Favre pissed!

[swamp dog 0]

Kind of the point...if he was doing damage control...would he then turn around and claim that he will play out this year and demand to be traded? Kind of makes no sense does it?

 

That and the "backtrack" remains consistent with his attitude and past words about the possibility of playing elsewhere. Could it be that someone took his frustration to mean more than it really did? No...never....

Again...2 years ago Rodgers would have been a rookie behind a crappy Oline and gotten killed. That was not the wrong decision to come back...nor was last year's IMO. This year, you might have a point.

 

could it mean that he still really meant what he said but he's doing a dog and pony show in the media to minimize the damage? no, never

 

yeah, like he's going to continue to harp and whine in the media even if he still feels that way.

 

so i guess you've flip-flopped and are now officially back on brett's jock?

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Again...2 years ago Rodgers would have been a rookie behind a crappy Oline and gotten killed. That was not the wrong decision to come back...nor was last year's IMO. This year, you might have a point.

 

I agree - I don't think Favre's coming back two years ago was the wrong decision. However, this year is a different story.

[Sho Nuff 720]

could it mean that he still really meant what he said but he's doing a dog and pony show in the media to minimize the damage? no, never

 

yeah, like he's going to continue to harp and whine in the media even if he still feels that way.

 

so i guess you've flip-flopped and are now officially back on brett's jock?

 

Could it? Sure. Is that consistent with all he has said in his career? No.

 

Flip flopped? Not at all. I still think he should shut his mouth when it comes to what moves the GM made and things that have to do with personnel moves like the Moss deal.

 

So, I guess you got it wrong again and are trying to spin what was actually said. Nothing new here...maybe you should go back to the Morency thread and tell us how Jackson could not even win the starting gig or handle the load at Nebraska. I noticed you quickly ran from that one once you were shown to be completely wrong.

 

I agree - I don't think Favre's coming back two years ago was the wrong decision. However, this year is a different story.

 

Exactly...I had no problem with it 2 years ago. I prefaced last year's decision with...if he comes back and plays like 2005, I don't want him back. He played a bit better, a bit more controlled.

 

This year. It would not have bothered me for him to retire...go out on a somewhat winning note with the Chicago game.

 

Selfishly I will enjoy having him back and watching him play (hoping to take my son to a game this year so he can see Favre play...not that he will ever remember it...but it will be something I will remember).

[listen2me 23 1,873]

Clearly said? You have claimed to not have said to trade him or cut him or bench him...yet you have said those exact things. Sorry...none of what you said was very clear.

 

I think Favre can see quite clearly what is going on...TT is building for the future and is not going to build around a 38 year old QB.

 

I have yet to see a single post from you, until now, claiming you were so all for the deal. You went on and on about how he was a cancer. I remember that much very clearly.

 

I think the problem is you are all over the place in what you have said...and have said so many things. I do the same thing at times so I know....

 

But I think TT is in a much harder position than some realize with trying to build the team...yet trying not to alienate a huge fanbase that worships Favre.

in post #152 I said everything clear, saying How I dont want Favre benched trade/cut....a poster said it would do the Packers a favor if he was, I was making the point that why IF it would do such a favor to the team, why TT wouldnt do just that? He is supposed to do what is best for the team.

 

I totally agree with this - Thompson's in a bad spot. In my opinion, the only reason Favre's still playing is because he's close to breaking Marino's TD record. He's not back because he thinks the Packers have a shot. But what can Thompson do? Play Rodgers and try to develop him? No, because then Favre doesn't get the record, and the fans will lynch Thompson. Play Favre and let Rodgers (or whoever else is deemed the future QB) sit on the bench, stunting his development? Then he's harming the rebuilding process, the Packers languish, and the fans will lynch Thompson.

 

In this situation, Thompson can't win.

 

 

Then TT knowing this ahead of time, should have sat Favre Down before the draft and said what he would like the team to do (give Rodgers a chance) If Favre didnt take that good and wanted to take it to the media he would have looked stupid, if he wanted to keep it behind closed doors and just retire. Everything would be fine and that is how TT could have "won"....but that never happened.

 

I dont see what is so hard to understand?

 

I agree - I don't think Favre's coming back two years ago was the wrong decision. However, this year is a different story.

 

Why would Favre come back 2 years ago, to a dpleated team and actually go through a bad season, but not come back now?

 

Why would he give 2 years of waiting for new or young guys to learn and then quit?

