Flejszon

Ah, sucks to be you. Go Stamps Go. But congrats. Although the money may not be that of the NFL, the CFL is a hell of a place to play. Especially in Regina where they love their Roughriders

Yes, the guy who the second the season is over, goes and hides away for as long as possible in small town mississippi is a complete media ######. Maybe you need to get away from Fantasy Football for a while. If the media (not Brett himself) talking non stop about possibly retiring or not in the offseason drives you this nuts, you need to see a shrink. The man did nothing wrong. All he did was want to play football. Half the league has been arrested for killing/raping/beating, yet all people want to do is talk about how big of a crime it is not want to not play football.

What he said. I actually like Rodgers. In fact, he is my fantasy QB, and I do see a bit of young Brett in him. The one thing he has however not shown me is that intangible to pull a rabbit out of your ass that Brett seems to do quite often (nearly did last night). I don't know what you know, but until he proves it onto the field, I don't believe the Packers could even compete for a Superbowl. The team isn't THAT good that they dominate every game, and don't need some "magic". The argument can always be made that had they had some "magic" the past couple of seasons, the Packers were a good enough team to atleast legitametely contend for a Superbowl.

The argument the OP made was at the time, they were giving up possibly two years of actual superbowl contention, for a QB that may/or may not be a superstar for years to come. Yes, Rodgers put up good stats the past couple years, but he has not been able to convert those stats to a large amount of W's. Over the past three years, Brett has averaged 11.76 wins per season on 3 separate teams. (And that includes losing 4 out of the final 5 in NY with the injured arm) What I'm trying to say is that because even if for arguments sake we conclude that Aaron Rodgers is definitively better than Brett Favre today, that doesn't automatically assume that Brett couldn't have won a couple Superbowls in the past two years with the Packers. It also doesn't mean he would have automatically have won those Superbowls either, but you can't argue that he possesses the intangibles that Rodgers may possibly have, but hasn't proven yet. For arguments sake, had TT kept Brett, had they won atleast 1 Superbowl and had another competitive season in the past two years, and then Brett had either retired this year, or struggled as he has, and they lost Aaron Rodgers to free agency, would the fans of GB be yelling and screaming? I don't believe they would. To automatically assume that Brett COULDN'T have won with Green Bay the past couple years is absurd because of those intangibles + his individual statistics weren't too shabby either. Again, my point is that we will never know what could have happened had the decision been different, therefore you can't just assume GB is better off because their QB has had more yardage the past couple years. Its an argument that both sides have validity, and neither side will ever be able to prove.

How many close games have the packers won over the past 2.5 years? Rodgers is a good QB, but he is the Jarome Iginla (hockey player) of the NFL. He racks up stats vs bad teams in blowouts, but in crunch time he may not throw the pick, but he does throw the incomplete pass or the 4 yard pass short of the goal line. Even last night, the guy tossed two picks in the redzone and failed to get the big TD to close out the game. Favre on the other hand had a TD taken away because the ref in his little booth is handicapped, and was also half a foot away from tossing that clutch game winning TD that rodgera still has never done.

My point is not that it was the right or wrong decision. We will never know what Favre could have done with those Packers so need to speculate. My point is that people coming out 2 years after the trade, ranting about how the Packers were clearly right because Aaron Rodgers is a stronger fantasy player now, or because his team squeeked a semi-controversial win out over the Vikings in week 7 is completely irrational.

So all the intangibles and greatness a QB brings to a team is solely based on the amount of yards they have thrown? Remember, Rodgers didn't start as a rookie. Guy was in his 4th NFL season by the time he got his first start. So they have proven to be superbowl contenders year in, and year out based on 4000 yards passing? This isn't fantasy football we are talking about. 6-10, and 10-6 records, and one playoff game in which Rodgers fumbled the ball in OT for the L screams superbowl contenders? They may very well be superbowl contenders for years to come, but don't just go and state that as proven fact. That is 100% pure speculation. And no, keeping Favre wouldn't have assured them a Superbowl, but the guy has been to two conference championships in 3 years with 3 different teams, and the other year people were starting to predict them to be in the conference championship until he got hurt. I'll give you the Giants game, but I think people use the Giants game and replicate the same scenario in the NO game last season. Fact is, they were in range for a long field goal attempt before the too many men penalty. That pushed them out of range. I've watched and broken down the replay probably 50 times since. There was nobody open, they needed about 6-7 yards. Yes he had a bit of room to the right at first glance, but if u re-watch the play, there are two Saints players zoning in on him about 5 yards away, and the guy is hobbling on one foot. He would have not gained more than 1-2 yards if he ran. All the INT did was prevented either a punt or a 60 yard attempt, which Longwell wasn't able to hit in warmups.

the trade happened over two years ago. The debate was never about what was better in the long run for the Packers, it was what was better that season. The Packers were coming off a 13-3 season where they lost in OT of the NFC championship and Brett was an MVP candidate. That year with Rodgers at the control they finished 6-10, while Brett took a team who the year previous were 4-12, and had them at 8-3 before getting hurt. The next year Rodgers improved a bit and got the Packers to the playoffs, but Brett took his team again to OT of the NFC championship and again was an MVP candidate. I believe that the veteran leadership alone could have made those Packer teams superbowl contenders in both of those years. They were a very young team in the midst of growing up, and needed some veteran leadership from the leader position. The argument was never about who would be the better fantasy option 3 years later. It was about who gave the Packers a better shot at the Superbowl at the time. We could play coulda shoulda all we want, but we will never know what Brett could have done with those Packer teams, but I think Brett has proven the past couple of years that he was not done at that point, and still had a lot to offer. BTW, its not like the Pack are just tearing up the league right now. They are 4-3, and barely squeeked by the Lions.

anyone got an opinion?

I'd do it in a heartbeat. B.Jax is a flex play at best, and Nicks is a WR2 at best. Your getting a top end stud RB in exchange. Do it before he cancels the trade offer.

I'm in a standard ESPN scoring 10 team league, non PPR. I was offered Calvin Johnson for DeAngelo Williams. I had high preseason expectations for DeAngelo, and I know its too early to give up on him, but I am being offered something reasonable here. Here is my current lineup QB - Aaron Rodgers RB - Chris Johnson RB - Deangelo Williams RB/WR - Knowshon Moreno WR - Reggie Wayne WR - Anquan Boldin D/ST - Ravens K - Neil Rackers Bench - Jerome Harrison Bench - Peyton Hillis Bench - Jabbar Gaffney Bench - Jacoby Jones Bench - Patriots D/ST Bench - Vincent Jackson Bench - Mike Sims - Walker

Thanks for the responses everyone

anybody else?

In my league, we have a rule that we don't veto trades unless there is clear collusion. This is put in my hands as the league manager. While this was not a case of collusion, it is a case of a lack of sportsmanship. Saturday night, Team A offers Ahmad Bradshaw to team B for Ryan Mathews. Team B ignores the trade, leaving it pending going into Sunday. After it is announced that Mathews will not return to the game, Team B scrambles to accept the trade request before Team A could get to a computer. While this is partly Team A's fault for leaving a pending trade going into Sunday, is it a reason for a LM veto?