Rumor......Favre considering comeback

[Bronco Billy]

Every team/individual relationship is symbiotic. Last year Favre played better, the team was better. A couple years ago, the team sucked, they were playing behind almost all the time and Favre was chucking it up b/c he had no choice.

 

And the guys who made the team better think that GB will be a better team with Rodgers at QB than Favre - despite Favre's year last year and the ability to season Rodgers one more year. Given the improvement in GB under Thompson and McCarthy after the Sherman years, shouldn't they be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to decisions regarding what takes them in the right direction? Despite the magnificent turnaround, suddenly they are stupid boobs because they have the temerity to elect to go with Rodgers over Favre?

[detlef]

To be honest, I'm really amazed at how easily everyone is forgetting 05 and 06.

 

First off, the only reason why Favre is 2nd in MVP voting was because of how poorly he and the team played in 05 and 06 as well as how much he's loved by the press. His numbers were good but not MVP type numbers. Plenty QBs had better numbers and both Romo and Manning did so on successful teams. That doesn't even take what Randy Moss did as well.

 

Thing is, we just bought into the hype. I decided to go back and look into the play by play and see what was behind the numbers. Thing is, the recaps really looked like a team effort. Mind you, you wouldn't tell from the ESPN headlines.

 

Take the week 6 recap.

 

"Favre leads GB to 5-1 with win over Washington"

 

Really? Favre was 19-37 for 188 zero TDs and 2 picks. One might have said, "Woodsen leads GB..." considering that they were losing in the 4th until dude scooped up a fumble and ran it back 57 yds.

 

I agree with much of what BB says above. The GB coaching staff's game plans likely had a lot to do with 2007 and who's to say that Rodgers isn't better suited to run that game plan? I understand it was just part of a game, but he sure looked good doing so vs Dallas.

[PaulOttCarruth]

To be honest, I'm really amazed at how easily everyone is forgetting 05 and 06.

 

First off, the only reason why Favre is 2nd in MVP voting was because of how poorly he and the team played in 05 and 06 as well as how much he's loved by the press. His numbers were good but not MVP type numbers. Plenty QBs had better numbers and both Romo and Manning did so on successful teams. That doesn't even take what Randy Moss did as well.

 

Thing is, we just bought into the hype. I decided to go back and look into the play by play and see what was behind the numbers. Thing is, the recaps really looked like a team effort. Mind you, you wouldn't tell from the ESPN headlines.

 

Take the week 6 recap.

 

"Favre leads GB to 5-1 with win over Washington"

 

Really? Favre was 19-37 for 188 zero TDs and 2 picks. One might have said, "Woodsen leads GB..." considering that they were losing in the 4th until dude scooped up a fumble and ran it back 57 yds.

 

I agree with much of what BB says above. The GB coaching staff's game plans likely had a lot to do with 2007 and who's to say that Rodgers isn't better suited to run that game plan? I understand it was just part of a game, but he sure looked good doing so vs Dallas.

 

I'm surprised you're putting so much emphasis on 05 and 06. When you've been in the league for 16 years, there are going to be a couple bad seasons. Marino had them. Elway had them. The bottom line is Favre led the Packers to the NFC championship game last year. We know he can run this offense and this team and take them to the playoffs. What more can you ask of a QB?

 

The discussion about the media stroking his ego is irrelevant to the discussion. I don't even know why you bring it up. It may cause you to not like the guy, but you're straw case of a Week 6 headline by ESPN is absurd. Am I to understand that Favre didn't lead his team to any victories last season?

 

As for Rodgers and his 40 minutes of success last year against Dallas, you can have it. Don't forget that in the following week of practice he tweaked his hamstring and was inactive for essentially the rest of the regular season. He's not a guy who I have any faith in as a starter at this point. I'll take him as a backup to Favre though.

[detlef]

I'm surprised you're putting so much emphasis on 05 and 06. When you've been in the league for 16 years, there are going to be a couple bad seasons. Marino had them. Elway had them. The bottom line is Favre led the Packers to the NFC championship game last year. We know he can run this offense and this team and take them to the playoffs. What more can you ask of a QB?

 

The discussion about the media stroking his ego is irrelevant to the discussion. I don't even know why you bring it up. It may cause you to not like the guy, but you're straw case of a Week 6 headline by ESPN is absurd. Am I to understand that Favre didn't lead his team to any victories last season?