 

It makes no sense?.......If Favre wanted to retire 2 years ago he could have before he had to go through the 4-12 season, he wanted to play football, now after 2 years I bet he thought he would finally see some turning around, (and did with the 8-8 season) but this year it looks like they will take a step back. Why would he give 2 years of going through meetings and practice while he knew the team would be young and not too good, just to retire now?

[Sho Nuff 720]

in post #152 I said everything clear, saying How I dont want Favre benched trade/cut....a poster said it would do the Packers a favor if he was, I was making the point that why IF it would do such a favor to the team, why TT wouldnt do just that? He is supposed to do what is best for the team.

 

So...post 152 is what you are going with? Ok...thanks for clarifying.

 

 

Then TT knowing this ahead of time, should have sat Favre Down before the draft and said what he would like the team to do (give Rodgers a chance) If Favre didnt take that good and wanted to take it to the media he would have looked stupid, if he wanted to keep it behind closed doors and just retire. Everything would be fine and that is how TT could have "won"....but that never happened.

 

So...after Favre announced he was coming back...TT (not knowing if he would get Lynch or not...and thinking he had something worked out for Moss) should tell Favre what the backup plan for drafting is now? Going into the draft it looked as though they would get Moss and possibly Lynch. They still drafted a good number of offensive players (just not in the first round). Perhaps TT really does not believe in Rodgers at this point (I don't know...) maybe he likes Martin better but knows he is not yet ready (again, I don't know).

 

 

I dont see what is so hard to understand?

 

The fact that you have been all over the place on a few things made it harder to understand.

 

Why would Favre come back 2 years ago, to a dpleated team and actually go through a bad season, but not come back now?

 

Why would he give 2 years of waiting for new or young guys to learn and then quit?

 

It makes no sense?.......If Favre wanted to retire 2 years ago he could have before he had to go through the 4-12 season, he wanted to play football, now after 2 years I bet he thought he would finally see some turning around, (and did with the 8-8 season) but this year it looks like they will take a step back. Why would he give 2 years of going through meetings and practice while he knew the team would be young and not too good, just to retire now?

 

His response...and mine...were in context with Favre staying hurting the development of the team. 2 years ago I don't think it was (with the new line and Rodgers being a rookie)...last year even I don't think it was with again a relatively new line.

 

The problem is, he and some like Steve Young...expect the team to build the team around an aging QB who may or not be around next year.

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Then TT knowing this ahead of time, should have sat Favre Down before the draft and said what he would like the team to do (give Rodgers a chance) If Favre didnt take that good and wanted to take it to the media he would have looked stupid, if he wanted to keep it behind closed doors and just retire. Everything would be fine and that is how TT could have "won"....but that never happened.

 

What's to say that Thompson didn't sit with Favre? I'm not saying he did, but there is no evidence to say he didn't, either.

 

I dont see what is so hard to understand?

Why would Favre come back 2 years ago, to a dpleated team and actually go through a bad season, but not come back now?

 

Why would he give 2 years of waiting for new or young guys to learn and then quit?

 

It makes no sense?.......If Favre wanted to retire 2 years ago he could have before he had to go through the 4-12 season, he wanted to play football, now after 2 years I bet he thought he would finally see some turning around, (and did with the 8-8 season) but this year it looks like they will take a step back. Why would he give 2 years of going through meetings and practice while he knew the team would be young and not too good, just to retire now?

 

The four years previous, the Packers had gone 12-4, 12-4, 10-6, and 10-6. Yes, losing Walker was a blow, but there was no reason to conceive of the Packers declining as sharply as they did, so I would disagree with the notion that Favre knew the 4-12 season was coming and decided to play that year anyway.

[listen2me 23 1,873]

What's to say that Thompson didn't sit with Favre? I'm not saying he did, but there is no evidence to say he didn't, either.

The four years previous, the Packers had gone 12-4, 12-4, 10-6, and 10-6. Yes, losing Walker was a blow, but there was no reason to conceive of the Packers declining as sharply as they did, so I would disagree with the notion that Favre knew the 4-12 season was coming and decided to play that year anyway.

 

Im guessing from favre's reactions and anger he hasn't been told what the team is trying to do.

 

Losing Walker, Rivera, Whale, Sharper, Grady Jackson, and having to go with Young guys across the board would most likely hint that they would not be at or above .500.

