How long with Favre last as the starter??

[pacerbballer2]

I'd hate to see him go, especially with his great streak going. Chances look slim for a playoff spot for my packers. We'll see i still have a little hope left in me. As long as we have a shot at the playoffs I think he'll be in there.

[boston_aloha]

As long as he wants IMO. I don't think they'll ever tell him to sit.

[buckeyefan78]

Brett had some good numbers yesterday.

[HibachiDG]

I'd have him out right now. They need to find out if Aaron Rodgers is the QB to go to or if they still need someone.

[suedon1970]

I think Favre's performance in the next couple of games will reveal if they will bench him at all in favor of Rodgers. They play the Eagles in Philly next week....

[HibachiDG]

Why does it matter how he plays, though?

[Anthony]

I think Favre's performance in the next couple of games will reveal if they will bench him at all in favor of Rodgers. They play the Eagles in Philly next week....


Philly - where the Packers haven't won since Favre was seven years yet unborn!

[suedon1970]

Why does it matter how he plays, though?

What do you mean why does it matter? If Favre plays like s*** (which he probably will against the Eagles), then they will more likely bring in Rodgers to give him more game experience.

[HibachiDG]

Right, but the point is, even if Favre plays GREAT...why not bring Rodgers in? Why does it matter how Favre plays? They're not going to win if he plays great, they're not going to win if he plays awful...so why does it matter? Just bring in Rodgers now and find out if he is their future.

[suedon1970]

they're not going to win if he plays great, they're not going to win if he plays awful...so why does it matter?

Not necessarily - quarterbacks (especially seasoned ones with tons of experience) can make the difference in ANY game, especially a close one. Why would you want to break up the rhythm of the offense if it is a close game by bringing in an untested QB off the bench? IMO, unless he has thrown 4 INTs and not produced anything on offense in a particular game, THEN bring in Rodgers.......

Of the three games the Packers have played so far this season, Favre has thrown 6 TDs and 3 INTs, and completed almost 60% of his passes. Yes, they were blown out by the Bears, but they could've beat the Saints and they did beat the Lions. I don't think it is time to throw him under the bus just yet....

[HibachiDG]

They're one of the few teams without a shot at the playoffs even with Favre, if he were to play great. So, you say the hell with the future...for what? They NEED to find out if Rodgers is the QB of their future right now. If he's not, then they'll need to speed up the process of finding a new one. You want to tank the future of the franchise because Favre beat the LIONS?

[suedon1970]

They're one of the few teams without a shot at the playoffs even with Favre, if he were to play great. So, you say the hell with the future...for what? They NEED to find out if Rodgers is the QB of their future right now. If he's not, then they'll need to speed up the process of finding a new one. You want to tank the future of the franchise because Favre beat the LIONS?

No, I am not saying they should tank their future, but why the heck write off the season after THREE games? Let Rodgers get some game experience if the situation warrants it, but if they can win games this year and have a respectable season (even minus the playoffs) with Favre, what is so wrong with that? They can always pick up an experienced QB in the offseason. Why is Rodgers the end-all, be-all for this team?

[HibachiDG]

"even minus the playoffs"...well, if they don't go to the playoffs, then there is absolutely no reason to play Brett Favre.

When did I say Rodgers was the end-all, be-all for them? My point is that they have to find out whether or not he is their QB of the future or if they need one.

[suedon1970]

"even minus the playoffs"...well, if they don't go to the playoffs, then there is absolutely no reason to play Brett Favre.


I'm sorry, but I root for teams that want to win NOW (with capable personnel) rather than 3 years from now, and I would rather have a team be 6-10 with Favre (and Rodgers playing sporadically) than 2-14 with Rodgers playing every freakin' down of every game.

But you're probably right - they should've just let Brett ride the pine for the entire season (more than likely the last one for one of the best QBs to ever play the game, IMO), since you said earlier that they weren't projected to go to the playoffs anyway, long before the first game was even played.

[MountaineerDave]

Sue, consider these questions one at a time:

1. If you are Tennessee, whom do you play at QB? Old and busted, or new hotness?
2. If you were Jacksonville four years ago, whom do you play at QB? Old and busted, or new hotness?
3. If you are Houston, when do you determine that David Carr is not the answer?
4. If you are Baltimore, whom do you play at QB? Old, busted but still the hotness, or fresher, younger, but not even lukewarm?

There's no clear answer to any of these but #4, and the reason that you go with old, busted but hot is because you have a reasonable amount of talent surrounding him, and you happen to know that he's probably not done.

In Green Bay, there isn't any legitimate talent surrounding #4. The likelihood that the Packers are going anywhere this year is right there with the likelihoods surrounding Tennessee, Houston, Oakland, and Detroit.

And, ask yourself this: If the difference is 6-10 v 2-14, what's the real difference? Win two games and find out if the kid you spent a first round draft pick two years ago can help you or not. Or waste yet another year of the draft because you're hanging on to to glory long since lost.

You mentioned at one point getting a free agent QB. Yeah, how is that working in Miami? Oakland? Tennessee? Arizona?
All of these teams are looking to their rookie or second year guys to start or play significant roles NEXT WEEK. Except Miami, where they banked on veteran losers, and will be paying for that mistake for the next three to five years.
Free agent QB success, in the last five years, can be summed up with three names that I can think of: Drew Bledsoe, who's been good twice in that five years, but whose longevity this season has already been called into question, and likely not for the last time, Drew Brees, around whom there seems to be some real talent (at least offensively) and young enough that the Saints can actually grow around and with him, and Matt Hasselbeck, whose success has been slow and painful, but ultimately worth it. In the meantime, though, Holmgren's been nearly fired twice, so...

McCarthy has a limited amount of time to turn things around. It's a nasty truism (that I personally find odious) in the NFL, and if he can't win this year with old and busted or the kid about whom nothing is known, he needs to know that SUNDAY.
Can Rodgers play in the NFL? They pay him good money to sit and learn from a guy who, by all accounts, isn't all that interesting in teaching anything. So no one knows.
The time to find out, if not this Sunday, surely must come with the game after that, regardless of what happens this Sunday.