 

As for Rodgers and his 40 minutes of success last year against Dallas, you can have it. Don't forget that in the following week of practice he tweaked his hamstring and was inactive for essentially the rest of the regular season. He's not a guy who I have any faith in as a starter at this point. I'll take him as a backup to Favre though.

So, for the record, you're saying that I have a "straw case" in terms of claiming that the media is infatuated with the guy? Really? Trust me, that was just a funny and glaring example. FWIW, the week one story is pretty funny as well.

 

GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) -- All those young teammates sometimes make Brett Favre scratch his head, but at least one of them proved he can come through when it counts.

 

Another Brett Favre headline after he "led his team to a 4th quarter win". That is, if you call going 0-3 on what should have been GB's final drive of regulation, only to have the punt muffed and have your kicker win the game.

 

The point is, if we continue to see these games as examples of "Favre leading his team to the promised land" and conveniently write off throwing a pick at midfield in OT of a play off game as "taking the good with the bad", then I suppose Brett should beat out basically any QB in the league. I mean, we're only talking about 2007 as a great season because we convinced ourselves it was. It was a great season for the Packers because Favre had a good season, Grant emerged, and the D played well. You put together enough good, and you get great.

 

Seriously, look at the numbers. Favre was 6th in QB rating, just a hair above Jeff Garcia. Certainly nothing to sneeze at, but hardly amazing.

 

Also, I'm not talking about the media stroke his ego, I'm talking about the media turning what was a good but not outstanding season into something of legend. GB was quite simply a better team in '07 than in '05 and '06 all around. Some would have us believe that Favre put a bunch of misfits on his back and carried them to the NFC title game, but I really don't think this was the case.

 

Actually, I've been a big fan of Favre over the years. I will say that I'm much less of a fan based on how he's been acting of late.

[Big Ernie McCracken]

So, for the record, you're saying that I have a "straw case" in terms of claiming that the media is infatuated with the guy? Really? Trust me, that was just a funny and glaring example. FWIW, the week one story is pretty funny as well.

 

 

 

Another Brett Favre headline after he "led his team to a 4th quarter win". That is, if you call going 0-3 on what should have been GB's final drive of regulation, only to have the punt muffed and have your kicker win the game.

 

The point is, if we continue to see these games as examples of "Favre leading his team to the promised land" and conveniently write off throwing a pick at midfield in OT of a play off game as "taking the good with the bad", then I suppose Brett should beat out basically any QB in the league. I mean, we're only talking about 2007 as a great season because we convinced ourselves it was. It was a great season for the Packers because Favre had a good season, Grant emerged, and the D played well. You put together enough good, and you get great.

 

Seriously, look at the numbers. Favre was 6th in QB rating, just a hair above Jeff Garcia. Certainly nothing to sneeze at, but hardly amazing.

 

Also, I'm not talking about the media stroke his ego, I'm talking about the media turning what was a good but not outstanding season into something of legend. GB was quite simply a better team in '07 than in '05 and '06 all around. Some would have us believe that Favre put a bunch of misfits on his back and carried them to the NFC title game, but I really don't think this was the case.

 

Actually, I've been a big fan of Favre over the years. I will say that I'm much less of a fan based on how he's been acting of late.

 

 

 

If Favre has slipped and his skills are so diminished, why is Green Bay worried about him playing for a division rival

[detlef]

If Favre has slipped and his skills are so diminished, why is Green Bay worried about him playing for a division rival

Because he's still better than Tavaris Jackson or Rex Grossman?

 

Besides, I'm not saying that Rodgers is certainly a better QB right now over all. I'm just saying that he might be a better fit for what they're trying to do and that, coupled with the fact that they won't have to prolong this BS circus for yet another year (or beyond?) means that he's likely worth making their guy.

 

To be honest, I would guess that Favre or Rodgers would put up the same good numbers this year. Somewhere around 20 TDs and 10+ picks. I don't see why Favre would improve on last year and would actually think he'd regress a bit. I also think the Rodgers will be fine. So, with that in mind, why not go with the future?

[Big Ernie McCracken]

Because he's still better than Tavaris Jackson or Rex Grossman?

