Ready to eat a poop pie Packers management?

**isuchicago** · 11-14-2008, 08:48 AM

I don't see how the jets winning is sticking it to the packers.. the better they do, the better the draft pick the packers get for favre.. its part of the trade.. it was a smart condition on the packers part.. packers should be pulling for jets to win the SB this year.. because theyre not going to do anything..that would mean a 1st round pick

**cybsball20** · 11-14-2008, 08:49 AM

Favre is going to retire again this year... So if they would have brought him back they would be starting at square one, losing Rodgers and Favre.

**Palmer** · 11-14-2008, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

After BF has a couple of his patented 5-INT games, he'll be back to the guy who does just as much harm to the team as good. But it would have been cool watching the Vikings paste BF to the turf last week, like they did to AR.

Favre would have made the plays to beat the Vikings....just like last year.

**Palmer** · 11-14-2008, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by cybsball20

Favre is going to retire again this year... So if they would have brought him back they would be starting at square one, losing Rodgers and Favre.

If TT would have handle the situation correct 3 years ago (stroking the Diva) wouldn't have come to it.......

and the Pack wouldn't be starting Capt' brittle while Favre continues to place his team at the top of the division.

I am not a Favre apologist...but the Packers management were plain knuckleheads.

**jbhtexas** · 11-14-2008, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

Let's just say this. They have everybody back from last year. A lot of their players were considered young last year, so this year they would be more seasoned. Last year they went 13-3. This year they are 4-5.

What is the one difference on this team? Rodgers as their starter instead of Favre. But your right, their record would be no better if Favre was the QB

Returning players are no guarantee of success. Just ask the Dallas Mavericks, and there are plenty of other examples.

The Pack is presently 7th in the NFL in scoring, and 18th in the NFL in points allowed, and 28th in the NFL in rushing defense. Perhaps the issues that have led to fewer wins are on the defensive side of the ball??? But don't let facts get in the way of your Favre love.

Do you think Favre would have survived the pasting Rogers took last week?

**jaretac** · 11-14-2008, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

Let's just say this. They have everybody back from last year. A lot of their players were considered young last year, so this year they would be more seasoned. Last year they went 13-3. This year they are 4-5.

What is the one difference on this team? Rodgers as their starter instead of Favre. But your right, their record would be no better if Favre was the QB

Do you even watch the Packers? First, they have been battling injuries along the lines, but what has really been losing games for them has been the defense. Last year the Pack D allowed only 102 yards a game, this year they are allowing 154 yards a game. If you can't get the other team off the field then you are going to lose games, hello Cyclones.

**Clones85'** · 11-14-2008, 09:00 AM

[quote=jbhtexas;720197]Returning players are no guarantee of success. Just ask the Dallas Mavericks, and there are plenty of other examples.

The Pack is presently 7th in the NFL in scoring, and 18th in the NFL in points allowed, and 28th in the NFL in rushing defense. Perhaps the issues that have led to fewer wins are on the defensive side of the ball??? But don't let facts get in the way of your Favre love.

Do you think Favre would have survived the pasting Rogers took last week?[/quote]

He has survived it his whole career. So yes

And I hate to do this to you, but I must. You mention that the Packers are 7th in NFL scoring. That is great, but you FAIL to mention that their defense/special teams have accounted for 8 scores!! That is by far and away the most in the league. Numbers are a little skewed don't you think?

**Palmer** · 11-14-2008, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

Returning players are no guarantee of success. Just ask the Dallas Mavericks, and there are plenty of other examples.

The Pack is presently 7th in the NFL in scoring, and 18th in the NFL in points allowed, and 28th in the NFL in rushing defense. Perhaps the issues that have led to fewer wins are on the defensive side of the ball??? But don't let facts get in the way of your Favre love.

Do you think Favre would have survived the pasting Rogers took last week?

No Favre love here...but that hick has been doing exactly that for 16 years.