[HibachiDG]

I'm sorry, but I root for teams that want to win NOW (with capable personnel) rather than 3 years from now, and I would rather have a team be 6-10 with Favre (and Rodgers playing sporadically) than 2-14 with Rodgers playing every freakin' down of every game.

Well, ok, if this is what you'd want for your team, then I just don't think you're a fan. This is silly logic that casual observers that don't really care about a team throw out. Reality is, you take the 2-14 season because it's not that much different from a 6-10 season (you're not going to the playoffs at 6-10) and you know more about the team and have more potential for the next season.

But you're probably right - they should've just let Brett ride the pine for the entire season (more than likely the last one for one of the best QBs to ever play the game, IMO), since you said earlier that they weren't projected to go to the playoffs anyway, long before the first game was even played.

Well, I can sense the sarcasm here and simply want to respond by saying that yes, I did determine before they played the first game that they weren't going to compete for the playoffs. Yes, I understand the fluctuations of the NFL these days, but it's also becoming more and more easy to notice who is going to be involved in these fluctuations and who is going to be out right bad. It didn't take rocket science to come up with the Packers as a team that I thought had no shot.

Even with parity, you notice things about how organizations are run. While I'm certainly not going to sit here and say that before the season I can gauge which teams are going to be playoff bound and which aren't, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to predict a bad season for the Packers before this season even got under way.

BUT...that doesn't matter at all, because, hell, I could turn out wrong on that, I felt that Aaron Rodgers should have been playing at the end of last season, so I certainly feel he should have started from game 1 this season.

[doublee]

Ultimately, isn't the point really one of that the Packers probably win 4 or 5 games this year regardless if Favre is the QB or not?

[Anthony]

Leave Doug alone - can't you see that he's still crabby from happened to Michigan State against Notre Dame on Saturday? (At least MSU grad Rashad Evans had a big win at UFC 63 that night - but I guess he must have missed that).

But more seriously: When the Packers do start Rodgers, they will discover what I already know - what they have is the biggest bust this side of Dolly Parton (but no matter when Rodgers is brought in the Packers will still manage six wins because of the huge strength-of-schedule drop they're taking from last year).

[suedon1970]

Well, ok, if this is what you'd want for your team, then I just don't think you're a fan. This is silly logic that casual observers that don't really care about a team throw out. Reality is, you take the 2-14 season because it's not that much different from a 6-10 season (you're not going to the playoffs at 6-10) and you know more about the team and have more potential for the next season.

Even with parity, you notice things about how organizations are run. While I'm certainly not going to sit here and say that before the season I can gauge which teams are going to be playoff bound and which aren't, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to predict a bad season for the Packers before this season even got under way.

BUT...that doesn't matter at all, because, hell, I could turn out wrong on that, I felt that Aaron Rodgers should have been playing at the end of last season, so I certainly feel he should have started from game 1 this season.

The first paragraph is where you are dead wrong Doug. I am a fan of the Bucs and the game as a whole (not of the Packers, BTW), and I want to see my team win as many games as possible. Don't ever call me a "casual observer" - I have been a Bucs fan long before their relative success of the 90s and the SB win of a few years ago.

I don't understand your logic of throwing a season away just to see how well a relatively new QB does. You mention parity, and that is true now more than ever in the NFL. It's like the adage "any given Sunday" and it seems to hold true most of the time. That's why IMO Favre should get the most playing time right now. However, I totally agree with you that Rodgers should have gotten significant playing time at the end of last season.

This whole discussion is really a moot point; I would venture to guess that Brett Favre came back to play one more year with the stipulation that he play as much as possible, barring injury.

[HibachiDG]

Well, I know you're a Bucs fan rather than the Packers, as I see it in your signature. I'm just saying that if you wanted to sacrifice the future of the team you root for a couple more wins, I think that's the thought process of a casual observer, not a fan...I stick to that, BUT, it's clear that you don't think they're sacrificing their future. If I added facts to things, saying that if they went 6-10 with Favre this season and it locked up three 6-10 seasons after this, but going 2-14 with Rodgers this year would lead to playoff possibilities in some of the next three seasons, which are you going to take? I realize that you're not thinking along those lines, but just for the fan/casual observer thing.

I don't know if any of that made sense, I'm about to rush out to a class, but figured I'd try to explain the fan/casual observer thing more.

[suedon1970]

Well, I know you're a Bucs fan rather than the Packers, as I see it in your signature. I'm just saying that if you wanted to sacrifice the future of the team you root for a couple more wins, I think that's the thought process of a casual observer, not a fan...I stick to that, BUT, it's clear that you don't think they're sacrificing their future. If I added facts to things, saying that if they went 6-10 with Favre this season and it locked up three 6-10 seasons after this, but going 2-14 with Rodgers this year would lead to playoff possibilities in some of the next three seasons, which are you going to take? I realize that you're not thinking along those lines, but just for the fan/casual observer thing.

I don't know if any of that made sense, I'm about to rush out to a class, but figured I'd try to explain the fan/casual observer thing more.

Again, for the upteenth time, I don't understand how playing Favre at this point in the very young season and benching Rodgers is going to "sacrifice" the Packers' future. The team is obviously not that good in several other skill positions other than QB. Maybe the organization should also focus on that, too. And again, we are discussing this after the THIRD game of the season. 6 TDs and 3 INTs and a 1-2 record is not grounds for benching Favre right now, IMO, and I am sticking with that opinion, whether you feel that is a "casual observer's" opinion or not. I really could care less.

Let's face the facts: Packer fans will root for their team regardless of who's playing at QB, but since Favre is god in their eyes, they will get pretty pissed if the coach benches him for the rest of the season in favor of Rodgers, it is as simple as that......

[bama4256]

He has so many young players around him. I see them winning no more than six games this season if that. I believe Brett Favre will return in 2007.