 

Sho, what have I been all over the place with?, you say on one hand i want the Packers to trade/cut Favre, and I havnt, I have made points that if they don't then TT isnt going anywhere with thsi team. You can't rebuild half the team and expect the next young QB to come out great. I have NEVER said I want Favre to been anything othe rthan the starting QB this year. On the Moss deal I have repeatedly said that It was all about teh money he would take and that I would definatly not give a 2nd. Go look it up if you think I said otherwise. SO what have I been all over the place on? Please explain?

[swamp dog 0]

in post #152 I said everything clear, saying How I dont want Favre benched trade/cut....a poster said it would do the Packers a favor if he was, I was making the point that why IF it would do such a favor to the team, why TT wouldnt do just that? He is supposed to do what is best for the team.

Then TT knowing this ahead of time, should have sat Favre Down before the draft and said what he would like the team to do (give Rodgers a chance) If Favre didnt take that good and wanted to take it to the media he would have looked stupid, if he wanted to keep it behind closed doors and just retire. Everything would be fine and that is how TT could have "won"....but that never happened.

 

I dont see what is so hard to understand?

Why would Favre come back 2 years ago, to a dpleated team and actually go through a bad season, but not come back now?

 

Why would he give 2 years of waiting for new or young guys to learn and then quit?

 

It makes no sense?.......If Favre wanted to retire 2 years ago he could have before he had to go through the 4-12 season, he wanted to play football, now after 2 years I bet he thought he would finally see some turning around, (and did with the 8-8 season) but this year it looks like they will take a step back. Why would he give 2 years of going through meetings and practice while he knew the team would be young and not too good, just to retire now?

 

 

agreed. it didn't have to be an either/or decision two years ago (re: either favre is here or it's rodgers team). favre retires, the packers get a vet re-tread in there for a year and hand the ball to rodgers in 2006 to begin taking his lumps and moving forward. what? the packers were going to be worse than 4-12 in 2005 doing that above?

 

there is simply no spinning it away: the packers would have been better in the long-term (um, that means TODAY) if favre retired in 2005. him staying on stunted the rebuilding process and is still doing so.

 

any attempts to refute that stark fact are feeble, weak, and transparent.

[listen2me 23 1,873]

agreed. it didn't have to be an either/or decision two years ago (re: either favre is here or it's rodgers team). favre retires, the packers get a vet re-tread in there for a year and hand the ball to rodgers in 2006 to begin taking his lumps and moving forward. what? the packers were going to be worse than 4-12 in 2005 doing that above?

 

there is simply no spinning it away: the packers would have been better in the long-term (um, that means TODAY) if favre retired in 2005. him staying on stunted the rebuilding process and is still doing so.

 

any attempts to refute that stark fact are feeble, weak, and transparent.

 

Yes they would have been better off now seeing the way TT has went with this team. Favre and many fans figured after 2 years the team would have young talent and some vet pick ups to replace the few vets/stars we lost. Obviously that didnt happen. Maybe Favre and the Fans that thought the process would be quicker were wrong and just blind from the fact that they have won for so many years in a row that they dont want to think about taking 3-5 to get back to that.

 

All in all I didnt like Rodgers from the start, teams passed for a reason. He hasn't been able to play much, but I havn't much from any training camp since he was drafted. I think By the time we are rebuilt elsewhere and Favre is gone the QB position will hold us back because of a bad pick by TT.

 

Will Rodgers ever get his chance? I dont know, for all I know he could be looking awful and TT just wants to hide him until he can just let him go. Perhaps Rodgers will be solid, but I doubt he will be like Rivers and step in his 1st year starting and do very well. Bottom line is when we do rebuild enough to where TT thinks we are ready to compete, I think we will still be held back by whoever is at QB, unless a Vet QB comes to GB and makes it work. I just hope TT creates a powerhouse on D because Favre and Driver (our only 2 playmakers on O) are getting old. It will all fall on if TT hits on any of his reaches (or thought to be reaches) in the middle rounds...(Oline, James Jones, Jackson)

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Losing Walker, Rivera, Whale, Sharper, Grady Jackson, and having to go with Young guys across the board would most likely hint that they would not be at or above .500.

 

With the exception of Walker, casting off dead weight does not necessarily imply rebuilding.

 

there is simply no spinning it away: the packers would have been better in the long-term (um, that means TODAY) if favre retired in 2005. him staying on stunted the rebuilding process and is still doing so.

 

any attempts to refute that stark fact are feeble, weak, and transparent.

 

That's easy to say in retrospect, but at the time they were coming off four consecutive seasons of 10 or more wins. Casting off a bunch of dead weight does not necessarily imply a rebuilding process. Your Red Wings are an excellent example of that - they've cast off dead weight and stayed at or near the top of the NHL for how long now?

