Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline RedSoxExcel  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:33:27 PM(UTC)
RedSoxExcel

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/30/2007(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Dexter, you pick out stats like thats the end all. You only look at one side of the coin. I just don't understand how people cannot concede a single point.

If the Packers only got to SuperBowl XXXII in spite of Favre, how about that Seattle/Packers game. With that logic, if Favre hadn't took over (IN snow), the Packers wouldn't have got to that Giants game, so is that mean that mean that the Giants game is a wash? You can't say that the D didn't suck in SuperBowl XXXII because they "saved" Favre in a previous playoff game.

Go back and look at past SuperBowl winners, I bet you anything a lot of the time the QB had bad games and they still won. I remember when Brady threw for 140 yards against the Colts and they still won 20-6 or something. Or all the bad games Big Ben had. When Peyton won his Super Bowl, he beat the Ravens with a game with 15-30, 150 yards, 0 TDs and 2 INTs. Is that mean that Peyton's SB means anything less? NO, of course not, his defense saved him, plain and simple.

Btw, the Vikings game, go look at Culpepper's stats and what the score was 5 minutse into the game. And how is too much to ask that your team stop a 4th and 27, I still don't understand. Regardless of what they did, its a 4th and 27! 4th and 27!

I just don't understand how anyone can argue that those teams were that great and Favre screwed them. Keep overrating Favre's O too, how many HOF'ers did Favre have on that O throughout those years? Plus I also assume you thought that Favre's coaches were awesome too (Sherman). He did more with less and then when the playoffs came and you play better teams, the Packers were exposed a lot of the time.

Is Favre perfect? NO, not even close. He was a big part of the losses in the playoffs, just like any other player on a team. Just like Rodgers was part of the blame for the Cardinals game. You can keep dreaming in this world where he gets a pass but he sucked in the 1st half and missed a wide open Jennings to win the game. He's part of the reason for the loss. BUT WHO CARES, that D was not winning a SB.

Overall, I'm also getting sick of the obsession with just looking at Box Scores and stats to prove arguments in Football. It's not baseball. There is so much more at play.
blank
Offline RedSoxExcel  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:38:42 PM(UTC)
RedSoxExcel

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/30/2007(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
You can pull up offensive/defensive/special teams/water boy stats to prove anything you want, but the last 3 years, Brett's last pass of the year was a pick, same is true of the Philly 4th 26 game, might as well have been true in the St. Louis game.

Rodgers is a statistical stud, which is great, but more importantly, in spite of the fumble vs. AZ, has started to demonstrate that he can win a game, and produce under pressure (best 3rd down rating last year)...We can argue about how good/bad a team was, who carried who, etc. and they're all relevant arguments, but one of the key variables is what do you do when your team needs you to produce - 2min drill, end of game, etc. Aaron Rodgers has a lot to prove yet, but seems to demonstrate the capacity to be a winner in this respect.


I'm not saying that. I'm just saying your can't cherry pick arguments. If the argument is that Rodgers would have won more SBs in those years (based on a 17-15 career record), I just don't understand it.

At the end of the day, the Cardinals game, he sucked in the 1st half and he missed a wide open jennings to win the game. Thats a fact but people cherry pick arguments.

Bottom line is that Rodgers WAS part of the blame for that game, just like any other player but WHO CARES, that D was not winning a SB. They would have got destroyed by the Saints.

Isn't it possible at all that out of those Packers teams that lose in the early 2000's, they just weren't that good to begin with, talent wise and coaching and Favre being great elevated them to winning?

Even look at the Jets season, before the injury, they were 8-3 under MANGENIUS. Favre makes teams better for whatever reason, there's a reason he's only had ONE losing season in 19 years. It is possible that SOME of these teams just didn't cut it but people cherry pick arguments. He's not perfect, that Giants game, that was a horrible throw, he choked, he's part of the blame but he also took the youngest team to a 13-3 record and beat the Seahawks. That team out performed, as shown by a drop to 6-10 in one year.