[tobynosker]

If this were prior to the start of the season, I would have had no issues with Green Bay if they decided to start Aaron Rodgers over Brett Favre to begin the year. But now, with the team remaining competitive (outside of the Chicago blow-out, which was to be expected) so far this season under Favre, you should either:

1.) Wait for Brett Favre to lose his starting job
2.) Wait for Aaron Rodgers to earn the starting job

or, at the very least, wait until the team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs before you decide to make a change. Otherwise, I agree with Sue, that Green Bay would just be throwing away this season.

While I agree with the majority of people that Green Bay will not be making the playoffs this year, home games with St. Louis, Arizona, Minnesota and Detroit, as well as road games with Miami, Buffalo and San Francisco could still be winnable ballgames this season.

I honestly don't believe this team will near a .500 record this season, but the job of any club is to put the best assembled team possible on the field every Sunday and let them decide their own fate. Once that fate is decided, then you can make changes and build towards the future.

[NY Jay 05]

^ How is Rodgers supposed to earn the starting job when he doesn't get a chance to play? Honestly, I think Brett Favre should have retired 2 or 3 years ago. Over the last couple of seasons, combined with the fact that he was lacking talent around him, his decision making seems to have gotten worse and worse. I think Aaron Rodgers has sat on the bench long enough and at the very least deserves a chance to show what he's got.

[Marc]

Why the talk about benching Favre after he had 300+ yards, 3 TDs, and 0 INTs? He hasn't been turning the ball over as much as 2005. As long as he doesn't make stupid throws, he has what it takes to be a worthy starter still. I think the time to play Aaron Rodgers is the second half of the season if it's clear the Packers are going to be sub-.500. But as of now, they are 1-2 and should be 2-1 if not for blowing a lead to the Saints. I am not throwing the season in the trash yet.

The Packers need to overcome two problems: running game (tied to young, improving o-line) and pass defense, particularly their below-average safeties (Manuel and Collins). With the considerable youth of this team, I am holding out hope they can continue to mesh and come out respectable. They have improved each game, even A.J. Hawk has made plays.

Dave is off-base with his comment that the Packers have no talent around #4. Less talent than the '90s, yes, but NO talent? Donald Driver is a HELL of a receiver and is one of the leaders in reception yards this season. Nick Barnett and AJ Hawk are one of the brighest LB tandems in the league. Al Harris is a top cornerback and he and Woodson are very solid together. Ahman Green is healthy and has the explosiveness, when he isn't fumbling or struggling behind an inexperienced o-line. There is talent on this team, just not experience and the amount of talent they had in the '90s.

You can't bench Brett Favre the same way you can't fire Joe Paterno.

[Tarkus]

I'll just save my strength & piggyback on Sue's, Marc's, & Toby's points....

They've said it all....

[Anthony]

Well, I know you're a Bucs fan rather than the Packers, as I see it in your signature. I'm just saying that if you wanted to sacrifice the future of the team you root for a couple more wins, I think that's the thought process of a casual observer, not a fan...I stick to that, BUT, it's clear that you don't think they're sacrificing their future. If I added facts to things, saying that if they went 6-10 with Favre this season and it locked up three 6-10 seasons after this, but going 2-14 with Rodgers this year would lead to playoff possibilities in some of the next three seasons, which are you going to take? I realize that you're not thinking along those lines, but just for the fan/casual observer thing.

I don't know if any of that made sense, I'm about to rush out to a class, but figured I'd try to explain the fan/casual observer thing more.



True, it's not the same sport, but I guess Moises Alou is not your kind of guy, Doug: After winning Tuesday night's game for the Giants with a walk-off home run, all he kept going on about in the post-game interview was how important it was for San Francisco to finish ahead of Arizona (who they beat that night) and Colorado for third place in the NL West.

Maybe the Packers - and many of their fans - feel the same way about beating out the Lions for third place in the NFC North.

From where I sit, this is the proper ethical arrangement; and I'm firmly in favor of the NFL adopting a draft lottery.

[Tarkus]

After reading this thread more thoroughly, I'd just throw out a few more points:

I was recently arguing these points with a couple of Pack fans...Imagine, a Bear fan siding with Favre keepin' his gig...go figure...:rolleyes:

First that the offense with all it's youth is as important a part as QB as far as gaining experience. Having Favre back there being able to lead/teach/correct the OL on their assignments on the field & having their ear when it came to being heard by being a Pro Bowl QB is key to their development.

Having a QB who is at game speed & knows the defenses like Favre is important to the young receivers in their learning curve. A great example is the Bears signing Muhsin Muhammad, an excellent receiver from the Panthers, then being forced to use rookie Kyle Orton. It made Moose look like a 1st year receiver due to KO's shortcomings. Favre is needed to smooth the transition between the 2...

Having Favre gives the coaches a better look at the real talent in these positions instead of a young QB that is guaranteed to be behind game speed & reading defenses. Rodgers needs to get out there to show what he's got but it should have been at the end of last year. With this new blood, it makes more sense to be solid at QB & allow at least the 1st half of the season or when the Pack aren't in contention, for the offense to gel as much as it can before throwing Rodgers in.

Offense relies on timing & being in sync & putting Rodgers in this early in the year won't benefit him or the OL/receivers IMO. Receivers gaining experience & confidence under Favre would be invaluable to Rodgers when he finally makes his appearence.

Besides that, a lot of the players have incentives which if it's obvious that the Pack is deciding a 2-14 season is worth it, the team will fall apart as far as morale, drive, etc. You don't give up on a team who will undoubtedly feel it can compete until proven otherwise.

True, the Pack fans are a rabid, loyal bunch but if the Pack gives up on the season to test a young QB too early, especially one who will endure a weak OL showing until they mature a little, they will have failed in putting the best team possible on the field which will have those same fans booing their asses off during games which I'm sure will help a youg QB unfortunate enough to be the guy that replaced their legendary #4...

So I say run till about 8 games or when they're out of contention to find time for Rodgers entrance. If he shows some promise & this team stabilizes a bit, I can also see Favre coming back for 1 more season to allow more growth for him if needed.