[listen2me 23 1,873]

With the exception of Walker, casting off dead weight does not necessarily imply rebuilding.

That's easy to say in retrospect, but at the time they were coming off four consecutive seasons of 10 or more wins. Casting off a bunch of dead weight does not necessarily imply a rebuilding process. Your Red Wings are an excellent example of that - they've cast off dead weight and stayed at or near the top of the NHL for how long now?

 

Dead weight?

 

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Dead weight?

 

 

From what I've seen on ths board, the majority of Packer fans said it was a good move to let Rivera and "Whale" (I presume you meant Wahle) go. Grady Jackson and Sharper were past their prime. Now, before you drop the "Sharper made the Pro Bowl in 2005 for the Vikings" line, remember this: so did Roy Williams, whom everyone seems to think is one of the most overrated safeties in the league. So if you lump Sharper together with Roy Williams that wouldn't help your cause, in my opinion.

[listen2me 23 1,873]

From what I've seen on ths board, the majority of Packer fans said it was a good move to let Rivera and "Whale" (I presume you meant Wahle) go. Grady Jackson and Sharper were past their prime. Now, before you drop the "Sharper made the Pro Bowl in 2005 for the Vikings" line, remember this: so did Roy Williams, whom everyone seems to think is one of the most overrated safeties in the league. So if you lump Sharper together with Roy Williams that wouldn't help your cause, in my opinion.

 

Id say we could use a Darren Sharper at Saftey right now...and for the past couple years... he was what 29 when he was let go? That is pretty young for a saftey. His first year with the Vikes he had 9 ints and 2 TDs

 

He is a playmaker unlike Roy, Pro Bowl doesnt mean anything, Sharper is still a good player at a position that has hurt us over the past coupel years.

 

Last year he had 4 ints.

 

Whale was in his Prime, and still young like 27 or so. One of the best Guards in the league.

 

Jackson was past his prime but still effective as a run stuffer. We did go and get Pickett though, I would say when healthy Jackson was better than Pickett even at his old age.

 

Rivera was old yes. But losing two starting guards at once hurts. Yes we were hurting with the salary cap but I think we could have done a little better with trying to keep a coupel of these guys.

[swamp dog 0]

With the exception of Walker, casting off dead weight does not necessarily imply rebuilding.

That's easy to say in retrospect, but at the time they were coming off four consecutive seasons of 10 or more wins. Casting off a bunch of dead weight does not necessarily imply a rebuilding process. Your Red Wings are an excellent example of that - they've cast off dead weight and stayed at or near the top of the NHL for how long now?

 

actually, a lot of people--not just me--aren't saying that in retrospect but said it in the summer of 2005.

 

i haven't commented on the players the packers didn't keep (walker, the guards, etc). i simply said at the time--and say so again--that brett staying on hampers the rebuilding process. there's an important psychological aspect to that as well. if he retires, he's gone, the brett era is over, and the rebuilding moves forward with zero restrictions and no one in the front office or coaching staff having to tip-toe around the big white elephant in the room (brett) or make moves that attempt an impossible dual-purpose of rebuilding and trying to win now with brett.

 

the wings rebuilding (er, reloading, sorry) has gone smoothly and i think a big reason for that is yzerman never said boo when his role was diminished to the second line...then the third line....and his minutes dwindled and dwindled. the wings didn't have to worry about him lipping off or pouting or throwing a hissy fit when the wings didn't a player he wanted (and make no mistake: the wings didn't give yzerman everything he wanted--eric lindros, in particular).

 

if brett could ever accept a backup qb role or show that kind of grace, he could conceivably still be in a packer uniform and the packers rebuild. but his history and his personality/attitude make that almost impossible. instead, he folds his arms and digs in and makes the situation uncomfortable and stunts the rebuilding.

 

thus, in conclusion (again) he should have either retired two years ago or accepted a trade.

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Id say we could use a Darren Sharper at Saftey right now...and for the past couple years... he was what 29 when he was let go? That is pretty young for a saftey. His first year with the Vikes he had 9 ints and 2 TDs

 

He is a playmaker unlike Roy, Pro Bowl doesnt mean anything, Sharper is still a good player at a position that has hurt us over the past coupel years.

 

Last year he had 4 ints.

 

Whale was in his Prime, and still young like 27 or so. One of the best Guards in the league.

