Rodgers wants out

[Pckfn23]

I for sure thought we'd see twitter and forums flooded this morning with people saying Rodgers is tanking on purpose to stick it to the Packers. Maybe I'm missing it, but haven't seen it mentioned yet.

I'm disappointed in you internet. Missed opportunity.

You must not have listened to the post-game callers on the radio.

[paco]

I for sure thought we'd see twitter and forums flooded this morning with people saying Rodgers is tanking on purpose to stick it to the Packers. Maybe I'm missing it, but haven't seen it mentioned yet.

I'm disappointed in you internet. Missed opportunity.

You must not have listened to the post-game callers on the radio.

Ha ha, no I did not. Since I didn't get to start the game until it was just about over, I didn't get to catch all the immediate post game stuff. I'm sure there were some doozies out there!

[Pckfn23]

I for sure thought we'd see twitter and forums flooded this morning with people saying Rodgers is tanking on purpose to stick it to the Packers. Maybe I'm missing it, but haven't seen it mentioned yet.

I'm disappointed in you internet. Missed opportunity.

You must not have listened to the post-game callers on the radio.

Ha ha, no I did not. Since I didn't get to start the game until it was just about over, I didn't get to catch all the immediate post game stuff. I'm sure there were some doozies out there!

A lot of echos what you see here. Frankly, it's ridiculous. I mean going after a guy's appearance is just so juvenile and shallow. It's too hard to talk about what happened on the field, so they go after the "low hanging fruit."

[go pak go]

You must not have listened to the post-game callers on the radio.

Ha ha, no I did not. Since I didn't get to start the game until it was just about over, I didn't get to catch all the immediate post game stuff. I'm sure there were some doozies out there!

A lot of echos what you see here. Frankly, it's ridiculous. I mean going after a guy's appearance is just so juvenile and shallow. It's too hard to talk about what happened on the field, so they go after the "low hanging fruit."

"And what about the QB. Get a haircut and shave. You look like a guy asking me change for a bus pass rather than the starting QB of the Packers...glad your headspace is healthy though." *and he was honestly genuine when he added that part*

Not gonna. I laughed after that caller.

[Yoop]

I think Favre had significantly more talented teams than Rodgers.

Possibly the early 90s but those Ray Rhodes and Sherman era teams were horse &%$@.

Favre got A LOT out of those 2001 to 2004 teams. He was coachable in 2007 and reinvented himself, just could not handle the extreme cold when it mattered most.

AR got a lot out of the 2012, 2013, and 2016 teams. Overall AR has had better talent around him and has been as responsible as anyone for most playoff losses.

blah, blah, blah, I thought you quit watching football 5 years ago, go listen to anyone that knows football and you wont here them blame our playoff loses on Rodgers, and if you actually watched a game you'd be hard pressed to do so too, minus Rodgers and the reality is we wouldn't have even been in half those games to begin with.

Favre had very good defenses and OL's to play with, Rodgers has only twice had a top 10 defense both in yrds and scoring, that makes a big difference, Favre was a great QB, but not even close to the caliber of Rodgers, and never ever as accurate, both had good receivers, but thats the one edge Rodgers had in his favor in his earlier seasons.

hell the only one to ever get separation last night was Adams.

[NCF]

A lot of categorization and generalizations being made. Personally, I think the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Packers teams were excellent, despite their flaws. The 2004 team was running on fumes, much the way they did in 1999 after Holmgren left. Very similarly, the 2012 and 2013 teams were excellent, despite their flaws. Also, similarly, the 2016 team and 2015, to a lesser and different extent, were running on fumes. If I had to stack the teams, I would probably do so like this:

2013
2002
2003
2012
2001

2016
2004

If I have any kind of point, it's don't make this Favre vs Rodgers. There was some damn good teams throughout the years and each one had a different fatal flaw. 2002 & 2013 we never really got to see what that flaw was, because of injuries, so I would tend to put those at the top. 2004 and 2016 teams won a lot of games they shouldn't have. Some of the other teams won games they shouldn't have.

[Drj820]

I dont think its outrageous to think that Rodgers would have been pulverized into ashes if he played in the 90s. His injury history is not small playing in the current era. As it stands, Rodgers and Favre are both legends of their respected eras. Rodgers may have more pure talent, be more cerebral. Favre had more obvious passion and love for the game, while sometimes a little reckless. Favre was more fun to cheer for and watch to me. Both a pleasure to have as Packers QBs for last two decades.