So, to me at least, it's not so simple as a change of just QB & definitely too early to panic....

[MountaineerDave]

You can't bench Brett Favre the same way you can't fire Joe Paterno.

Bull****.

Favre ****ed his team around all off season, "I might retire, I might not retire. Depends on whether they trade for somebody I like."

I'd bench him just for that. Which I think I suggested in the offseason.

And, it's a matter of the future, as Doug suggested. 2-14 and 6-10 aren't ANY different at all in what is the NFL scheme of things today. With one exception: the

Favre won't play forever, and he'll continue to go through this meditation process, holding his team hostage, and the fans of this team hostage, until he either retires or is traded, each offseason.

That's neither fair to the fans of Green Bay(especially those in Green Bay who pay his salary) nor to the fans of the game (who watch an increasingly desperate player play increasingly desperately).

Is the team supposed to grow around a guy whose penchant for mistakes is superceded only by Kurt Warner's and Daunte Culpepper's similar propensities? Really?

Of course not.

You bench him for Rodgers because it's time to make decisions for the future.
I'm willing to hold off till Week 8, as tarkus suggested (btw, I would do a point by point rebuttal of his post, but I don't really have the time), since they'd likely be out of playoff contention by then.

The coming or going of Paterno changes the very fabric of the Penn State football program. He promises to continue to hang on. He doesn't head into every January scratching his head, muttering, "I might retire. I might not. Depends on the recruiting class."
He heads into each January saying next year will be better. Even when he knows that the year before (say, last year) couldn't have been any better.

There's a difference.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by MountaineerDave
Is the team supposed to grow around a guy whose penchant for mistakes is superceded only by Kurt Warner's and Daunte Culpepper's similar propensities? Really?

Coincidentally Favre, Warner and Culpepper will all be starting for their respective teams this week.

[buckeyefan78]

After reading this thread more thoroughly, I'd just throw out a few more points:

I was recently arguing these points with a couple of Pack fans...Imagine, a Bear fan siding with Favre keepin' his gig...go figure...:rolleyes:

First that the offense with all it's youth is as important a part as QB as far as gaining experience. Having Favre back there being able to lead/teach/correct the OL on their assignments on the field & having their ear when it came to being heard by being a Pro Bowl QB is key to their development.

Having a QB who is at game speed & knows the defenses like Favre is important to the young receivers in their learning curve. A great example is the Bears signing Muhsin Muhammad, an excellent receiver from the Panthers, then being forced to use rookie Kyle Orton. It made Moose look like a 1st year receiver due to KO's shortcomings. Favre is needed to smooth the transition between the 2...

Having Favre gives the coaches a better look at the real talent in these positions instead of a young QB that is guaranteed to be behind game speed & reading defenses. Rodgers needs to get out there to show what he's got but it should have been at the end of last year. With this new blood, it makes more sense to be solid at QB & allow at least the 1st half of the season or when the Pack aren't in contention, for the offense to gel as much as it can before throwing Rodgers in.

Offense relies on timing & being in sync & putting Rodgers in this early in the year won't benefit him or the OL/receivers IMO. Receivers gaining experience & confidence under Favre would be invaluable to Rodgers when he finally makes his appearence.

Besides that, a lot of the players have incentives which if it's obvious that the Pack is deciding a 2-14 season is worth it, the team will fall apart as far as morale, drive, etc. You don't give up on a team who will undoubtedly feel it can compete until proven otherwise.

True, the Pack fans are a rabid, loyal bunch but if the Pack gives up on the season to test a young QB too early, especially one who will endure a weak OL showing until they mature a little, they will have failed in putting the best team possible on the field which will have those same fans booing their asses off during games which I'm sure will help a youg QB unfortunate enough to be the guy that replaced their legendary #4...

So I say run till about 8 games or when they're out of contention to find time for Rodgers entrance. If he shows some promise & this team stabilizes a bit, I can also see Favre coming back for 1 more season to allow more growth for him if needed.

So, to me at least, it's not so simple as a change of just QB & definitely too early to panic....

This will go down in the annals of SCMB as one of the best posts ever by Tarkus.

Too bad it is/will be ignored. :lol:

[HibachiDG]

After reading this thread more thoroughly, I'd just throw out a few more points:

I was recently arguing these points with a couple of Pack fans...Imagine, a Bear fan siding with Favre keepin' his gig...go figure...:rolleyes:

First that the offense with all it's youth is as important a part as QB as far as gaining experience. Having Favre back there being able to lead/teach/correct the OL on their assignments on the field & having their ear when it came to being heard by being a Pro Bowl QB is key to their development.

Having a QB who is at game speed & knows the defenses like Favre is important to the young receivers in their learning curve. A great example is the Bears signing Muhsin Muhammad, an excellent receiver from the Panthers, then being forced to use rookie Kyle Orton. It made Moose look like a 1st year receiver due to KO's shortcomings. Favre is needed to smooth the transition between the 2...

Having Favre gives the coaches a better look at the real talent in these positions instead of a young QB that is guaranteed to be behind game speed & reading defenses. Rodgers needs to get out there to show what he's got but it should have been at the end of last year. With this new blood, it makes more sense to be solid at QB & allow at least the 1st half of the season or when the Pack aren't in contention, for the offense to gel as much as it can before throwing Rodgers in.

Offense relies on timing & being in sync & putting Rodgers in this early in the year won't benefit him or the OL/receivers IMO. Receivers gaining experience & confidence under Favre would be invaluable to Rodgers when he finally makes his appearence.

Besides that, a lot of the players have incentives which if it's obvious that the Pack is deciding a 2-14 season is worth it, the team will fall apart as far as morale, drive, etc. You don't give up on a team who will undoubtedly feel it can compete until proven otherwise.

True, the Pack fans are a rabid, loyal bunch but if the Pack gives up on the season to test a young QB too early, especially one who will endure a weak OL showing until they mature a little, they will have failed in putting the best team possible on the field which will have those same fans booing their asses off during games which I'm sure will help a youg QB unfortunate enough to be the guy that replaced their legendary #4...