 

Jackson was past his prime but still effective as a run stuffer. We did go and get Pickett though, I would say when healthy Jackson was better than Pickett even at his old age.

 

Rivera was old yes. But losing two starting guards at once hurts. Yes we were hurting with the salary cap but I think we could have done a little better with trying to keep a coupel of these guys.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it didn't hurt to lose some of those guys. But referring to swamp's Red Wings - they do this all the time. Not only do they stay at the top - they EXPECT to stay at the top when they make these similar moves. After their successes the previous four seasons, I don't understand why the Packers couldn't have expected something similar.

[listen2me 23 1,873]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it didn't hurt to lose some of those guys. But referring to swamp's Red Wings - they do this all the time. Not only do they stay at the top - they EXPECT to stay at the top when they make these similar moves. After their successes the previous four seasons, I don't understand why the Packers couldn't have expected something similar.

 

Why are we comparing Football to Hockey?

 

Injuries played a role too. New coaching.

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

actually, a lot of people--not just me--aren't saying that in retrospect but said it in the summer of 2005.

 

i haven't commented on the players the packers didn't keep (walker, the guards, etc). i simply said at the time--and say so again--that brett staying on hampers the rebuilding process. there's an important psychological aspect to that as well. if he retires, he's gone, the brett era is over, and the rebuilding moves forward with zero restrictions and no one in the front office or coaching staff having to tip-toe around the big white elephant in the room (brett) or make moves that attempt an impossible dual-purpose of rebuilding and trying to win now with brett.

 

the wings rebuilding (er, reloading, sorry) has gone smoothly and i think a big reason for that is yzerman never said boo when his role was diminished to the second line...then the third line....and his minutes dwindled and dwindled. the wings didn't have to worry about him lipping off or pouting or throwing a hissy fit when the wings didn't a player he wanted (and make no mistake: the wings didn't give yzerman everything he wanted--eric lindros, in particular).

 

if brett could ever accept a backup qb role or show that kind of grace, he could conceivably still be in a packer uniform and the packers rebuild. but his history and his personality/attitude make that almost impossible. instead, he folds his arms and digs in and makes the situation uncomfortable and stunts the rebuilding.

 

thus, in conclusion (again) he should have either retired two years ago or accepted a trade.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that Favre should have retired, at the latest, after the Bears game last year. I can understand the argument that he should have at the end of the 2005 season (the 4-12 campaign), and feel that he stayed to go after the Marino record.

 

I think the difference in the Yzerman and Favre situations is that Yzerman's ice time, as you said, dwindled (I'd guess from 20+ minutes per game to around 10-12 munites a game - is that roughly correct?). So he still got to play as they started preparing for life post-Stevie. But with Favre there would be no moderation - he'd either play or he wouldn't, which to be fair is more difficult on the player.

 

That being said, if the record wasn't reachable, I wonder if Favre would have retired after 2005?

 

Why are we comparing Football to Hockey?

 

Injuries played a role too. New coaching.

 

I guess my point is that many professional sports teams (not just football) are able to stay on top for extended periods of time by making changes proactively while they are still near the top, rather than reactively, when it's too late. The Red Wings were the best example I could think of to illustrate that point.

[listen2me 23 1,873]

I wholeheartedly agree that Favre should have retired, at the latest, after the Bears game last year. I can understand the argument that he should have at the end of the 2005 season (the 4-12 campaign), and feel that he stayed to go after the Marino record.

 

I think the difference in the Yzerman and Favre situations is that Yzerman's ice time, as you said, dwindled (I'd guess from 20+ minutes per game to around 10-12 munites a game - is that roughly correct?). So he still got to play as they started preparing for life post-Stevie. But with Favre there would be no moderation - he'd either play or he wouldn't, which to be fair is more difficult on the player.

 

That being said, if the record wasn't reachable, I wonder if Favre would have retired after 2005?

I guess my point is that many professional sports teams (not just football) are able to stay on top for extended periods of time by making changes proactively while they are still near the top, rather than reactively, when it's too late. The Red Wings were the best example I could think of to illustrate that point.

 

Packers wern't exactly on top....there bread and butter was a strong running game, with pulling gaurds...and they lost the gaurds. And A. Green got old quick and couldn't stay healthy.

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Packers wern't exactly on top....there bread and butter was a strong running game, with pulling gaurds...and they lost the gaurds. And A. Green got old quick and couldn't stay healthy.