[paco]

I dont think its outrageous to think that Rodgers would have been pulverized into ashes if he played in the 90s. His injury history is not small playing in the current era. As it stands, Rodgers and Favre are both legends of their respected eras. Rodgers may have more pure talent, be more cerebral. Favre had more obvious passion and love for the game, while sometimes a little reckless. Favre was more fun to cheer for and watch to me. Both a pleasure to have as Packers QBs for last two decades.

You cannot compare the 2. 2 different guys 2 different eras. Rodgers today would not be the same person if playing in that era, coached by those teams with those rules. You have no idea how he would respond in those circumstances. This is a dumb conversation.

[Acrobat]

A lot of categorization and generalizations being made. Personally, I think the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Packers teams were excellent, despite their flaws. The 2004 team was running on fumes, much the way they did in 1999 after Holmgren left. Very similarly, the 2012 and 2013 teams were excellent, despite their flaws. Also, similarly, the 2016 team and 2015, to a lesser and different extent, were running on fumes. If I had to stack the teams, I would probably do so like this:

2013
2002
2003
2012
2001

2016
2004

If I have any kind of point, it's don't make this Favre vs Rodgers. There was some damn good teams throughout the years and each one had a different fatal flaw. 2002 & 2013 we never really got to see what that flaw was, because of injuries, so I would tend to put those at the top. 2004 and 2016 teams won a lot of games they shouldn't have. Some of the other teams won games they shouldn't have.

Additionally, some of those teams were just flat out good, but the problem is that there were other teams that were better. It's really hard to win it all in the NFL, especially now which explains why there hasn't been a back to back champion in almost 20 years.

[Drj820]

I dont think its outrageous to think that Rodgers would have been pulverized into ashes if he played in the 90s. His injury history is not small playing in the current era. As it stands, Rodgers and Favre are both legends of their respected eras. Rodgers may have more pure talent, be more cerebral. Favre had more obvious passion and love for the game, while sometimes a little reckless. Favre was more fun to cheer for and watch to me. Both a pleasure to have as Packers QBs for last two decades.

You cannot compare the 2. 2 different guys 2 different eras. Rodgers today would not be the same person if playing in that era, coached by those teams with those rules. You have no idea how he would respond in those circumstances. This is a dumb conversation.

I said they were both legends lol

[paco]

I dont think its outrageous to think that Rodgers would have been pulverized into ashes if he played in the 90s. His injury history is not small playing in the current era. As it stands, Rodgers and Favre are both legends of their respected eras. Rodgers may have more pure talent, be more cerebral. Favre had more obvious passion and love for the game, while sometimes a little reckless. Favre was more fun to cheer for and watch to me. Both a pleasure to have as Packers QBs for last two decades.

You cannot compare the 2. 2 different guys 2 different eras. Rodgers today would not be the same person if playing in that era, coached by those teams with those rules. You have no idea how he would respond in those circumstances. This is a dumb conversation.

I said they were both legends lol

That was meant for everyone in the conversation. I hate those debates. No one can win. You are right, they are both legends. But speculating how anyone would do in a different era is dumb. Too many factors to consider.

But arguing that Favre was the better QB is also not right. Subjective, of course. But you strip it down to the basics and Rodgers is better. Superior TD/INT ratio to anyone in history kind of clinches it. Doesn't take away what Favre was to the Packers. It's not like Rodgers is Secretariat and running so far ahead of anyone else. But he's ahead.

[Labrev]

As for who had better teams/talent around him, I think that is Rodgers fairly easily (not that this should detract too much from his case for being the better QB). TT's GM'ing at his best (2004 - 2010) was better than Wolf and his worst (post-2010) was still better than anyone who came after Wolf; Sherman's worst was WAY worse than Ted's (and Sherman's best was never even good).

[go pak go]

As for who had better teams/talent around him, I think that is Rodgers fairly easily (not that this should detract too much from his case for being the better QB). TT's GM'ing at his best (2004 - 2010) was better than Wolf and his worst (post-2010) was still better than anyone who came after Wolf; Sherman's worst was WAY worse than Ted's (and Sherman's best was never even good).

I was thinking about that the other day. What is the best Packers draft picks from the 2000 draft until Ted came in?

I mean is it seriously Javon Walker, KGB and Aaron Kampman?

[Crazylegs Starks]

As for who had better teams/talent around him, I think that is Rodgers fairly easily (not that this should detract too much from his case for being the better QB). TT's GM'ing at his best (2004 - 2010) was better than Wolf and his worst (post-2010) was still better than anyone who came after Wolf; Sherman's worst was WAY worse than Ted's (and Sherman's best was never even good).

I was thinking about that the other day. What is the best Packers draft picks from the 2000 draft until Ted came in?

I mean is it seriously Javon Walker, KGB and Aaron Kampman?