Who's say that if Favre played the Cardinals, he wouldn't have had first time playoff jitters and sucked in the first half or hit Jennings in OT like he did against the Broncos? But overall, WHO CARES, because that D was not winning a SB.
blank
Offline TOPackerFan  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:57:45 PM(UTC)
TOPackerFan

Rank: Fresh Cheesehead

Joined: 8/13/2008(UTC)


Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post

If the Packers only got to SuperBowl XXXII in spite of Favre, how about that Seattle/Packers game. With that logic, if Favre hadn't took over (IN snow), the Packers wouldn't have got to that Giants game, so is that mean that mean that the Giants game is a wash?


I'm sure Ryan Grant's franchise playoff record rushing performance had nothing to do with the comeback....
Show me a good loser, I'll show you a loser - Vince
Offline musccy  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:00:42 PM(UTC)
musccy

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 5/7/2009(UTC)
Location: Pennsylvania

Applause Given: 242
Applause Received: 232

This whole argument involves interpreting a number of shades of grey.

For Rodgers, I agree, he blew it by missing Jennings and fumbled. I wasn't trying to cherry pick at all. But at the same time, he did keep the team in the game in the 2nd half. I'm being a bit of a hypocritical rodgers apologist, but last year we all wanted to see if he was more than just a statistical wonder, that he could actually WIN a game for a team, and he seemed to make great strides in that, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for missing to Jennings because it was only his 2nd year as a starter, and we've seen a maturation towards an elite level quarterback in so many other aspects...plus, even though he did have those two errors in OT, IMO, they pale in comparison to some of the game ending bone-headed picks Brent has thrown.

With Brent, someone else said it best...he was a phenomenal regular season qb, and only 1 losing season does speak volumes. However he was notorious for being a moron when you needed him to prevail. I'm not ready to say rodgers > brett by any means - he has a lot of years and wins to prove that yet, but I certainly think the potential is there for him to prove to be a better QB than Brett and many other elites.
Offline RedSoxExcel  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:01:58 PM(UTC)
RedSoxExcel

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/30/2007(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post

If the Packers only got to SuperBowl XXXII in spite of Favre, how about that Seattle/Packers game. With that logic, if Favre hadn't took over (IN snow), the Packers wouldn't have got to that Giants game, so is that mean that mean that the Giants game is a wash?


I'm sure Ryan Grant's franchise playoff record rushing performance had nothing to do with the comeback....


What? You did watch the game and Grants two fumbles in the first 5 minutes to make it 14-0???

Are we seriously not even going to give credit to Favre for that Seahawks game either? It was a young inexperienced team, you don't think Favre's presence, being down 14-0 in the first five minutes had anything to do with that comeback?

If you honestly can watch that game and not say Favre's calm and play was the biggest reason for that win, I don't know what to say.
blank
Offline doddpower  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:02:49 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,040
Applause Received: 509

Always nice when RedSox comes around for his soap box Favre postings!!

=)
Offline RedSoxExcel  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:07:44 PM(UTC)
RedSoxExcel

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/30/2007(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
This whole argument involves interpreting a number of shades of grey.

For Rodgers, I agree, he blew it by missing Jennings and fumbled. I wasn't trying to cherry pick at all. But at the same time, he did keep the team in the game in the 2nd half. I'm being a bit of a hypocritical rodgers apologist, but last year we all wanted to see if he was more than just a statistical wonder, that he could actually WIN a game for a team, and he seemed to make great strides in that, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for missing to Jennings because it was only his 2nd year as a starter, and we've seen a maturation towards an elite level quarterback in so many other aspects...plus, even though he did have those two errors in OT, IMO, they pale in comparison to some of the game ending bone-headed picks Brent has thrown.

With Brent, someone else said it best...he was a phenomenal regular season qb, and only 1 losing season does speak volumes. However he was notorious for being a moron when you needed him to prevail. I'm not ready to say rodgers > brett by any means - he has a lot of years and wins to prove that yet, but I certainly think the potential is there for him to prove to be a better QB than Brett and many other elites.


Thank you, I agree. Rodgers has the potential to be great but its still very early. With Favre, all I'm saying is that yes, he choked but its a team game.

I just don't get the double standard. If the 2000 Packers lost in the playoffs, its Favre's fault, if the 2000 Packers won a playoff game, it was with help (e.g., Ryan Grant). If Rodgers goes 6-10, "hey, its a team game!", if Rodgers sucks in 1/2 of a playoff game and chokes in OT, "hey, he got the team that far".

