Favre traded to Jets (done deal)

Post #201 » by **Bulltalk** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 5:08 am

Geez. I can't believe how stupid the Packer's brass was on this Favre decision. Forget all the drama. It's about winning. Period. Preferrably Super Bowls. The Packers were a play or two away from the Super Bowl last year, and their prospects looked perhaps equally good this year.

Quarterback is by far the most important position, and they had one of the very best in their hands for this year with a Super Bowl competitive team and they turn him away. LOL LOL LOL

Am I missing something here?

NO WAY the Packers compete to go to the Super Bowl this year with a quarterback who's never started an NFL game. No way. No how.

Unbelievable.

Post #202 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 5:21 am

Bulltalk wrote:Geez. I can't believe how stupid the Packer's brass was on this Favre decision. Forget all the drama. It's about winning. Period. Preferrably Super Bowls. The Packers were a play or two away from the Super Bowl last year, and their prospects looked perhaps equally good this year.

Quarterback is by far the most important position, and they had one of the very best in their hands for this year with a Super Bowl competitive team and they turn him away. LOL LOL LOL

Am I missing something here?

NO WAY the Packers compete to go to the Super Bowl this year with a quarterback who's never started an NFL game. No way. No how.

Unbelievable.

OK, two things.

1 - See Favre's record in every big game since the Denver Super Bowl. I doesn't get much worse. Regular season wins and big stats is what you get with Favre. Smart play and clutch performances in the big games is not.

2 - What about next year? And the year after? And the year after that? They're supposed to let a QB with three years of invested development time walk away because they're going for it this season? Again, see point #1. With Favre we probably do make the playoffs. But if history is any indicator, he's going to kill you once you're there. You run the risk of being dispatched early in the post-season AND losing your QB of the future.

Post #203 » by **Wade-A-Holic** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 5:23 am

Bulltalk wrote:Geez. I can't believe how stupid the Packer's brass was on this Favre decision. Forget all the drama. It's about winning. Period. Preferrably Super Bowls. The Packers were a play or two away from the Super Bowl last year, and their prospects looked perhaps equally good this year.

Quarterback is by far the most important position, and they had one of the very best in their hands for this year with a Super Bowl competitive team and they turn him away. LOL LOL LOL

Am I missing something here?

NO WAY the Packers compete to go to the Super Bowl this year with a quarterback who's never started an NFL game. No way. No how.

Unbelievable.

Ignorant post. The Packers gave him dozens of opportunities to play. The ball was in Favre's court.

Again, I can only imagine how much it hurts Bears fans such as yourself to know that your arch rival lost a perennial pro bowler and future hall of famer at QB and yet STILL have a better quarterback than the Bears do (possibly 2 better QBs). Good luck competing for ANYTHING with an offense that will probably be out-scored by its own defense and special teams.

Post #204 » by **Bulltalk** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 5:25 am

DrugBust wrote:
Bulltalk wrote:Geez. I can't believe how stupid the Packer's brass was on this Favre decision. Forget all the drama. It's about winning. Period. Preferrably Super Bowls. The Packers were a play or two away from the Super Bowl last year, and their prospects looked perhaps equally good this year.

Quarterback is by far the most important position, and they had one of the very best in their hands for this year with a Super Bowl competitive team and they turn him away. LOL LOL LOL

Am I missing something here?

NO WAY the Packers compete to go to the Super Bowl this year with a quarterback who's never started an NFL game. No way. No how.

Unbelievable.

OK, two things.

1 - See Favre's record in every big game since the Denver Super Bowl. I doesn't get much worse. Regular season wins and big stats is what you get with Favre. Smart play and clutch performances in the big games is not.

2 - What about next year? And the year after? And the year after that? They're supposed to let a QB with three years of invested development time walk away because they're going for it this season? Again, see point #1. With Favre we probably do make the playoffs. But if history is any indicator, he's going to kill you once you're there. You run the risk of being dispatched early in the post-season AND losing your QB of the future.

The future is for dreamers. The present is for action. Favre absolutely DESTROYED my Seahawks in the semifinals last year. The Packers' brass just put my Seahawks above the Packers going into this year in the NFC race for the Super Bowl with one solitary move.

Thank you SOOOOO much Packers' brass.

Post #205 » by **Bulltalk** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 5:29 am

Wade-A-Holic wrote:
Bulltalk wrote:Geez. I can't believe how stupid the Packer's brass was on this Favre decision. Forget all the drama. It's about winning. Period. Preferrably Super Bowls. The Packers were a play or two away from the Super Bowl last year, and their prospects looked perhaps equally good this year.

Quarterback is by far the most important position, and they had one of the very best in their hands for this year with a Super Bowl competitive team and they turn him away. LOL LOL LOL

Am I missing something here?

NO WAY the Packers compete to go to the Super Bowl this year with a quarterback who's never started an NFL game. No way. No how.

Unbelievable.