KGB was still under Wolf's tenure, so we have to look at the 2001-2004 drafts.

2001: Ferguson and Jue were the "best" picks. Yuck
2002: Walker & Kampman (and OK backups in Davenport and Nall)
2003: Nick Barnett was the only good pick
2004: Scott Wells was the only good pick (this was the infamous Ahmad Carrol / BJ Sander draft)

[go pak go]

As for who had better teams/talent around him, I think that is Rodgers fairly easily (not that this should detract too much from his case for being the better QB). TT's GM'ing at his best (2004 - 2010) was better than Wolf and his worst (post-2010) was still better than anyone who came after Wolf; Sherman's worst was WAY worse than Ted's (and Sherman's best was never even good).

I was thinking about that the other day. What is the best Packers draft picks from the 2000 draft until Ted came in?

I mean is it seriously Javon Walker, KGB and Aaron Kampman?

KGB was still under Wolf's tenure, so we have to look at the 2001-2004 drafts.

2001: Ferguson and Jue were the "best" picks. Yuck
2002: Walker & Kampman (and OK backups in Davenport and Nall)
2003: Nick Barnett was the only good pick
2004: Scott Wells was the only good pick (this was the infamous Ahmad Carrol / BJ Sander draft)

I included the 2000 Draft because I sort of view that as the first season of the "new era" Packers - even though Wolf was GM. The crappy Ray Rhodes season I still consider a washed up Holmgren era.

[Crazylegs Starks]

I included the 2000 Draft because I sort of view that as the first season of the "new era" Packers - even though Wolf was GM. The crappy Ray Rhodes season I still consider a washed up Holmgren era.

OK, from what I remember, there was some controversy over who made the final calls in the 2000 draft. Wolf, at times, hinted that Sherman made the calls, but who really knows.

Anyway, the 2000 draft was pretty good:

1- Bubba Franks
2- Chad Clifton
4- Na'il Diggs
5- KGB
7- Mark Tauscher

[NCF]

As for who had better teams/talent around him, I think that is Rodgers fairly easily (not that this should detract too much from his case for being the better QB). TT's GM'ing at his best (2004 - 2010) was better than Wolf and his worst (post-2010) was still better than anyone who came after Wolf; Sherman's worst was WAY worse than Ted's (and Sherman's best was never even good).

I was thinking about that the other day. What is the best Packers draft picks from the 2000 draft until Ted came in?

I mean is it seriously Javon Walker, KGB and Aaron Kampman?

No, there is more. If you include 2000, which it looks like you are, there is:

2000 had Bubba and Chad Clifton at the top plus Na'il Diggs, KGB, and Mark Tauscher later.
2001 had Robert Ferguson (talented, but oft-injured) and David Martin (good value for a 6th-round pick) even Bhawoh Jue played SOME good football for us.
2002 had Najeh who was a nice complimentary RB, Javon Walker, and Kampman.
2003 had Nick Barnett who was our best inside LB in the last quarter century, but the rest of this draft is a turd.
2004 had Corey Williams and Scotty Wells. Nice draft in the 6th and 7th rounds if you ignore everything that happened before these two picks.

2004 Draft gets a lot of scrutiny, but wow, that 2003 Draft, had they not hit on Barnett, looks even worse.

[Yoop]

As for who had better teams/talent around him, I think that is Rodgers fairly easily (not that this should detract too much from his case for being the better QB). TT's GM'ing at his best (2004 - 2010) was better than Wolf and his worst (post-2010) was still better than anyone who came after Wolf; Sherman's worst was WAY worse than Ted's (and Sherman's best was never even good).

Rodgers did more with less then any QB in my lifetime, and he could only dream about having a RB the likes of Ahman Green who produced a 1000 yrds for 6 out of 7 years, takes a lot of pressure off a QB when a defense has to honor the ability of a RB like that.

Wolfs drafts may not have been as good as Teds, but he surely new how to build a team, Green, Reggie White, Jackson, Rison. are just a few off the top of my head, Sherman was known for his OL
Holmgren used a shorter WCO, lots of running, McCarthy used a spread, two very diff. schemes, and both QB's excelled in them.

[Foosball]

When Favre stepped out on the field for the first time he brought the Packers back from behind and won the game.

Everything changed after that moment. Ending 30 years of misery and mediocrity. He was one of a kind.

[Yoop]

When Favre stepped out on the field for the first time he brought the Packers back from behind and won the game.

Everything changed after that moment. Ending 30 years of misery and mediocrity. He was one of a kind.

Ohhhhhh Ya, say what ya want about that Gun slinger, but he brought a lot of excitement back into Packer football