The Big Deal 0 Posted February 3, 2007 Great QBs that hung around too long: Marino - 1 yr too long Tarkenton - 0 yrs too long Elway - - 0 yrs too long Moon - - 3 yrs too long Unitas - 6 yrs too long Montana - 0 yrs too long Fouts - 2 yrs too long Aikman - 1 yr too long Young - 1 yr too long Favre - 2+ yrs too long Too long for you, and maybe other fans, but who cares what you or others think. Let people live their lives and keep playing if they want. He's still a good player, and so it ruins your idealistic image of this superstar. Maybe you and others need to look in the mirror and figure out why you even care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dagger 0 Posted February 3, 2007 Happy to see Brett back. Is he the player he was in his prime? Obviously not. Is he still a good NFL qb. Definitely. A new offensive line was broken in, and they had some serious growing pains finding the right combination. They steadily improved throughout the season which gives one great optimism for the future. As for the offensive weapons aside from Donald Driver - not much Is there a worse receiving tight end in the NFL than Bubba Franks? He drops a ton of passes, makes no yards after the catch and runs about a 5.9 40. Great blocker, but horrible receiver. David Martin was his usual 1 great play for every 10 terrible ones. And opposite Driver? Not much there. If the Packers want to get to the playoffs next year, they need to solve this problem. Most importantly, a pass catching tight end is needed, and I would not be surprised if Green Bay makes this their # 1 priority. At WR, many have been clamoring for Moss, but he just does not fit for several reasons. His game is predicated on speed, he is not a receiver who will make his living going across the middle. Have all the injuries cost him his legs? Add to that his horrible attitude, and he makes no sense. Greg Jennings, if recevered from his own injuries, is going to be a very good wide receiver opposite Driver, but there is no depth. As for the defense, I think there is a lot to like. AJ Hawk struggled early but really came on as the season went by (although I still stick by my pre draft assessment that we should have drafte Hloti Ngata). Aaron Kampman is creeping closer to being my favorite Packer defender of all time. Hard not to like him. I see TT getting a little more agressive for 1 or 2 free agents, but still will not blow all of the cap money he has on ridiculous long term deals. I think this is a 3 year plan for him, with 2006 being year 1. If we make the playoffs this year, I would be ecstatic. I can't even believe the Pack was 8-8 last year with all the youth on that team. After a couple dismal years, I am starting to get really excited about the future for the Pack. And as for Aaron Rodgers. He has shown zero, and I mean zero so far. If Favre plays another year after this, Rodgers will not be the starter for long when his turn comes up. Think Cody Carlson when Warren Moon retired. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duff Bulgaria 0 Posted February 3, 2007 Great QBs that hung around too long: Marino - 1 yr too long Tarkenton - 0 yrs too long Elway - - 0 yrs too long Moon - - 3 yrs too long Unitas - 6 yrs too long Montana - 0 yrs too long Fouts - 2 yrs too long Aikman - 1 yr too long Young - 1 yr too long Favre - 2+ yrs too long I suppose Rice hung around too long too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter34 3 Posted February 3, 2007 I suppose Rice hung around too long too. clearly he did. Do you disagree? The Seattle experiment was pathetic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,549 Posted February 3, 2007 Too long for you, and maybe other fans, but who cares what you or others think. Let people live their lives and keep playing if they want. He's still a good player, and so it ruins your idealistic image of this superstar. Maybe you and others need to look in the mirror and figure out why you even care. ....exactly....whos to say how long someone should play....if they are still having enough fun to come back and the team still wants them....who cares? clearly he did. Do you disagree? The Seattle experiment was pathetic. point is no one talks about Rice hanging around....going to different teams....Brett is still playing for the Pack...and isnt just hanging around seeing what team wants to sign him... As for Favre losing and staying to long...Yes he isnt what he once was but who is at his age?....given his age, a new coach, new system, and WRs such at Ruvall Martin and Carlyal(sp) Holliday as regular targets and even number 2s for much of the season.....with the youngest team in the league....really what did you expect from favre?....another 3700 and 30 season? ....I don't get it? Seriously who has #2 WRs like that in the league....I know Driver is great but how hard is it to play QB while your #1 is doubled and the other guys you are throwing to are named Ruvall Martin and Carlyal Holliday......with no real TE threat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter34 