 

Sorry, I meant "near" the top, like I had said earlier. I'm not saying this worked out well for the Packers - I'm just saying I can see what their mentality at the time could have been.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Im guessing from favre's reactions and anger he hasn't been told what the team is trying to do.

 

Losing Walker, Rivera, Whale, Sharper, Grady Jackson, and having to go with Young guys across the board would most likely hint that they would not be at or above .500.

 

Sho, what have I been all over the place with?, you say on one hand i want the Packers to trade/cut Favre, and I havnt, I have made points that if they don't then TT isnt going anywhere with thsi team. You can't rebuild half the team and expect the next young QB to come out great. I have NEVER said I want Favre to been anything othe rthan the starting QB this year. On the Moss deal I have repeatedly said that It was all about teh money he would take and that I would definatly not give a 2nd. Go look it up if you think I said otherwise. SO what have I been all over the place on? Please explain?

 

You have made the point that TT should go with "his guy" referring to Rodgers. Now, if they don't cut, trade, or bench Favre...how does he go about going with "his guy". You finally stated the sit down and have a talk with him...if Favre says no, he is not retiring...then what? TT would have to do one of those things.

 

You can most certainly rebuild the team besides the QB (and he is rebuilding more than half the team...unless you think stocking the Oline with that much youth is not rebuilding). I dont expect the young QB to come in and be great...hence the attention to the defense...so that the QB does not have the pressure to come in and carry it all on his own right off the bat.

 

 

 

agreed. it didn't have to be an either/or decision two years ago (re: either favre is here or it's rodgers team). favre retires, the packers get a vet re-tread in there for a year and hand the ball to rodgers in 2006 to begin taking his lumps and moving forward. what? the packers were going to be worse than 4-12 in 2005 doing that above?

 

there is simply no spinning it away: the packers would have been better in the long-term (um, that means TODAY) if favre retired in 2005. him staying on stunted the rebuilding process and is still doing so.

 

any attempts to refute that stark fact are feeble, weak, and transparent.

 

Going into 05 Walker was healthy (among others)...why would Favre have not come back at that point. The team was in cap trouble and dumped some...no doubt, but I doubt he thought 4-12 was coming. And his play that year, was a big part of that record.

 

All you are doing is spinning it Swamp. You can think they would have been better if he retired then...but you cannot really say that with any certainty...his staying that year, IMO had no effect on the current team (other than the fact that he is still there). That was not the year that his staying or going affected the rebuilding process of this team.

 

Its not a stark fact...its a biased opinion coming out of one of the most biased, ignorant, foolish posters on this board....you.

 

With the exception of Walker, casting off dead weight does not necessarily imply rebuilding.

That's easy to say in retrospect, but at the time they were coming off four consecutive seasons of 10 or more wins. Casting off a bunch of dead weight does not necessarily imply a rebuilding process. Your Red Wings are an excellent example of that - they've cast off dead weight and stayed at or near the top of the NHL for how long now?

 

 

Wahle was not dead weight.

And dumping a bunch of cap space, at a time the team lacked depth and was old...going in a youth movement and the changing in the makeup of the team that started that year of the "purge" as I like to call it...was the start of it. The true rebuilding did not really come until last year where more of the key players were brought in or retained before leaving via free agency (key as far as the core group right now).

 

Id say we could use a Darren Sharper at Saftey right now...and for the past couple years... he was what 29 when he was let go? That is pretty young for a saftey. His first year with the Vikes he had 9 ints and 2 TDs

 

He is a playmaker unlike Roy, Pro Bowl doesnt mean anything, Sharper is still a good player at a position that has hurt us over the past coupel years.

 

Last year he had 4 ints.

 

Whale was in his Prime, and still young like 27 or so. One of the best Guards in the league.

 

Jackson was past his prime but still effective as a run stuffer. We did go and get Pickett though, I would say when healthy Jackson was better than Pickett even at his old age.

 

Rivera was old yes. But losing two starting guards at once hurts. Yes we were hurting with the salary cap but I think we could have done a little better with trying to keep a coupel of these guys.

 

Wahle is the only one that could really be considered a mistake given the timing and everything.

 

Sharper was let go because of his huge contract...and he had a run of injuries affecting his play for some time. Many also did not like his style of taking the big chance and giving up big plays.

 

Jackson was never healthy and was a malcontent. He wanted more money...way more than he was worth...after they had restructured his contract to give him a little up front money.

 

Rivera was old and had the injuries too, and is now out of football. Losing him and Flanagan were actually very good moves.