 

Besides, I'm not saying that Rodgers is certainly a better QB right now over all. I'm just saying that he might be a better fit for what they're trying to do and that, coupled with the fact that they won't have to prolong this BS circus for yet another year (or beyond?) means that he's likely worth making their guy.

 

To be honest, I would guess that Favre or Rodgers would put up the same good numbers this year. Somewhere around 20 TDs and 10+ picks. I don't see why Favre would improve on last year and would actually think he'd regress a bit. I also think the Rodgers will be fine. So, with that in mind, why not go with the future?

 

 

So what you're saying is, Favre has the skills to be a starting QB in the NFL, but The Green Bay Packer organization should have the ability to keep him from working neat

[detlef]

If Favre has slipped and his skills are so diminished, why is Green Bay worried about him playing for a division rival

OK, how 'bout this? If Favre is all that, why aren't there tons of teams contacting GB about his services?

[Savage Beatings]

So, the Packers have contacted the Vikings about a possible trade, but have the Packers given the Vikings permission yet to begin a dialogue with Favre? I haven't seen that detail mentioned yet one way or the other?

[detlef]

So what you're saying is, Favre has the skills to be a starting QB in the NFL, but The Green Bay Packer organization should have the ability to keep him from working neat

Dude, your "right to work" BS argument was already tired some time ago.

 

Um, if somebody wants to pay me $20 million to leave my industry, you can be assured that I won't be asking for anyone to cry for me.

 

GB is contractually obliged to do one thing, and one thing only. To pay him $11 million this year if he's on their roster. That is it. They're not required to start him and they're not required to trade him just because he wants to start somewhere else. That is it, plain and simple. If Favre agrees to accept a trade to somewhere GB is prepared to trade him, that's fine.

[Big Ernie McCracken]

OK, how 'bout this? If Favre is all that, why aren't there tons of teams contacting GB about his services?

 

Do you have some insight into the GB front office that the rest of us don't Who knows who they've been in contact with

[detlef]

Do you have some insight into the GB front office that the rest of us don't Who knows who they've been in contact with

Right, everyone short of Indy and NE has contacted them and made legit offers yet, despite the fact that the media has been all over this story like stink on poop, somehow the only one we heard about was the Jets.

 

It is not unusual for teams to avoid trading players to division rivals. Hell, let's say GB has nixed all NFC teams. Well, that leaves 16 AFC teams, a few of which could use the services of a veteran QB. And the Jets were the only ones we heard of? Buffalo? KC? Miami? Balt? You don't think those guys wouldn't mind a veteran QB?

Edited August 4, 2008 by detlef

[Big Ernie McCracken]

Dude, your "right to work" BS argument was already tired some time ago.

 

Um, if somebody wants to pay me $20 million to leave my industry, you can be assured that I won't be asking for anyone to cry for me.

 

GB is contractually obliged to do one thing, and one thing only. To pay him $11 million this year if he's on their roster. That is it. They're not required to start him and they're not required to trade him just because he wants to start somewhere else. That is it, plain and simple. If Favre agrees to accept a trade to somewhere GB is prepared to trade him, that's fine.

 

And you're such a wizard, when Favre reports, and makes the team, and stands on the sideline, and holds a clipboard, and wears a headset, and then Rodgers misses a wide open receiver, and takes a bad sack, and throws an INT, and God Forbid loses the opener at home, against the Vikings, on MNF and the GB season ticket holder takes their ticket stub with Brett Favre's picture on it home, and starts calling into sportstalk radio, and blogging on superfan Packer backer sites (rumor has it they care about football or something out there) and railing against the HC and GM who had one of the greatest (if not the greatest) players in franchise history on the bench, holding a clipboard, wearing a head set ; what does Head Coach detlef and his fornt office counterpart GM detlef do for week 2?

[Savage Beatings]

Right, everyone short of Indy and NE has contacted them and made legit offers yet, despite the fact that the media has been all over this story like stink on poop, somehow the only one we heard about was the Jets.

 

It is not unusual for teams to avoid trading players to division rivals. Hell, let's say GB has nixed all NFC teams. Well, that leaves 16 AFC teams, a few of which could use the services of a veteran QB. And the Jets were the only ones we heard of? Buffalo? KC? Miami? Balt? You don't think those guys wouldn't mind a veteran QB?

 

Dude... just let it go. Ignore the tool instead of quoting him. He has displayed a complete lack of class and reason. No need for anyone to ever engage him in conversation here again.