3 Posted February 3, 2007 ....exactly....whos to say how long someone should play....if they are still having enough fun to come back and the team still wants them....who cares? point is no one talks about Rice hanging around....going to different teams....Brett is still playing for the Pack...and isnt just hanging around seeing what team wants to sign him... As for Favre losing and staying to long...Yes he isnt what he once was but who is at his age?....given his age, a new coach, new system, and WRs such at Ruvall Martin and Carlyal(sp) Holliday as regular targets and even number 2s for much of the season.....with the youngest team in the league....really what did you expect from favre?....another 3700 and 30 season? ....I don't get it? Actually Rice was roasted for hanging around. Stealing Largent's jersey was the worst part. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donhaas 18 Posted February 3, 2007 Great QBs that hung around too long: Montana - 0 yrs too long Favre - 2+ yrs too long Montana... last 3 years 5,550 yards; 31 TDs Favre..... last 3 years 12,000 yards; 68 TDs Montana....38 in 1994 for his last season Favre.... currently 37 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter34 3 Posted February 3, 2007 Montana... last 3 years 5,550 yards; 31 TDs Favre..... last 3 years 12,000 yards; 68 TDs Montana....38 in 1994 for his last season Favre.... currently 37 Favre has had big yardage, but its the INTs and other stats that drag him down. Montana's last year: 60.6% 3283Yds 6.7Yds/att 16Tds 9Ints Anyway, he is their best option for next season where he gives them the best chance at 9+ wins. On the downside, its another year where Gb doesnt really have a shot and they defer their QB of the future search for another year. The team itself is heading in the right direction but who will be their qb once they arrive at a contender level again? Its also another year with a 10 million cap hit I believe. Only a fool doesnt respect what he's done for a career and couch potatoes like us dont comprehend the competitiveness of great athletes and how difficult it must be to walk away. With what he has accompolished and the current state of the Pack, you would think his wife and daughter would be the focus, but cest la vie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donhaas 18 Posted February 3, 2007 Favre has had big yardage, but its the INTs and other stats that drag him down. Montana's last year: 60.6% 3283Yds 6.7Yds/att 16Tds 9Ints Anyway, he is their best option for next season where he gives them the best chance at 9+ wins. On the downside, its another year where Gb doesnt really have a shot and they defer their QB of the future search for another year. The team itself is heading in the right direction but who will be their qb once they arrive at a contender level again? Its also another year with a 10 million cap hit I believe. Only a fool doesnt respect what he's done for a career and couch potatoes like us dont comprehend the competitiveness of great athletes and how difficult it must be to walk away. With what he has accompolished and the current state of the Pack, you would think his wife and daughter would be the focus, but cest la vie. Everything you say seems to be a stretch. Wife and daughter?? He won't be able to see them at all for the six months he is off from football? He's a millionaire many times over.... he can't see them constantly during the season?? He's 37; not 67. You only have so many years to do what you truly love. Why give it up if you are still performing well? The Packers have no chance? In this watered-down, parity-filled NFL, they always have a chance. The Bears are in the super bowl, fer crissakes. ....and they were crushed by the Packers Everybody has a chance.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Foghorn Leghorn 0 Posted February 3, 2007 Favre has had big yardage, but its the INTs and other stats that drag him down. Montana's last year: 60.6% 3283Yds 6.7Yds/att 16Tds 9Ints Anyway, he is their best option for next season where he gives them the best chance at 9+ wins. On the downside, its another year where Gb doesnt really have a shot and they defer their QB of the future search for another year. The team itself is heading in the right direction but who will be their qb once they arrive at a contender level again? Its also another year with a 10 million cap hit I believe. Only a fool doesnt respect what he's done for a career and couch potatoes like us dont comprehend the competitiveness of great athletes and how difficult it must be to walk away. With what he has accompolished and the current state of the Pack, you would think his wife and daughter would be the focus, but cest la vie. True enough. The problem is, who is their QB of the future? From what the Packer homers here have been saying, it isn't Rodgers. And I've heard mixed reviews here about going after someone like Carr. Do they have anyone else in their plans? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted February 3, 2007 i'm ambivalent. i mean, it's his decision. he feels he's up for another go, so... it does appear his competitiveness is making it hard for him to let go. he's had that tired, beat (physically) look in his eye at the end of the season for several seasons now. then he goes home for a month or two and recharges. a qb rating of about 71 the past two seasons...18 tds 18 ints last year....37 tds 47 ints the past two years...yeah, i think he's risking tarnishing some things by going back to the well here again and again. the packer fans love it and obviously want to see him on the field as long as possible...but i wonder if the packer coaching staff doesn't feel just a tad like they're being held hostage here. from an outsider's perspective, each of these past two offseasons would have been (and be) excellent opportunities to transition into the post-favre world for green bay--mentally, cap-wise, etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted February 3, 2007 2 straight years of subpar play Your comment about playing within a system isnt shown in the numbers: - Most attempts in his entire career - 613 - Lowest comp % of his career - Lowest yds / attempt of his career - 18-18 TD/INT - Worst rush avg of his career What system was he playing within? He threw more with less production and efficiency. Step away from the stat sheet and watch a game or two and you might get the pictures. Lowest yards per attempt adds to my point about short passes though. Completion percentage is not always a sign only of a QB struggling...see having 4 TEs on the team who cannot catch. Rushing avg has what to do with staying in a system as a QB? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donhaas 18 Posted February 3, 2007 i'm ambivalent. i mean, it's his decision. he feels he's up for another go, so... it does appear his competitiveness is making it hard for him to let go. he's had that tired, beat (physically) look in his eye at the end of the season for several seasons now. then he goes home for a month or two and recharges. a qb rating of about 71 the past two seasons...18 tds 18 ints last year....37 tds 47 ints the past two years...yeah, i think he's risking tarnishing some things by going back to the well here again and again. the packer fans love it and obviously want to see him on the field as long as possible...but i wonder if the packer coaching staff doesn't feel just a tad like they're being held hostage here. from an outsider's perspective, each of these past two offseasons would have been (and be) excellent opportunities to transition into the post-favre world for green bay--mentally, cap-wise, etc. He's 38 and 47 the last two years. 68 and 64 the last 3 years. Essentially throwing for 4,000 yards in each of the last three years. Last year he forced a ton of stuff and tried to do too much with many injuries and a bad team. He seemed to reign it in this year. If he's ruining his legend by going 4,000, 18 and 18 then he's the greatest qb in universe. Walter just slobbed over J. Montana's knob for closing out on top with 2100 and 13 and 3200 and 16 so I don't know what to say. I just went over these stats again and I laugh at how irrational packer-haters are. Yes he had a bad year when Green, Davenport, Walker, Bubba, etc. all went out and he just slung it, but he played under control this year on a very young team and he played well... very well at times. If getting all of the National Football League quarterback records (which he will next year) and throwing for 4,000 yards for the fourth straight season will tarnish things, than so be it. I think the against arguments have been pretty silly so far. If he was on your team, you'd want him back in a heartbeat.. End of story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted February 3, 2007 He's 38 and 47 the last two years. 68 and 64 the last 3 years. Essentially throwing for 4,000 yards in each of the last three years. Last year he forced a ton of stuff and tried to do too much with many injuries and a bad team. He seemed to reign it in this year. If he's ruining his legend by going 4,000, 18 and 18 then he's the greatest qb in universe. Walter just slobbed over J. Montana's knob for closing out on top with 2100 and 13 and 3200 and 16 so I don't know what to say. I just went over these stats again and I laugh at how irrational packer-haters are. Yes he had a bad year when Green, Davenport, Walker, Bubba, etc. all went out and he just slung it, but he played under control this year on a very young team and he played well... very well at times. If getting all of the National Football League quarterback records (which he will next year) and throwing for 4,000 yards for the fourth straight season will tarnish things, than so be it. I think the against arguments have been pretty silly so far. If he was on your team, you'd want him back in a heartbeat.. End of story. i respect favre. i don't hate him. just making valid points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donhaas 18 Posted February 3, 2007 i respect favre. i don't hate him. just making valid points. All of the points made by you and walter have been silly; rather than valid... 