[swamp dog 0]

sho, you responding to every post here doesn't help you magically refute any of the rock-solid points people are making here. just an fyi...lol. no proof? the 2005 season and 2006 season, all of brett's quotes, all of brett's failures and shenanigans are all there in print, on film, on video, locked and vaulted. end of discussion on that one.

 

and it looks like "leader brett" needs two weeks to plan his daughter's graduation so he won't be coming to the "mandatory" mini-camp--the camp that mccarthy is on record as saying he fully expected favre to be there.

 

link:

 

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports/ind...368&ntpid=1

 

WAIT!!! WE INTERUPT THIS PROGRAM FOR BREAKING NEWS!!! CHRIS MORTENSEN IS REPORTING BRETT FAVRE WILL ATTEND THE MANDATORY MINI-CAMP!!! YES, WE KNOW IT'S MANDATORY BUT WHEN BRETT MAKES THAT SACRIFICE IT'S SUPER NEWSWORTHY SPECIAL!!!! CALL JOHN MADDEN!!!!

 

...maybe his agent is finally getting through to him a *tad* about toning down the diva behavior.

[donhaas 18]

i've been saying this for two years to loud cat calls from the cheeseheads here: favre has been--and IS--holding the future of the organization hostage. the rebuilding is stunted with him staying there and the packer brass not having the balls to either ask him to leave or making him leave.

 

looks like brett is finally starting to force the hand.

 

:lol:

[donhaas 18]

lol...his image isn't tarnished? you, sir, are in complete denial.

 

he stayed too long. it's a weak spin to act all macho about him not walking away. this team's growth is stunted by him being there and he's the big white elephant in the room. the only thing--the ONLY thing--he's gotten out of staying the past two years is lots of money in his bank account. yeah, quite the team player the past two years.

 

wake up and smell the coffee.

it's never forgotten when a player hangs on too long. hell, you still hear stories about willie mays hanging on too long. that shiat never goes away. that doesn't mean that ends up defining the player--it's just a part of the overall story that remains gloamed onto the whole like an annoying little fly in the ointment.

 

:lol:

[cheeseboy 0]

:lol:

hahahahahaha...keep stunting that growth Brett, hope you don't start helping your team grow and progress like Rex Grossman

[donhaas 18]

look, it's pretty simple: tt doesn't think the packers are close to a super bowl and he's building for further down the road. he isn't copying anyone's system. he correctly knows that the packers aren't going to be contenders before favre sails off into the sunset and thus he's ignoring the short-term and favre's whining and wish lists.

 

how is that not apparent to you packer fans?

 

Pretty simple, indeed.

 

:lol:

[NateBurleson81 0]

How old are you Don? Grow up and get a life.

[donhaas 18]

That would never occur to Madden et al, they are completely incapable of seeing Favre for the mediocre quarterback he now is.

 

Favre's decision on whether he'd come back last year was obnoxious. The Packers are not a good team and they need to plan for the future - to keep them twisting in the wind like that all offseason was not right. His comments last week were typical of his attitude of being more important than his teammates or the organization. In Favre's mind he's earned the right to say whatever he wants.

 

Finally, all that stuff aside the guy should really just retire. I haven't seen Rodgers play but they were lucky to get him so late in the draft a few years ago and it's time to figure out what they have. Every game Favre plays is another game of development Rodgers misses out on. The team is simply not good enough to win anything this year and their 8-8 record is a mirage because the NFC North sucks.

 

Favre should do his team a favor and leave.

 

 

sampdog.... you have competition for dumbest poster

[cheeseboy 0]

How old are you Don? Grow up and get a life.

don't be so bitter...you'll be here doing the banana dance when Tevaris Jackson breaks out and dominates a NFC North opponent...right?

[donhaas 18]

TT is also snookered because he cant release a legend like Favre or he would be deadmeat to Pack fans.

 

Are you serious???

 

He likely wishes he would just hang them up so the Pack could just move on and rebuild with a vengence. The extra cash and qb development would be helpful now.

 

sampdog: You are now in third place

[donhaas 18]

How old are you Don? Grow up and get a life.

[donhaas 18]

Bump per Next Generation's request and then I promise not to bump again...

 

MDC's quotes are 2 posts up, but you can easily find stuff from GOMM, YTP, Favreisatwat, and the rest of you about Favre that is just as bad

 

Don't get me wrong; I think it's funny... but we're not going to litter the board with a hundred threads of PHI ignorance

[The Next Generation 10]

Bump per Next Generation's request and then I promise not to bump again...