So I say run till about 8 games or when they're out of contention to find time for Rodgers entrance. If he shows some promise & this team stabilizes a bit, I can also see Favre coming back for 1 more season to allow more growth for him if needed.

So, to me at least, it's not so simple as a change of just QB & definitely too early to panic....

Huge, HUGE flaw in all of this...it's fantasy, not embedded in reality. We'd love it if this were the actual case, but reality is that the quarterback position is the most important one on the offensive side of the field. Then, you add to this that it's so, so much harder to fill out the QB spot than it is to bring in WRs, or offensive linemen. You could have all those other young spots gel, then try to bring a QB and it all goes to ****. But, when you have a good, young, franchise type QB, you become a much hotter commodity to help fill these spots out. Especially when you take into account the vast turnover at every other position. So, you break these young players in around Favre and they either go elsewhere or their talent dissolves if the QB picture isn't cleared up.

It's such a rarity to follow that blueprint these days. I mean, if the Saints keep up their success then you have an outside shot at attaching this argument, but it's still an outside shot of applying this to that team. It's not a bad thought, but it just doesn't work in the NFL right now.

[Tarkus]

Huge, HUGE flaw in all of this...it's fantasy, not embedded in reality.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well you told me, didn't cha??? :lol:

It's obvious that you've never played the game nor paid much attention to more than the simple things like a quick change, Jiffy Lube style, of QBs, Doug.

It's EXACTLY reality....

We'd love it if this were the actual case, but reality is that the quarterback position is the most important one on the offensive side of the field.

Yes it is & a guage of how good your young QB might be, as in the Pack case, will be overshadowed by inexperienced receivers & his well being jeopordized by an OL learning on the job. This fallacy that some embrace of learning thru losing is ridiculous by nature.

Rodgers will have plenty, & I mean plenty, of time to showcase what he has this year. The Pack will find time cuz they have to & I'm sure realize Favre's time is winding down. To compare throwing an inexperienced QB into the current fray to his going in to that same offense with a few games under their belts makes no sense. There is no "Gotta find out this minute" scenario that would make that a sound idea whatsoever...

Then, you add to this that it's so, so much harder to fill out the QB spot than it is to bring in WRs, or offensive linemen. You could have all those other young spots gel, then try to bring a QB and it all goes to ****.

You're losin' me fast with this break in direction, Doug...

An easy counter to that doomsday view is that Rodgers makes an appearance behind an OL that, like all OLs, need time to get in sync with the blocking schemes & master them to the best of their ability. That's OL work #101. NO OL starts out & immediately run blocks & pass blocks well together. OLs are based on teamwork, not individual talent so throwing your hot prospect behind one too early is just bad coaching. Of course, the Pack missed the boat last year late to see a bit of him but at least now are showing the proper restraint IMO.

So I guess you're point is why take the trouble letting the offense get as good as they can get in probably about 8 games cuz it might go to ****???

Not a football type decision IMO, I'm afraid...

But, when you have a good, young, franchise type QB, you become a much hotter commodity to help fill these spots out. Especially when you take into account the vast turnover at every other position.

I'm not trying to be flippant but try as I might, I just can't make this make sense to me. Maybe a re-wording or further explanation might help.

I will comment on the line about franchise type QB tho. Rodgers has shown none of that so far. Of course the little he was in, he was behind an injury riddled OL & depleted receiving corp. Those kind of things could play a part in how bad he's looked, I guess...:rolleyes: Sound familiar??? & you think throwing him to the wolves now will let you see how good he is??? A young QB, who would be relentlessly blitzed, sacked, & the risk that 1 of the big killers of a lot of young QBs, the shattering of their confidence, behind an OL that's already had Favre running for his life at times with only his experience at finding the open man keeping the sack total from being higher. Add to that of having only Driver as THE Man who of course is startin' to draw triple coverage & a bunch of no name receivers...A recipe for disaster, I'm afraid...

I just don't know what else to say....:thumbdown:



So, you break these young players in around Favre and they either go elsewhere or their talent dissolves if the QB picture isn't cleared up.

Go where??? What??? In the middle of the season, these guys slink off in the night? C'mon, Doug...

As far as their talent dissolving....:rolleyes: I guess it's more important to rush to a conclusion of how good Rodgers is to you but that's just not sound thinking. My post wasn't re-inventing the wheel or my version of The Theory Of Relativity, it's what coaching staffs have done since the first kickoff.

Let's just say, for the moment, that you throw Rodgers in & he fails miserably. Does this give the Pack a jump at another franchise QB on sale somewhere? Of course not...It would be addressed at the end of the year no matter what....

It's such a rarity to follow that blueprint these days. I mean, if the Saints keep up their success then you have an outside shot at attaching this argument, but it's still an outside shot of applying this to that team. It's not a bad thought, but it just doesn't work in the NFL right now.

Blueprints are only successful if you have the parts. Of course, there's a slew of teams with QB problems that don't have the time or luxury to follow this basic blueprint but that doesn't change it or give it an expiration date.

As it is, Rodgers may have something inside to show but the reality may be that the rest of the Pack offense just isn't good enough to let it play out. No one knows at this particular moment tho this staff apparently knows football cuz they're in the process of working towards an offense that a young QB will have the best possible chance to showcase his wares. We'll see if these parts have enough in the near future to give the kid a fair shake but that time is not now....not IMO nor the Pack staff apparently...

Jeez....I just realized that Sue at least got a tag of casual fan. My 40 years of following football got me apparently banished from reality & sentenced to FantasyLand....:P

[Tarkus]

Too bad it is/will be ignored. :lol:

:lol:

Guess you were wrong on that one...

Hey...if you're not doin' anything later, swing over to NeverLand & we'll play make believe....:thumbup:

[Tarkus]

Bull****.

Favre ****ed his team around all off season, "I might retire, I might not retire. Depends on whether they trade for somebody I like."