1) needs to spend more time with his wife (he's 37 and a millionaire ) 2) tarnishing his legend 3) holding the Packers back haven't addressed #3 yet... You have personal experience with this... Did Barry retiring free up so much money and help Detroit to focus on the future? Or have they been 22-85 since?? Favre's 37 and still has his biggest attribute... his rocket arm. If he's having fun, still playing well, and feels like he has good young talent around him, why shouldn't he come back and play the game he loves??? You and Walter are being a little silly. Maybe you're just a little spoiled or have higher expectations while watching the 47 stellar quarterbacks who played for Detroit and Chicago during Favre's reign. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeffkomlo 19 Posted February 4, 2007 Maybe you're just a little spoiled or have higher expectations while watching the 47 stellar quarterbacks who played for Detroit and Chicago during Favre's reign. Detroit fans would jump at the chance to get Farve next year, Farve or Kitna? Even at this stage in his career it's no contest, I bet bears fans would have loved to have Farve this season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted February 4, 2007 Detroit fans would jump at the chance to get Farve next year, Farve or Kitna? Even at this stage in his career it's no contest, I bet bears fans would have loved to have Farve this season. the lions, vikings, and bears would take him. that's not the point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Melissa Stark 1 Posted February 4, 2007 QUOTE(Walter34 @ Feb 3 2007, 10:35 AM) 2997938[/snapback] Great QBs that hung around too long I'd rather take Favre for 1 more year than at least half the Qb's out there now. I actually think Eli Manning is hanging around to long Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted February 4, 2007 I'd rather take Favre for 1 more year than at least half the Qb's out there now. I actually think Eli Manning is hanging around to long thing is, guys like eli don't have anything to lose by hanging around. they're not hof qbs and they should gladly cash an nfl paycheck for as long as possible. ditto guys like kitna, harrington, etc. what damage to their reps is going to happen? what reps? see what i mean? there's nothing sadder than than to see a superstar player in any sport hang on and hang on and hang on and be reduced to the abilities of a journeyman and backup. i will strongly argue favre is in danger of doing that here. his qb rating is the about the same as joey harrington's these past two years. and packer fans here are applauding his "comeback" this year of 18 tds 18 ints and a qb rating that fought to stay out of the 60s for most of the season. but to point that out makes one a "hater" on this board. does it ever occur to packer fans that *some* of us who say these things might not be haters of favre at all--but actually like and respect the guy and don't want to see him do this to his career? so "half the teams" in the league would still take him as a qb? is that the ringing endorsement favre has been reduced to? when farve was on his game and young ALL the teams in the league would have taken him. so he should stay on because he's been reduced to a so-so qb, a middle-of-the-pack vanilla qb that can look as respectable as half the qbs in the league on any given sunday? there is no happy hollywood ending here folks. the favre we've known and respected as a player waved bye bye to us all a long time ago. i thank god steve yzerman had the good sense to walk away from the game last year. that was starting to get painful to watch by the end--as is this with favre. and i do believe he's holding the packers future hostage by doing this annual death watch thing. even if the coaching staff wants to move on, they can't. while sf could trade away montana for a high draft pick and 49er fans understand that, green bay fans would loot and pillage lambeau field if the packers did that to favre--even if favre lost the use of his right arm and was in a wheel chair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter34 3 Posted February 4, 2007 I'd rather take Favre for 1 more year than at least half the Qb's out there now. I actually think Eli Manning is hanging around to long The obvious difference is age. Eli is in danger of being a "never was" rather than a has been. That said, he is still young and can develop further into a solid qb. His problem imo is that he just doesnt have the passion or dedication to the game that his brother has. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donhaas 18 Posted February 4, 2007 there is no happy hollywood ending here folks. the favre we've known and respected as a player waved bye bye to us all a long time ago. 346 540 4088 yards 30 TDs 17 int 2 seasons back loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago once again.... silly sampdog Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted February 4, 2007 346 540 4088 yards 30 TDs 17 int 2 seasons back loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago once again.... silly sampdog in nfl time and years, that IS a long time ago. at favre's age, a good season three years ago means about as much as a good season five years ago. whether 2, 3, 4, or 5+ seasons since he last looked on top of his game, the sad fact remains those are times and performances that are gone forever and ever. again, people aren't bashing favre and his wonderful career. but packer fans would do themselves a service and at least show some ability to logically discuss this issue instead of taking this embarrassing stance of "oh, my god! favre is the awesomest most wonderful god to ever play and he can do nothing wrong and i hope he plays and keeps being god until he's 100!" come on, already. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted February 4, 2007 Everything you say seems to be a stretch. Wife and daughter?? He won't be able to see them at all for the six months he is off from football? He's a millionaire many times over.... he can't see them constantly during the season?? I always see Deanna around.. like i posted 2 months ago..my mom works at a supper club and when she ran into deanna..she said to her, say hi to brett and if he retires, my family is going to miss him..and deanna said, i wouldnt worry about that... so that pretty much had us thinking that theyll be back for 2 years..as they have said all year... the packers dont have a shot at the division..but they couldve won 11 this year..3, they easily goofed up on at the end.. and the packers wouldnt have made the sb...but they were playing better than the cowboys..giants...theyd have won a game at least... rick mirer hung around too long..add HIM to the list..once the world realized that he sucked..he shouldve quit.. I suppose Rice hung around too long too. how long did tony rice even play? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted February 4, 2007 I always see Deanna around.. like i posted 2 months ago..my mom works at a supper club and when she ran into deanna..she said to her, say hi to brett and if he retires, my family is going to miss him..and deanna said, i wouldnt worry about that... so that pretty much had us thinking that theyll be back for 2 years..as they have said all year... the packers dont have a shot at the division..but they couldve won 11 this year..3, they easily goofed up on at the end.. and the packers wouldnt have made the sb...but they were playing better than the cowboys..giants...theyd have won a game at least... rick mirer hung around too long..add HIM to the list..once the world realized that he sucked..he shouldve quit.. how long did tony rice even play? meh...that's faulty thinking for any team in any context (re: "they could have won 11 games"). as far back as 2002, that sort of thing was being said about the lions--who lost a vast majority of games by single-digit scores. that doesn't prove a team is close to anything, nor is it proof the team will naturally progress up the win ladder the next season. the packers 8 losses were by 26 points, 7, 23, 3, 14, 35, 10, and 28 points. with the exception of 2 games, all of those were sound thrashings--more total complete thrashings there than bottom feeder teams like the lions had (the lions had 4 losses by 10+: 27, 17, 10 (twice)...the other 9 by single digits--which means, using your argument, the lions "almost won" 12 games). conversely, half the packer wins came by a margins of victory of 2, 7 (twice), 6, and 8. again, using your logic argument, one could make the claim the packers could just as easily went 4-12 again this year. hey, i don't put any stock in "close losses" or "close wins" any of that stuff. the lions of the past few seasons have shown how ridiculous that theory is. but for those that like to play that game, the above numbers show the packers should be very grateful to have won 8 games this year--let alone any folly talk of them "almost" winning more than that. i'm on record as saying they did better than i thought they would and they seem to heading in the right direction. but i'm not sure there can be too much more than that read into the season. there has been more than one media story/columnist (not me) that have said the packers record this year was a little above their heads and their talent level. maybe. maybe not. but that thesis is out there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted February 4, 2007 im a seahawks fan..trust me..i UNDERSTAND a team sneaking away with a win...seattle has that plenty of times.. i was referring to the home game vs the rams..packers moving in close..late..1 play to go before a fg and favre is hit and fumbles..game over..maybe they dont win that game..but they were in very good position to.. they dominated the bills..and had foolish playcalling..either by mccarthy or brett...driving down to the 1..and they elected to pass..a run scores..the int killed them... these 2 wouldve brought them the playoffs... and the talk is how tough the schedule is in 2007...thats a bit overrated at times... when people saw that they had the 3-13 saints on their schedule this year, they cheered..... gb needs to win 2 games per month and they are in..if they need 9-7..they need to win an extra game somewhere along the line...i think its doable.