 

MDC's quotes are 2 posts up, but you can easily find stuff from GOMM, YTP, Favreisatwat, and the rest of you about Favre that is just as bad

 

Don't get me wrong; I think it's funny... but we're not going to litter the board with a hundred threads of PHI ignorance

 

I saw one post from MDC and he said Favre was one of his all-time favorite players, but added he thought he was a medicore QB now. For the past few years, I'd speculate that a lot of people would have agreed with him, including die-hard Packer fans. But, I didn't see any quotes from other easily recognoizable Eagles fans in this thread.

 

Thanks for bumping.

[Brick Tamland 0]

I saw one post from MDC and he said Favre was one of his all-time favorite players, but added he thought he was a medicore QB now. For the past few years, I'd speculate that a lot of people would have agreed with him, including die-hard Packer fans. But, I didn't see any quotes from other easily recognoizable Eagles fans in this thread.

 

Thanks for bumping.

 

Anyone who thought Favre was a victim of diminishing skills obviously didn't watch him play over the last several years. Even in 2005 he showed the same arm strength and escapability he displayed in his prime. It was easy for outsiders to look at a boxscore of 3 ints and say he's washed up. If you were paying attention it was clear he was running for his life and playing catch up by the second quarter of every game.

[The Next Generation 10]

Anyone who thought Favre was a victim of diminishing skills obviously didn't watch him play over the last several years. Even in 2005 he showed the same arm strength and escapability he displayed in his prime. It was easy for outsiders to look at a boxscore of 3 ints and say he's washed up. If you were paying attention it was clear he was running for his life and playing catch up by the second quarter of every game.

 

I don't think anyone doubted his arm strength, but rather his decision making...chuck it up and see what happens, tons of INTs...was questionable. And, that's exactly the point. Any QB, Favre included, makes questionable decisions and doesn't play too well when the team around him isn't playing well. See McNabb last night.

[swamp dog 0]

i have don on ignore so god only knows why he's bumped this thread but it probably had something to do with providing a pic of him fondling favre's man unit (?)

 

other than that, there were plenty of legitimate reasons to question favre heading into this season: 1) his age 2) his annual "maybe i will maybe i won't retire" bs 3) his stats in 2006: 18 tds 18 ints, 70 rating and 4) his stats in 2005: 20 tds 29 ints, 72.7 rating

 

if i own favre i'm selling high right now. smart move.

[donhaas 18]

I saw one post from MDC and he said Favre was one of his all-time favorite players, but added he thought he was a medicore QB now. For the past few years, I'd speculate that a lot of people would have agreed with him, including die-hard Packer fans. But, I didn't see any quotes from other easily recognoizable Eagles fans in this thread.

 

Thanks for bumping.

 

Look...I don't have the time and the board doesn't deserve the flood of Favre bashing bumps from Eagle fans.

It's just too numerous.

 

If you don't believe it. That's fine....

 

Why would I make this up?

 

Honestly, it's not that big of deal with all the GB/PHI trashtalking the last few years; you kind of expect it....

 

Most of the Eagles fans that were talking tremendous sh!t are long gone, anyway...

[donhaas 18]

i have don on ignore

 

No, you don't.

And everybody is reading all of your stupid quotes

[phillybear 366]

MDC's quotes are 2 posts up, but you can easily find stuff from GOMM, YTP, Favreisatwat, and the rest of you about Favre that is just as bad

 

Unless I am mistaken, MDC = Farve Is A Twat. So you counted him twice.

[The Next Generation 10]

Look...I don't have the time and the board doesn't deserve the flood of Favre bashing bumps from Eagle fans.

It's just too numerous.

 

If you don't believe it. That's fine....

 

Why would I make this up?

 

Honestly, it's not that big of deal with all the GB/PHI trashtalking the last few years; you kind of expect it....

 

Most of the Eagles fans that were talking tremendous sh!t are long gone, anyway...

 

OK, no biggie, I guess we Eagles fans don't like being judged as one since the overall rep of Eagles fans hasn't been that great. For the record, I thought Favre should have retired (I just got the ticket last year so I couldn't watch all the games prior to then) but also enjoy watching him play, even when he was chucking-up INTs like crazy. It's kinda cool that he is playing inspired football again because his enthusiasm for the game is undeniably infectious.

 

P.S. I think any Eagles fan would have rather had Favre over McNabb.

[gocolts 300]

 

His 9th day.