opportunity.
     

Share This Page