Ignorant post. The Packers gave him dozens of opportunities to play. The ball was in Favre's court.

Again, I can only imagine how much it hurts Bears fans such as yourself to know that your arch rival lost a perennial pro bowler and future hall of famer at QB and yet STILL have a better quarterback than the Bears do (possibly 2 better QBs). Good luck competing for ANYTHING with an offense that will probably be out-scored by its own defense and special teams.

Ignorant post? I clearly said FORGET THE DRAMA. IT'S ABOUT WINNING. The Packers will win less this year, and have no chance to compete to get to the Super Bowl. Zero.

Post #206 » by **Wade-A-Holic** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 5:31 am

Bulltalk wrote:The future is for dreamers. The present is for action. Favre absolutely DESTROYED my Seahawks in the semifinals last year. The Packers' brass just put my Seahawks above the Packers going into this year in the NFC race for the Super Bowl with one solitary move.

Thank you SOOOOO much Packers' brass.

Assumed you were Bears fan based on your user name...

Anyways, the Packers defense is still WAY better than Seattle's, and the Packers figure to actually have a running game for an entire season - and who knows? Rodgers could have a great season.

Post #207 » by **Wade-A-Holic** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 5:35 am

Bulltalk wrote:
Ignorant post? I clearly said FORGET THE DRAMA. IT'S ABOUT WINNING. The Packers will win less this year, and have no chance to compete to get to the Super Bowl. Zero.

Exactly, forget the drama... PRECISELY what Favre was unable to do through all of this. Did you listen to ANYTHING McCarthy said? Favre could NOT get past his emotions about the entire situation.

The Packers probably would have won less this year regardless of Favre being a Packer. Repeating 13-3 seasons seldom happens.

Also, I'd be curious to know what chances you gave the Giants of getting to the Super Bowl last season, let alone winning it.

El Duderino · Post #208 » by **El Duderino** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 5:44 am

rilamann wrote:It was kind of annoying listening to the ESPN guys tonight because it seemed to me like they where realy making the Packers out to be the bad guys in this whole thing.

You woulda thought Brett Favre never retired in March and the Packers just up and threw him out the door the way they where acting.

You gotta keep in mind people here in Wisconsin view the issue on a more personal level which had so many fans picking sides on this issue and trying to decide who to blame more.

For a lot of just national observers on this issue though, they view it as a bottom line issue and don't really care who the "bad guy" was on this. All they saw was a team that went 13-3 and the QB that was second in MVP voting was told we'll pass on having you back, we're giving the job to Aaron Rodgers who has never won a single NFL football game. For a lot of people, they simply can't wrap their head around doing that, even if Favre is a drama queen. Off the top of my head, i don't think a team has ever done something like that.

Plus, all four of those guys on the panel were former very good and long time NFL players that probably could relate more to Brett's flip flopping on coming back compared to fans that can't relate at all.

While i understand why the Packers did it and i have confidence in Rodgers, i can also at least understand why some think it's insanity. The reality is even if TT/MM had legit reasons for doing this, it's a big risk to push out the door a proven commodity at the most important position in football and inserting an unproven one, especially with a talented team that could go far. So it's not exactly irrational for some in the media to think, the Packers are doing what?

Post #209 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 5:47 am

Wade-A-Holic wrote:
Bulltalk wrote:
Ignorant post? I clearly said FORGET THE DRAMA. IT'S ABOUT WINNING. The Packers will win less this year, and have no chance to compete to get to the Super Bowl. Zero.

Exactly, forget the drama... PRECISELY what Favre was unable to do through all of this. Did you listen to ANYTHING McCarthy said? Favre could NOT get past his emotions about the entire situation.

The Packers probably would have won less this year regardless of Favre being a Packer. Repeating 13-3 seasons seldom happens.

Also, I'd be curious to know what chances you gave the Giants of getting to the Super Bowl last season, let alone winning it.

Exactly. How many people thought Elisha Manning would make the Super Bowl, much less beat the Pats.

I'm not saying Rodgers can do the same this season, if ever. But I've watched Brett for the last 10 years. I'm extremely doubtful that he could either. The guy is the worst big game QB I've ever seen.

Post #210 » by **humanrefutation** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 5:47 am

paulpressey25 wrote:Ok I found it...listen to this Mort report..

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/vid ... Id=2459789

At the end, he sneaks in this bit about how the Packers have to send the Jets back a 5th round pick if Favre only plays one year......where is our media on this detail?

That's actually only partially correct, PP.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=781032

Here are the specific stipulations, per Adam Schefter.

According to the NFL Network’s Adam Schefter, who has an office at NFL headquarters in New York, the fourth-round pick from the Jets will become a third-round pick if Favre plays at least 50% of the offensive snaps.

If Favre plays 70% or more and the Jets make the playoffs, the pick would improve to the second round.

And, if Favre plays 80% or more, the Jets make the Super Bowl and Favre plays at least 50% in one playoff game, it would be a first-round selection.