Don't let your AR love get in the way of that!

**shildreth** · 11-14-2008, 09:03 AM

I cant believe this is still being debated. Both are doing well for their respective teams. The jets have a 1 game lead in the division and the packers are 1 game out of the division lead (could take the lead this weekend with a win, just like the jets.)

Originally Posted by Palmer

Favre would have made the plays to beat the Vikings....just like last year.

or he could made a play to lose to the vikings just like 2 years ago....

Originally Posted by cybsball20

Favre is going to retire again this year... So if they would have brought him back they would be starting at square one, losing Rodgers and Favre.

EXACTLY! You were losing out on 2 QB's so you had to choose one... I think they made the obvious choice by going with the cheaper & younger option who had proven himself as the next QB in practice.

Also TT will be around for a while. He has consistently made great personnel choices. Not buying into the hype via free agency (like other NFC North teams) and working primarily through great scouting with the draft. They have dealt with several injuries to key personnel on defense (hawk, harris, barnett etc).

Let it go.

**Palmer** · 11-14-2008, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by shildreth

I cant believe this is still being debated. Both are doing well for their respective teams. The jets have a 1 game lead in the division and the packers are 1 game out of the division lead (could take the lead this weekend with a win, just like the jets.)

or he could made a play to lose to the vikings just like 2 years ago....

EXACTLY! You were losing out on 2 QB's so you had to choose one... I think they made the obvious choice by going with the cheaper & younger option who had proven himself as the next QB in practice.

Also TT will be around for a while. He has consistently made great personnel choices. Not buying into the hype via free agency (like other NFC North teams) and working primarily through great scouting with the draft. They have dealt with several injuries to key personnel on defense (hawk, harris, barnett etc).

Let it go.

or.....you could let it go and not post.

/see's Packers listed as fav team/ oh..never mind.

I find it interesting.

**jaretac** · 11-14-2008, 09:17 AM

Why don't we start a debate about whether Orton is better then Grossman. Seriously, Grossman got the Bears to a SuperBowl a couple of years ago, that guy knows how to win games. [/sarcasm]

**jbhtexas** · 11-14-2008, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

And I hate to do this to you, but I must. You mention that the Packers are 7th in NFL scoring. That is great, but you FAIL to mention that their defense/special teams have accounted for 8 scores!! That is by far and away the most in the league. Numbers are a little skewed don't you think?

So what? The TEAM (football is a TEAM sport) is scoring enough points to have a better record. The Packer's opponents so far are scoring about 20 points per game. The Packer's defense is giving up about 23 points per game, which is more than their opponents normally score. The problem is the defense, not the QB.

Also, last year, GB's opponents scored about 16 points per game. Apparently the competition is a little better so far this year.

**Clones85'** · 11-14-2008, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by jaretac

Why don't we start a debate about whether Orton is better then Grossman. Seriously, Grossman got the Bears to a SuperBowl a couple of years ago, that guy knows how to win games. [/sarcasm]

I know it's sarcasm but it's not even a valid comparison.

Aaron Rodgers is a pretty decent QB. He would be an improvement for a lot of teams. But let's not kid ourselves, he is no Favre. Favre would have that team in sole possesion of first place right now

**cycloneace55** · 11-14-2008, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by jaretac

Why don't we start a debate about whether Orton is better then Grossman. Seriously, Grossman got the Bears to a SuperBowl a couple of years ago, that guy knows how to win games. [/sarcasm]

I believe you meant to say that the Bears defense and running game got the bears to the Superbowl in spite of Grossman.

**Bobber** · 11-14-2008, 09:46 AM

I'm not expecting the Packer to do much more then they are with a first year quarterback at the helm. It takes time for them to develop.

Glad to to see Favre is having a good year. I'm his biggest fan, but still believe the change was in the best interest of both parties.

The end never seems to be pleasent for great quarterbacks. Joe Montana and San Fransico had to part ways too.