I'd bench him just for that. Which I think I suggested in the offseason.

My thoughts were where we're at at this point, Dave, but I agree the prima donna act should have been given a harsh response...

I'm willing to hold off till Week 8, as tarkus suggested (btw, I would do a point by point rebuttal of his post, but I don't really have the time), since they'd likely be out of playoff contention by then.

Hope you'll find the time, Dave. Like to hear your slant on them.

If you do find the time tho, forward your post. I've since left NeverLand. I found the cutest cottage in the Twilight Zone....:D

I'm serious tho. Post if you can about 'em...

[HibachiDG]

Jeez....I just realized that Sue at least got a tag of casual fan. My 40 years of following football got me apparently banished from reality & sentenced to FantasyLand...

Well, your posts do seem like they've developed off of 40 years of watching football and thinking the same thing is going to work right now. Maybe fantasy wasn't the right word, it's just that I think you need to adapt. I know you're not reinventing the wheel, and that's probably part of the problem.

Like I said, there's only one team that I think would fit the blueprint of what you're talking about, so I'm not laying my chips in that basket.

[Tarkus]

Fair enough, Doug...

I just disagree since the mode of attack nowadays is as much pressure as possible to keep the QB from being comfortable back there. Today's athletes are bigger, stronger, & faster than ever before but the one thing that's stayed constant is finding good QBs that can stay on the field.

Rushing a young one out too early without some semblance of order on that Pack offense is still just too early IMO...

We'll just leave this at you think I need to adapt & I think you shouldn't put the cart before the horse....:D

[Tarkus]

Sign of the times...

Apparently my view isn't so outdated after all....;)

I guess my 40 years wasn't spent on just "watching" football....:P

QBs at risk against unrelenting defenses

So what's goin' down, man, in the first month of the NFL season?

Quarterbacks.

And they're hitting the deck at an alarming rate.

Through the first three weeks of the 2006 campaign, defenses have stormed the pocket mercilessly, pillaging punch-drunk passers at a near-record pace. And while the savage sack attack hasn't knocked out many quarterbacks -- the severe concussion sustained by Kansas City's Trent Green came while he was out of the pocket, and no one can really identify the precise hit that left Tampa Bay's Chris Simms with a ruptured spleen -- some league observers fear that the bludgeoning, if unabated, will eventually take its toll on the game's highest-profile position.

"Guys are definitely getting sacked at a pretty scary rate," conceded Detroit quarterback Jon Kitna, who had been sacked an average of 30.2 times in his five previous seasons as a starter, but who is now on pace to go down 48 times in 2006.

How scary? Through three weeks, a stretch that includes 46 games, defenses have rung up 227 sacks, or an average of 4.93 sacks per contest. That's a 7.6 percent increase over the first three weeks of the 2005 season. Project those numbers over the course of the '06 season, and it would total 1,263 sacks, or 67 more than the highest number recorded since the league adopted a 256-game schedule in 2002.

Fittingly, that was the season in which the expansion Houston Texans, a franchise that has surrendered a mind-blowing 2.91 sacks per game in its brief but badly bruised history, entered the league. The Texans list their official colors as "deep steel blue, battle red and liberty white," but try convincing an embattled David Carr, who has been sacked 10 times in three games, that they aren't simply black and blue.

"If we can't [protect Charlie Frye] any better," acknowledged Cleveland Browns coach Romeo Crennel, whose young starter has been sacked a dozen times in three outings, "we will be talking about another quarterback [soon]."

At least in the second game of the season, a Sept. 17 defeat at Cincinnati, Frye got a break, as the Bengals failed to sack the second-year veteran even once. But sandwiched around that one-week respite were games in which Frye was sacked five times (versus New Orleans) and seven times (against Baltimore). Dating back to 2005, Frye has been sacked 34 times in the first eight starts of his career.

His tough hide aside, that's not the kind of "Survivor" game in which Frye, or any other quarterback for that matter, wants to be an unwitting and unprotected contestant. But unless offensive coordinators soon devise a way to staunch the pass-rush schemes their units have faced in the first three weeks, there might not be many able-bodied guys left on the NFL island to play quarterback.

Take that many hits, and bloodied eventually leads to bowed, and bowed translates into substandard play at a position whose performance is generally the most essential component to success. Historically, in most wars of attrition, it is characteristically the party under siege that runs up the white flag. The banner for NFL quarterbacks in 2006 might be a white flag with a red cross sewn on it.

Embroidered with the exacting handiwork of surgical stitches.

At the current pace, this will be the most sack-happy season since 2000, when the league averaged 4.97 sacks per contest.

Think about this: In just two of 46 games, Tennessee-San Diego on Sept. 17 and Denver-New England last Sunday night, have there been no sacks. On the flip side, 22 games, or nearly half the contests played in the first three weeks of the season, featured six sacks or more. There were 13 games with seven sacks, nine with eight sacks and five games in which defenses recorded nine sacks.

Individual quarterbacks have been sacked five times or more on 15 occasions. That's a five-sack game against some poor, badly cocooned human piñata every three outings to this juncture of the season. Even some quarterbacks who are supposed to be elusive have been unable to avoid heavy pass-rushes. Daunte Culpepper of Miami, who clearly isn't all the way back from the severe knee injury that he sustained last October, has been sacked a league-high 15 times. Atlanta's Michael Vick has been sacked once every 8.6 "dropbacks," an incredibly high ratio for a player with his "escapability" skills.

One positive might be that the Week 3 schedule averaged only 4.07 sacks per game, down from 5.56 sacks per contest in the second week of the season, which perhaps indicates that offensive line units are starting to meld. Still, a lot of folks in the league feel the pressure on quarterbacks will be unrelenting throughout the year, with defensive coordinators hell-bent on bringing the heat.

"It's become a 'get the quarterback' game now, and [coordinators] are selling out to the pass-rush," said former NFL quarterback Bobby Hebert. "Offensive lines just aren't as good, because they aren't able to stay together as long, and everybody seems to have one or two great pass-rushers. It's like a perfect storm that kind of [converges] at the quarterback. I think we're going to continue to see a lot of sacks."