I believe overall, its a team game, you win and lose as a team - Colts/Ravens, Peyton won with a game with 150 yards, 0 Tds, 2 INTs and won the Super Bowl. I think the QB is more important than other positions and I think Rodgers inexperience (NOT his talent) led to the 6-10 season and I think Favre would have done better. And that is where the Rodgers apologies kill me, how can you honestly say that a 17 year vet coming off a 13-3 season with chemistry on that offense wouldn't have done better than 6-10 with a rookie QB. NO one is saying Rodgers sucked, its just about experience. But people cherry pick arguments and for some reason it would kill them to concede anything.

I also think zero percent chance Favre makes that comeback in AZ because he has trouble playing from behind but maybe they never get in that position because Favre wouldn't have had first time playoff jitters. It's all give and take IMO.
blank
Offline RedSoxExcel  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:09:52 PM(UTC)
RedSoxExcel

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/30/2007(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Always nice when RedSox comes around for his soap box Favre postings!!

=)


Haha, what can I say, I enjoy it. Its always fun to be Scott Pilgram v. The Forum, haha. The off-season is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO boring, I hate preseason, I hate training camp (like Favre), I hate it all. This is by far to me the most entertaining thread.

All these preseason stuff means nothing to me, so why not have some fun in here.

As far as I know, its all in good fun with Dexter and NSD? If you can't debate sports arguments, whats the point right?
blank
Offline DakotaT  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:41:32 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 661
Applause Received: 1,360

All I know about the Favre era in Green Bay is that with the players we had along with the talent at quarterback, there should be hardware in the trophy case. I'm hoping that with the new leadership behind our current talented quarterback, some of those problems will be erradicated.

I think the 49ers and Cowboys have quietly stocked their teams as well, so it should be fun going forward.
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:43:02 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Administration

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,952
Applause Received: 2,170

/me kicks self in nuts and tosses hands up in air
UserPostedImage
Offline musccy  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:51:48 PM(UTC)
musccy

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 5/7/2009(UTC)
Location: Pennsylvania

Applause Given: 242
Applause Received: 232

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
/me kicks self in nuts and tosses hands up in air


Hey, keep it on topic zero, this thread is about Rodgers, not kicking someone in the mommy-daddy pills! :icon_smile:

On that note, I think Rodgers will figuratively kick Brent in the nuts this year!
Offline RedSoxExcel  
#12 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 3:36:00 PM(UTC)
RedSoxExcel

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/30/2007(UTC)

Applause Received: 3

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
/me kicks self in nuts and tosses hands up in air


I told you Zero, I am a little kid, I cannot resist, its like candy. If someone starts a Favre debate, I have to partake, he is so interesting to discuss and debate.

But I have promised myself to not bring him up in non-Favre threads. But once it starts, I cannot stop, I literally cannot resist, haha.
blank
Offline TOPackerFan  
#13 Posted : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:04:34 PM(UTC)
TOPackerFan

Rank: Fresh Cheesehead

Joined: 8/13/2008(UTC)


Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post

If the Packers only got to SuperBowl XXXII in spite of Favre, how about that Seattle/Packers game. With that logic, if Favre hadn't took over (IN snow), the Packers wouldn't have got to that Giants game, so is that mean that mean that the Giants game is a wash?


I'm sure Ryan Grant's franchise playoff record rushing performance had nothing to do with the comeback....


What? You did watch the game and Grants two fumbles in the first 5 minutes to make it 14-0???

Are we seriously not even going to give credit to Favre for that Seahawks game either? It was a young inexperienced team, you don't think Favre's presence, being down 14-0 in the first five minutes had anything to do with that comeback?

If you honestly can watch that game and not say Favre's calm and play was the biggest reason for that win, I don't know what to say.


I was at the game and Grant had 201 yards rushing and 3TDs (both franchise playoff records). Favre led a great drive after the second fumble, but it was almost all Grant after that.
Show me a good loser, I'll show you a loser - Vince
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
21m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

29m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / QCHuskerFan

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

20-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / olds70supreme