You make no logical sense.
"Packwillbeback" wrote:
No, YOU make no logical sense. Your argument is nothing more than a jumbled mess of straw men and
non sequiturs.
You can't just compare situations and say, well if Brett Favre was 9-7 on the Jets, he woujld be 9-7 on the Packers.
"Packwillbeback" wrote:
Nice little straw man you've set up here. I never implied any such thing, nor has anyone else on this site. All I said was even if he had taken the Packers to 9-7, the result would have been the same: no playoff berth.
Brett Favre would have run the Packer offense better than Aaron Rodgers did because TD's and Wins matter most,
"Packwillbeback" wrote:
This is a) pure speculation and b) a
non sequitur. There is no
logical connection between "would have run the Packer offense better" and "because TD's and Wins matter most." This is a
post hoc delusion you've established that doesn't even have a semblance of sense.
and Brett Favre was more comfortable with this offense and these players than he was with the Jets.
"Packwillbeback" wrote:
Another straw man. He sure didn't look uncomfortable in the first 9 games of the season.
Also, the Packer WR's are much better than the Jet WR's. The Jet WR's wouldn't even start on the Packers team.
"Packwillbeback" wrote:
More speculation. I happen to think Coles and Cotchery
could start on the Packers team. Let's look at the numbers: Jennings finished the season with 1292 yards (6th in the league); Driver with 1012 yards (20th in the league). After Driver, however, there was a huge drop-off in yardage, with Nelson catching 366 yards, Lee 303, and Jones 274. By comparison, Cotchery had 858 yards (33rd); Coles had 850 (34th). Both Jets receivers could thus have fit neatly into the gaping hole between Driver and Nelson. (And who knows how many yards they would have had, had their QB not thrown 22 INTs?)
Football isn't played on Strat-o-matic, as much as you seem to think it is.
"Packwillbeback" wrote:
Yet another straw man. You're really reaching here.
I also like how everyone's jumping on the "Bash Favre" bandwagon, or "He's lost it" bandwagon...
"Packwillbeback" wrote:
I haven't been on the Brett Favre bandwagon in
years. My wife was relieved when Favre retired this year, because I was so impatient to see what Rodgers could do for this team.
even though he beat Tennessee and New England this year, which the Packers couldn't do.
"Packwillbeback" wrote:
Ignoring the moronic "New England" reference (the Packers
didn't play New England this year), let's look at the facts. The 4-3 Packers gave the ball back to the 7-0 Titans with 1:49 remaining
tied at 16-16. They had them on the ropes. The Titans then took the ball down to the Green Bay 29 and missed a 47-yard field goal as time expired. The Titans won the toss, drove down to the Green Bay 23 and kicked a 41-yard field goal in overtime.
Yes, the Titans won in overtime, but if anything, it was Tennessee who couldn't beat the Packers. You make it sound as though the Packers were blown out by the team with the best record in football, and it just isn't so.
What if Favre has been injured . . . blah blah blah . . . When he was 8-3, blah blah blah
"Packwillbeback" wrote:
Wow, you're on a roll. In one post, you've murdered enough strawmen for several life sentences. As I've said many times on this site, I couldn't care less what Favre does for the Jets. He's no longer a Packer; therefore, I don't root for him.
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways fellas.
"Packwillbeback" wrote:
That's good, because I'm consistent.