The sack-craze pace almost certainly won't hold for individual defenders, but through three weeks, there are 29 players on pace for double-digit sack seasons in 2006. Seventeen players are on pace for 15 sacks or more and Baltimore linebacker Bart Scott and Philadelphia end Trent Cole, the league leaders with five sacks, are on pace to smash the NFL's single-season record of 22½. Last season, just 16 players recorded 10 sacks or more and league sack champion Derrick Burgess of Oakland was the lone player with more than 15.

So why the sudden rash of ruthless rushers? Offensive lines, on average, replaced 2.16 starters in their lineups for 2006. The offenses that have permitted the most sacks at 15 each, Miami and Oakland (in just two games), have made sweeping line changes, altered their protections and have new coordinators and new quarterbacks. Cincinnati, which allowed only 21 sacks for all of 2005, has been forced because of injuries to employ three different starting line combinations in three games, and has already surrendered 11 sacks.

"One of the things you have to be able to do in this league is [pass] protect," said Oakland coach Art Shell, a Hall of Fame offensive tackle who might be the best pass-blocker currently drawing a Raiders' paycheck. "And we haven't done a good job for any number of reasons."

Teams certainly can't count on the league to provide any relief. League officials have legislated about as much quarterback protection as possible. Game officials seem to be reaching for their flags if defenders so much as breathe on a quarterback after he has released the ball. It's going to be necessary for offenses to adjust and adapt and, to this point at least, they haven't demonstrated the ability to keep pass-rushers from breaching the pocket.

Blitz quotients leaguewide are elevated slightly from the levels at the corresponding point of last season. Offensive coordinators continue to spread the field more, with four-wide receiver formations, and are relying more on quarterbacks to get the ball out quickly than on protection schemes. And in a bit of de-evolution, a few teams are using more seven-step drops, a surprising element in a league where three- and five-step pass drops have been in vogue for years.

It's all become a sore point, actually more like a painful welt, for quarterbacks to this point. And while there is hope that offenses will catch up to the defensive tactics being used, there are no guarantees right now that quarterbacks will be better insulated over the final three months of the season.

The Seattle Seahawks led the league in sacks in 2005, with 50, and there are currently seven defenses on pace to top that number.

"We just feel like, if you play us, you're going to get hit," said Eagles tackle Mike Patterson, referring to a Philadelphia defense that registered just 29 sacks last season but already has 16 in 2006. "After last year, we made a commitment to getting to the quarterback again. And we're not going to slow down until we knock [the quarterback] down a bunch of times."

Len Pasquarelli is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2606174

[Anthony]

I'm not reading too much into the sacks, as they are almost sure to decline in the second half of the season, when most teams start emphasizing the run more because of changes in the weather.

And since Len Pasquarelli brought up the Eagles, who indeed lead the league in sacks through Week 3, that may be more a case of misplaced priorities than any kind of trend: For some mysterious reason, Philly defensive coordinator Jim Johnson is morbidly obsessed with the "inside pass rush," at the cost, if necessary, of not being able to stop the run up the middle (5'11" Mike Patterson is the first sub-6'0" defensive tackle in a 4-3 to start for an NFL team in nearly half a century).

There's a rumor that Johnson was engaged to a Miss America winner back in the day - but broke up the engagement when he discovered she couldn't cook!

[buckeyefan78]

We'll just leave this at you think I need to adapt & I think you shouldn't put the cart before the horse....:D

Adapting? I think that's code for throwing out big men in favor of guards in basketball, giving up pitching for dingers in baseball, and forgetting about rushing/defense in favor of passing in football. :lol:

Sure the rings tell us to go with the former on an overwhelming average but to hell with that. We gotta change. We gotta "progress." We gotta adapt. :rolleyes:

I did read some of your other post Tark...but I ignored it. I think it made too much sense...from what I read. :lol:

[Marc]

Bull****.

Favre ****ed his team around all off season, "I might retire, I might not retire. Depends on whether they trade for somebody I like."

I'd bench him just for that. Which I think I suggested in the offseason.

And, it's a matter of the future, as Doug suggested. 2-14 and 6-10 aren't ANY different at all in what is the NFL scheme of things today. With one exception: the

Favre won't play forever, and he'll continue to go through this meditation process, holding his team hostage, and the fans of this team hostage, until he either retires or is traded, each offseason.

That's neither fair to the fans of Green Bay(especially those in Green Bay who pay his salary) nor to the fans of the game (who watch an increasingly desperate player play increasingly desperately).

Is the team supposed to grow around a guy whose penchant for mistakes is superceded only by Kurt Warner's and Daunte Culpepper's similar propensities? Really?

Of course not.

You bench him for Rodgers because it's time to make decisions for the future.
I'm willing to hold off till Week 8, as tarkus suggested (btw, I would do a point by point rebuttal of his post, but I don't really have the time), since they'd likely be out of playoff contention by then.

The coming or going of Paterno changes the very fabric of the Penn State football program. He promises to continue to hang on. He doesn't head into every January scratching his head, muttering, "I might retire. I might not. Depends on the recruiting class."
He heads into each January saying next year will be better. Even when he knows that the year before (say, last year) couldn't have been any better.

There's a difference.
So you'd be happy if Favre made a rushed rash decision after the season? What's more important, deliberating and making the right decision, or making a decision just for the sake of making a decision? It's his career and a HUGE decision, not what brand of cereal to pickup. I don't blame him for taking his time and wanting to make the right decision. Besides, they already drafted Aaron Rodgers, so his indecisiveness in the offseason wasn't stopping the team from improving itself.

Favre's not a deserpate player. WTF is that coming from? He doesn't care about stats or money. He just loves playing and knows that when he does stop, that's it and he doesn't want to have ANY regrets. So if he has the chance to still play and play effectively while having fun, then he should keep playing.