[detlef]

And you're such a wizard, when Favre reports, and makes the team, and stands on the sideline, and holds a clipboard, and wears a headset, and then Rodgers misses a wide open receiver, and takes a bad sack, and throws an INT, and God Forbid loses the opener at home, against the Vikings, on MNF and the GB season ticket holder takes their ticket stub with Brett Favre's picture on it home, and starts calling into sportstalk radio, and blogging on superfan Packer backer sites (rumor has it they care about football or something out there) and railing against the HC and GM who had one of the greatest (if not the greatest) players in franchise history on the bench, holding a clipboard, wearing a head set ; what does Head Coach detlef and his fornt office counterpart GM detlef do for week 2?

Hey, I'm not saying this doesn't get ugly, just responding to yet another "deprive a man the right to work" comment from you.

 

There's a mountain of problems surrounding this whole fiasco. It's just that one of them doesn't happen to be the fact that GB his evil for denying a man his god given right to do the job he chooses.

[Azazello1313]

favre was a very good QB last year. it surprised me, because he sucked so bad the year or two prior and I sorta got the feeling he was just hanging on as an old suckass player for the records a la emmitt. but favre was good last year. ya know, when a guy throws for 4150 yards, 28 Tds against 15 picks, 66.5% completion and a passer rating above 95, you can't give ALL the credit to the GM

 

meanwhile aaron rodgers has never started a game in the NFL.

 

I don't think anybody except bronco billy ever entertained a serious thought that glass man aaron rodgers is a better QB right now than favre. that is not the true reason behind anything. the packers brass just got sick of favre screwing around with them every offseason and decided they wanted to move on without him.

[detlef]

Dude... just let it go. Ignore the tool instead of quoting him. He has displayed a complete lack of class and reason. No need for anyone to ever engage him in conversation here again.

Sorry, I've actually been trying to do a better job of that. Let's just say I'm bad enough at "letting it go" that I'm bound to slip up.

[Big Ernie McCracken]

Hey, I'm not saying this doesn't get ugly, just responding to yet another "deprive a man the right to work" comment from you.

 

There's a mountain of problems surrounding this whole fiasco. It's just that one of them doesn't happen to be the fact that GB his evil for denying a man his god given right to do the job he chooses.

 

 

You think the only one here with an ego is Favre? Consider that Rodgers was the first pick of Thompson's regime. He's been waiting to justify that pick for 3 years (the guy used his first pick to draft a potential replacement for Favre, a fact which I'm sure wasn't lost on Favre himself). If this gets ugly, one of or both of Thompson and McCarthy will be in jeopardy and they have a lot more to lose than Favre IMO.

[Bill Swerski]

favre was a very good QB last year. it surprised me, because he sucked so bad the year or two prior and I sorta got the feeling he was just hanging on as an old suckass player for the records a la emmitt. but favre was good last year. ya know, when a guy throws for 4150 yards, 28 Tds against 15 picks, 66.5% completion and a passer rating above 95, you can't give ALL the credit to the GM

 

Certainly not, but it would be difficult to imagine Favre putting up those numbers on the crap-tacular '05 Packers squad. TT putting Favre in a position where he's not down by two scores in the 4th quarter of every game certainly contributed to his efficiency.

[Big Ernie McCracken]

Sorry, I've actually been trying to do a better job of that. Let's just say I'm bad enough at "letting it go" that I'm bound to slip up.

 

Ignore me completely you dope. I frequently post pretty useful or pertinent news links so ignore them completely dum dum Forgive me for not posting my opinion on wines. You big fruitcake.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Big Ernie McCracken

[Azazello1313]

Certainly not, but it would be difficult to imagine Favre putting up those numbers on the crap-tacular '05 Packers squad.

 

yes, but not as difficult as imagining that 2007 team going 13-3 and hosting the NFC championship with aaron rodgers taking the snaps.

[detlef]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Big Ernie McCracken.

 

· View this post

· Squeeze me a little harder Big Ernie McCracken

 

I think I'll manage.

[Big Ernie McCracken]

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...p;#entry2525315

 

[detlef]

Wow, my very own stalker. How cute.

[Big Ernie McCracken]

Are ther any french fantasy football sites you could suggest. You're a real dandy. A real fancy boy!

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...p;#entry2525315