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted February 4, 2007 im a seahawks fan..trust me..i UNDERSTAND a team sneaking away with a win...seattle has that plenty of times.. i was referring to the home game vs the rams..packers moving in close..late..1 play to go before a fg and favre is hit and fumbles..game over..maybe they dont win that game..but they were in very good position to.. they dominated the bills..and had foolish playcalling..either by mccarthy or brett...driving down to the 1..and they elected to pass..a run scores..the int killed them... these 2 wouldve brought them the playoffs... and the talk is how tough the schedule is in 2007...thats a bit overrated at times... when people saw that they had the 3-13 saints on their schedule this year, they cheered..... gb needs to win 2 games per month and they are in..if they need 9-7..they need to win an extra game somewhere along the line...i think its doable.. the problem is you're completely ignoring the fact they could have just as easily lost another 3-4 games. you can't cherry pick the data. again, the lions won 5 games in 2005 and lost 7+ games by single digits--including 4 or so by 3 points or less (just mindnumbing, boneheaded, last-second losses--all of them). again, by your logic that should mean the lions were a whisker away from winning 9+ games. and what then should that have portended for the 2006 season--what with an upgrade at qb and oc, roy breaking out, furrey becoming a 100-catch wr? there is no manifest destiny here, no linear model of improvement that's set in stone. it starts all over again next year from scratch and there is no such thing as momentum. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jarvis Basnight 119 Posted February 5, 2007 Great QBs that hung around too long: Marino - 1 yr too long Tarkenton - 0 yrs too long Elway - - 0 yrs too long Moon - - 3 yrs too long Unitas - 6 yrs too long Montana - 0 yrs too long Fouts - 2 yrs too long Aikman - 1 yr too long Young - 1 yr too long Favre - 2+ yrs too long What a joke this is coming from a Bears fan. What do Chicago fans know about QB's anyway? Your team made it to the Superbowl inspite of your QB and your QB just repaid the team by embarrassing them in that SB. Favre - 2 + yrs too long is strictly your opinion. Grossman - 1 + yrs too long as a starter in the NFL is fact! The obvious difference is age. Eli is in danger of being a "never was" rather than a has been. And again......how are you so bold to make such statements about other QB's when your team's QB is freaking Rex Grossman? I'm laughing very hard at you right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted February 5, 2007 in nfl time and years, that IS a long time ago. at favre's age, a good season three years ago means about as much as a good season five years ago. whether 2, 3, 4, or 5+ seasons since he last looked on top of his game, the sad fact remains those are times and performances that are gone forever and ever. again, people aren't bashing favre and his wonderful career. but packer fans would do themselves a service and at least show some ability to logically discuss this issue instead of taking this embarrassing stance of "oh, my god! favre is the awesomest most wonderful god to ever play and he can do nothing wrong and i hope he plays and keeps being god until he's 100!" come on, already. Logically discuss it...ok. Last offseason, when people asked me if I wanted him back...I said if he was going to play like he did in 2005...no, I hope he would retire. He came back...and despite some of the stats...if you watched the games...you would know he did play better and much more within the system. He still has the talent...a very strong arm...and a fearless attitude (which gets him in trouble sometimes). But I don't think he is tarnishing his image to anyone other than some who simply do not like him all that much anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoffdaddy 1 Posted February 5, 2007 I don't often agree with swamp, but he makes at least on valid point in this thread. Favre has indeed looked tired and physically and emotionally beaten down at times the last two seasons. You can see it very clearly at times, expecially after bad losses. This is an astute observation. As for Packer fans 'applauding' his mediocrity or his coming back hurting the cap number. We're not applauding mediocrity at all. However, none of use want to move on to the Aaron Rodgers/Ingle Martin era. We know Favre isn't what he once was, but we also know that he's still a good pro QB, and can still play. Why wouldn't