Besides, playing Favre now gives the young team surrounding him time to gel. So when Rodgers becomes the man, he might have a better team around him. The last thing you need is a new QB AND a bunch of new supporting players.

Favre had an AWFUL 2005, no doubt. But he has a 2:1 TD/INT ratio and a passer rating of 87 in 2006. You don't just bench him because he threw too many INTs last year. He is still a great pocket passer and leader.

What irks me is you treat Brett Favre like a washed-up journeyman QB. Would you be saying the same thing about Marino or Elway?

But as I said before, if it's clear they're not going to be over .500, play Aaron Rodgers. Just not yet.

[IntheNet]

I sense that after the Philadelphia game Favre is NOW DONE... I don't see him even on the field after this... mentally he is just not there...

Favre made a big mistake returning to the game this year... he should have retired last year... I miss the old Pack and Mike Sherman... hasn't been the same since....

[HibachiDG]

Fair enough, Doug...

I just disagree since the mode of attack nowadays is as much pressure as possible to keep the QB from being comfortable back there. Today's athletes are bigger, stronger, & faster than ever before but the one thing that's stayed constant is finding good QBs that can stay on the field.

Rushing a young one out too early without some semblance of order on that Pack offense is still just too early IMO...

We'll just leave this at you think I need to adapt & I think you shouldn't put the cart before the horse....:D

I don't disagree that finding a good QB that can be comfortable back there is the way to go, though. That's kind of the point I've been trying to make. The thing is, the only way you find out if you've got one that can be comfortable back there by throwing the kid out there in game situations. They need to do it as soon as possible to find out if he ever will be comfortable out there.

Adapting? I think that's code for throwing out big men in favor of guards in basketball, giving up pitching for dingers in baseball, and forgetting about rushing/defense in favor of passing in football.

Sure the rings tell us to go with the former on an overwhelming average but to hell with that. We gotta change. We gotta "progress." We gotta adapt.

Wrong adaptation, though, buckeye. I'm not talking about pass happy offenses. Even when you run the ball 55% of the time, I'm still going to say that the QB is the most important position on the field right now. The QB position is why I think the Bears are better than the Ravens right now. That's not what I'm referring to when I used the word adapt earlier.

The adaptation that I'm talking about is more to do with how teams actually build teams right now. If you're going to sit around and wait for a QB through free agency, or think you can build the rest of the team and just add in a QB, you could find yourself struggling at some point.

[Tarkus]

I don't disagree that finding a good QB that can be comfortable back there is the way to go, though. That's kind of the point I've been trying to make. The thing is, the only way you find out if you've got one that can be comfortable back there by throwing the kid out there in game situations. They need to do it as soon as possible to find out if he ever will be comfortable out there.

I think we're a lot closer to the same thoughts than it might appear, Doug...

IMO the Pack blew the perfect opportunity last year to see what Rodgers has but since they've gone into this year to be competitive, regardless that it will be short lived in most people's eyes, it just isn't something to just change on a whim.

Getting a quality young QB does supercede any other position but when you have an offense that is so disjointed & dysfunctional, throwing him out too early only magnifies the risk that should be less after a few games of game adjustments/experience. Nothing would suck more than to endanger a young prospect by not at least solidifying the offense he's supposed to run by any means possible.

So I'm not talking about "being comfortable" but being brought in under potentially better conditions. The Pack offense won't get much better overall IMO but I do believe they'll be of better service to Rodgers from some extra games. Actually all this will be moot since the Pack is goin' to Hell in a handbasket...fast. Rodgers'll see his time soon enough...

[doublee]

If the Pack get smacked by the Rams this weekend I say it is 50/50 that Rodgers either starts or gets significant playing time against Miami. Since they have their bye after the Rams it gives Rodgers two weeks to prepare and get a significant amount of reps in practice leading into the game.

Favre looked pretty bad out there last night. He was very lucky the Eagles didn't have more than two picks last night and they were not getting that much pressure on him which is usually the key to forcing Favre into making bad throws.

[buckeyefan78]

doublee...

Just for future reference buddy, never give odds in a post when sue is likely to read it.

Just a tip. :thumbup:

[Tarkus]

doublee...

Just for future reference buddy, never give odds in a post when sue is likely to read it.

Just a tip. :thumbup:

:lol:

On a side note: why do we call her Sue when she signs her posts with her name...Cha Ching???

[HibachiDG]

I think we're a lot closer to the same thoughts than it might appear, Doug...

Definitely.

Getting a quality young QB does supercede any other position but when you have an offense that is so disjointed & dysfunctional, throwing him out too early only magnifies the risk that should be less after a few games of game adjustments/experience. Nothing would suck more than to endanger a young prospect by not at least solidifying the offense he's supposed to run by any means possible.

See, I kind of want to magnify the risk by throwing a kid out there in a bad spot. See how he responds. I definitely get what you're saying, though, in that now that they missed their chance to throw him in there halfway through a season, they shouldn't go doing it now.

[Tarkus]

See, I kind of want to magnify the risk by throwing a kid out there in a bad spot. See how he responds.

Of course I might be unduly influenced by being a Bears fan & watching Grossman go down time after time & invisioning the same for Rodgers.... :P

I just may be a bit gunshy at this stage....:D

[Anthony]

We may see Aaron Rodgers start this week after all: There is no line on Green Bay's game this Sunday because Brett Favre is questionable (as is Ahman Green); however, Favre is expected to practice on Wednesday, and we'll get a clearer picture of the situation after that happens (or doesn't).

But my mind was made up about Rodgers right after I saw that little self-pity act he pulled against Texas Tech in the Holiday Bowl in his last college game (sure, Cal got jobbed out of a BCS appearance - but come on, you gotta show mental toughness, and the Bears in general and Rodgers in particular most emphatically did not). Tim Couch's humiliating loss to Penn State in the Outback Bowl in his last college game immediately sprang to mind; and just as that game has proven to be an accurate portent of Couch's NFL fortunes, so will Rodgers' meltdown be for his.