If Favre retires after one season and the compensation was in the third round, the Packers would have to give the Jets their seventh-round pick in 2010.

If Favre retires after one season and the compensation was in the second round, the Packers would have to give the Jets their sixth-round pick in 2010.

And if Favre retires after one season and the compensation was in the first round, the Packers would have to give the Jets a fifth-round pick in 2010.

According to Schefter, the Jets would have to send three first-round picks to Green Bay if they were to trade him within the NFC North Division. The trade also includes provisions discouraging a scenario in which the Jets would send him to another team that in turn would deal him to an NFC North team.

Mags FTW · Post #211 » by **Mags FTW** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 6:16 am

Bulltalk wrote:The future is for dreamers. The present is for action. Favre absolutely DESTROYED my Seahawks in the semifinals last year.

No, Ryan Grant destroyed your team last year.

worthlessBucks · Post #212 » by **worthlessBucks** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 6:24 am

Mags FTW wrote:
Bulltalk wrote:The future is for dreamers. The present is for action. Favre absolutely DESTROYED my Seahawks in the semifinals last year.

No, Ryan Grant destroyed your team last year.

After he tried to give the game away of course

. The snow helped aid his fluke season :wink:

Mags FTW · Post #213 » by **Mags FTW** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 6:45 am

MFScho wrote:
Mags FTW wrote:
Bulltalk wrote:The future is for dreamers. The present is for action. Favre absolutely DESTROYED my Seahawks in the semifinals last year.

No, Ryan Grant destroyed your team last year.

After he tried to give the game away of course . The snow helped aid his fluke season

He thought he'd spot them 14 points because he didn't want to embarrass them too bad.

trwi7 · Post #214 » by **trwi7** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 12:28 pm

Couple of things on this.

1. I put most of this on Favre. He's the one who decided to retire. He can say he thought the Packers forced him to retire or he didn't feel like he was wanted or some crap like that but the fact is he took it (if it's even true.) They didn't force him, even if they tried to he can call their bluff and then the Packers have to either start him, bench him, or trade him. Then it's the Packers who look like the morons.

2. Totally agree with DrugBust. Favre has been a huge choker the past 10 years in the playoffs. He's completed 61.2% of his passes in those playoff games, thrown for an average of 246 yards but has 16 TD's to 18 INT's.

His QB ratings go as follows.

79.7
112.6
53.5
54.4
102.9
82.4
55.4
137.6
70.7

Not so good.

I'm fine with trading him and letting Rodgers start. Imagine what the players in the locker room are going to think if Favre retires, they're all preparing with Rodgers as the QB, Thompson and McCarthy keep saying Rodgers is the starting QB and then Favre comes back and is given the starting job. That's basically saying that one player is greater than the whole team. Favre is the one who put the Packers in this situation and the Packers called his bluff. It may cost Thompson and McCarthy their jobs, but I commend them for sticking to their guns.

Neusch23 · Post #215 » by **Neusch23** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 3:02 pm

I don't think it says that one player is greater than the whole team, it means that we are committed to winning now.

If Tom Brady came to the Packers, and Brett was still our QB, he would sit. Win now, while you can.

LUKE23 · Post #216 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 4:31 pm

I think it does show that one player is greater than the whole team, because you're letting that one player dictate how you are moving forward with your entire football team. Building a team in the NFL takes a lot of planning and projecting, and when you have one main cog continually going back and forth, and waiting until two weeks before training camp begins to say he wants to play, well, that makes it very hard on all involved.

That is why, had Favre just agreed to the late March meeting instead of yet again changing his mind, we wouldn't be having any of these conversations, Favre would have had plenty of time to prepare, and Rodgers would have known from the get go he was going to be backup for one more year.

Post #217 » by **paulpressey25** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 7:04 pm

John Clayton has a good column up now on ESPN.com relating to the trade and downplaying expectations for Favre in NY. He relates the Montana v. Young battle.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingc ... id=3523653

I thought this line was pretty observant:

".....49ers management wanted Montana to compete against Young, but Montana sensed the outcome. He sensed the 49ers were willing to move on. Like Favre, Montana didn't want to enter a competition he could lose. Hall of Fame quarterbacks are used to winning...."

Balls2TheWalls · Post #218 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 7:29 pm

I'm not sure I buy into the fact that Rodgers could beat Favre in a competition.

Balls2TheWalls · Post #219 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 7:30 pm

Assuming it is a fair competition.

Post #220 » by **paulpressey25** » Fri Aug 8, 2008 8:04 pm

Balls2TheWalls wrote:I'm not sure I buy into the fact that Rodgers could beat Favre in a competition.

Understand and agree. But I think Clayton's point was that a guy like Favre (or Montana) wouldn't want to take a chance with a competition. Just like the Packers never wanted Favre back in the first place (despite that goofy Mark Murphy press release), I don't think Favre ever had any intention of playing for the Packers if he had to compete for the starting job.