we want him back. A guy like Favre has earned the right, in my opinion, to go out on his terms. Just like Rice. Just like Montana. Just like Elway. They decide, and who are we to question that? As for the cap. Last time I checked, Green Bay is projected at 27 million or so below next year's cap. Favre isn't hurting them here at all. It's not like Thompson is out there flinging around cap money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted February 5, 2007 the problem is you're completely ignoring the fact they could have just as easily lost another 3-4 games. you can't cherry pick the data. again, the lions won 5 games in 2005 and lost 7+ games by single digits--including 4 or so by 3 points or less (just mindnumbing, boneheaded, last-second losses--all of them). again, by your logic that should mean the lions were a whisker away from winning 9+ games. its called looking for a light at the end of the tunnel i agree..you cant cherry pick data...BUT... 2 years ago..GB wasnt close to 8-8...i dont care if scores ended up close..the games werent that close.. last year...they put themselves in a spot..a chance to win the close ones..with favre, the team believes they can win the close ones... the fact that they WERE so close gives everyone real hope..and thats a quick turnaround from the injury filled disaster of 05 seattle was 13-3 last year...kicking azz... this year..they were fortunate to have the record they had..i wouldnt say seattle had a chance to have won 2 more games..they didnt..and they are on the brink of falling quick..the niners are for real..the rams are always there and the cards have a new lease on life.. but the north?...i think its a good time for favre to stick around...i would just be disappointed if the packers elected to go into 07 with the same roster... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoffdaddy 1 Posted February 5, 2007 I'm not as optimistic about the 07 Packer chances by the way. They played a very, very light schedule this season. By finishing where they did in the North, things get much tougher in 07. I like the progress, but this is still a very young team with some serious holes to fill. I don't see enough talent there to finish 8-8 again with a tough schedule. It'll be very hard to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voice_Of_Reason 0 Posted February 5, 2007 2 years too long? Tarnish is career? The one fact that you all seem to forget is that time forgets the mistakes. Most people don't remember Montana's or Elway's mistakes. Because memory tends to only dwell the good times. People don't talk bad times when refering to these guys which only strengthens their hold on being a legend. 10 years after Favre retires (just like all other QB's before him) he will be remembered as a legend. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted February 5, 2007 I'm not as optimistic about the 07 Packer chances by the way. They played a very, very light schedule this season. By finishing where they did in the North, things get much tougher in 07. I like the progress, but this is still a very young team with some serious holes to fill. I don't see enough talent there to finish 8-8 again with a tough schedule. It'll be very hard to do. Their schedule was about average.... opposing teams had a combined .500 recored (compared to the Bears and the .430). But their last place schedule earned them games vs the Eagles (division winner) and the Saints (division winner). Whereas the Bear's first place schedule earned them games vs Tampa (last place in their division) and the Giants (3rd place in their division). My point...what looks like a tough schedule today...may not be come game time next season. By finishing where they did in the north it only affects 2 games. I think there is a ton of talent on the defensive side of the ball...but there are still some needs. The only reason they have a chance is because of the division they are in...that much is true. Needs. 1. IMO the first priority is another safety...Manuel simply was not that good. 2. RB...if they do not resign Green...could be their 1st round pick...at this point I might sign Green and draft a safety though. 3. TE...or even another WR. Id love for them to get back to actually using a TE and having one that can catch the damn ball. 4. Corner. Just need some depth here behind Woodson and Harris 5. DE...this is dependent on what they do with KGB of course...if they let him go, I think they will draft something here with a 1st day pick. 6. Veteran depth on the OL. The tackles are not getting any younger and it would be nice to have a veteran via free agency (nothing flashy) to provide depth at some places on the line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donhaas 18 Posted February 5, 2007 I'm not as optimistic about the 07 Packer chances by the way. They played a very, very light schedule this season. By finishing where they did in the North, things get much tougher in 07. I like the progress, but this is still a very young team with some serious holes to fill. I don't see enough talent there to finish 8-8 again with a tough schedule. It'll be very hard to do. In the watered-down, parity-filled NFL that the Packers play in, it's impossible to tell who are going to be the good and bad teams every year. Playing the 2nd-place schedule (especially in the craptastic NFC) will probably be easier than you think. (Especially with four games against Minn. and Det.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LunaTick 29 Posted February 5, 2007 0 years on Montana, I don't know. I think his entire stint at KC may be evident of too long. Favre, 3 years too long cause of his drama. This year is first offseason I can respect. that in he made his decision. but if the rumor of GB going after Moss and that Favre has ever said he wants him this season. I lose all respect cause he and GB ran out a much better wr of the moment in Walker when they should have given him a raise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted February 5, 2007 0 years on Montana, I don't know. I think his entire stint at KC may be evident of too long. Favre, 3 years too long cause of his drama. This year is first offseason I can respect. that in he made his decision. but if the rumor of GB going after Moss and that Favre has ever said he wants him this season. I lose all respect cause he and GB ran out a much better wr of the moment in Walker when they should have given him a raise. A. Walker first asked for the big raise when they were cash strapped and had to cut 2 pro-bowl guards. B. He then asked again coming off of a major knee injury. C. There was an obvious rift there after that whereas he felt disrespected by others even though he too showed no real respect in his taking things public and the threats of holdouts that he made. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,549 Posted February 5, 2007 0 years on Montana, I don't know. I think his entire stint at KC may be evident of too long. Favre, 3 years too long cause of his drama. This year is first offseason I can respect. that in he made his decision. but if the rumor of GB going after Moss and that Favre has ever said he wants him this season. I lose all respect cause he and GB ran out a much better wr of the moment in Walker when they should have given him a raise. If they could have afforded to give him more they most likely would....there is a thing called a salary cap... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted February 5, 2007 In the watered-down, parity-filled NFL that the Packers play in, it's impossible to tell who are going to be the good and bad teams every year. Playing the 2nd-place schedule (especially in the craptastic NFC) will probably be easier than you think. (Especially with four games against Minn. and Det.) you say "it's impossible to tell who is going to be the good and bad teams..." yet you pencil in 4 wins here against the vikings and lions weren't the 3-13 saints supposed to be the easy target on everyone's schedule this year? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donhaas 18 Posted February 6, 2007 you say "it's impossible to tell who is going to be the good and bad teams..." yet you pencil in 4 wins here against the vikings and lions weren't the 3-13 saints supposed to be the easy target on everyone's schedule this year? It's impossible to know who is going to be good or bad every year... that was my point... your saints example is what I'm arguing.... The only exception to this rule are the Vikings and Lions who always suck no matter what. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LunaTick 29 Posted February 7, 2007 A. Walker first asked for the big raise when they were cash strapped and had to cut 2 pro-bowl guards. B. He then asked again coming off of a major knee injury. C. There was an obvious rift there after that whereas he felt disrespected by others even though he too showed no real respect in his taking things public and the threats of holdouts that he made. If they could have afforded to give him more they most likely would....there is a thing called a salary cap... The problem with them being cashed strapped, etc all comes from one man Sherman. Second, Favre has other avenues for salary than his NFL paycheck. He could have made an overture in the near term to keep any of these 3. The lineman went without much talk. Not the same with Walker. Favre did that was so wrong was he spoke out on this subject. he should have let it lie and maybe a year later it would all be good. Injury wasn't that great a concern considering others in recent years (Culpepper, Brees, Palmer) which didn't cause respective teams to invest in a critical position. Walker could have been appeased with an overture performed tactfully, but this isn't what came out of Packer Land. If Moss lands in GB, trust me this topic will be raised and reraised over and over. Would you rather have Walker or Moss at that time or today. I would rather have Walker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
