PDA

View Full Version : Green Bay Packers Discussion


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

bigbluedefense
06-23-2008, 09:17 PM
We really need to try and trade Hodge. He has no real value to us because of what you mentioned above and if Barnett got injured we could play Chillar there until he got back or if was an extended period of time we could try Hawk in the middle. I have liked Hodge since his days at Iowa, but he's pretty much useless to us.

Hodge is exactly like Chase Blackburn for us. He's a beast against the run and is real strong and instinctual, but he's just rotting on the bench.

Both those guys would make great 3-4 ILBs imo, or run thumping MIKEs in the right 4-3 system.

Kampman for President
06-23-2008, 09:49 PM
Its not just adding blitzes, your DC has to do a better job disguising coverages. The gameplan was so simple, in the NFC Championship game I knew what your D was doing literally 80% of the time presnap. If it was that obvious to me, a fan, imagine how obvious it was for Eli to read.

As for Barnett, I love the guy. Dude is a beast, plain and simple. Hawk is a beast too, but he's just a solid guy at WILL. He could be a beast at MIKE, but thats a sticky situation that you guys really have no way out of unless you trade one of the 2.

Not to mention Hodge is a solid MIKE rotting on the bench. You guys have 3 MIKEs that would beast it for any other 4-3 team, and you can only start one.

That simple gameplan is what got us to where we are today. We just simply aren't a blitzing team as opposed to the majority of the NFL which needs blitzers to apply pressure.

For one we never stuck with the run. Grant only carried the ball 13 times in that game. Harris's struggled against Burress in that game just showed how weak our coverage is at safety. I mean Burress is descent but he's nowhere near the top level of some WRs in the NFL IMO. The Giants used their size at WR to their advantage and it worked.

We also couldn't convert on 3rd downs compared to week 2 when we had almost a 10 minute advantage in time of possession. The Giants had nearly a 20 minute advantage in the NFL Championship game. I didn't think the Giants were the better team but their gameplan and execution was better that night. The veterans stepped up and beat the youngest team in the NFL.

ChezPower4
06-24-2008, 08:53 AM
I am enjoying this Nick Barnett love. He deserves it. One of the most underrated defenders in the NFL.

And interesting point on Hawk being a more natural fit at MIKE. Ive thought that at times too, but hes been progressing very nicely at WILL. Our schemes dont call for monstrous numbers that other WILL's might see, but he is getting better and better. Playing beside such a stud in Barnett helps;)

IMO Hawk is a better fit at the Will than the Mike because he is a very gifted athlete and the Will spot is where most schemes call for the most athletic linebacker to play. We are very lucky to have a player of Hawks athletic ability and outstanding at the Will position because most times the Will linebacker tends to be on the smaller side.

Hawk IMO seems to be getting better and better every game and I'm really excited to see how he's progressed this offseason. I'm also super excited about all this talk about us getting more aggressive on defense

NY+Giants=NYG
06-24-2008, 09:18 AM
Its not just adding blitzes, your DC has to do a better job disguising coverages. The gameplan was so simple, in the NFC Championship game I knew what your D was doing literally 80% of the time presnap. If it was that obvious to me, a fan, imagine how obvious it was for Eli to read.

As for Barnett, I love the guy. Dude is a beast, plain and simple. Hawk is a beast too, but he's just a solid guy at WILL. He could be a beast at MIKE, but thats a sticky situation that you guys really have no way out of unless you trade one of the 2.

Not to mention Hodge is a solid MIKE rotting on the bench. You guys have 3 MIKEs that would beast it for any other 4-3 team, and you can only start one.

Yeah disguising coverages is good, but you're right they didn't do that well. I am not sure that's part of their system. It was very straight forward that game. Alot of cover 2 man, and if it wasn't C2 man, it was cover 1 man free, with Nick Collins I believe, the other safety, playing center field.

I think their matchup that game wasn't favorable. They have such fast LBs and good cover Cbs that teams normally have a hard time getting open to begin with. Factor in a 4 man rush and an occasional blitz and Qbs have trouble finding someone to get the ball too. I think that game our o-line pass protected very well, which gave us lots of time to get open. I would have liked to see more blitzes. I have 3 minutes left in the 3rd quarter, and now it seems like they seem pressed, and now they're sending people on blitzes.

As for Ryan Grant, I am not impressed with him. He has good agility and good vision, but that o-line and the way their offenses plays are drawn up is pretty damn creative. I will post that as well. It seems like that fullhouse set is a main staple of their offense. And they can turn a simple formation of I pro right into a fullhouse formation, but simply tagging the TE.

For instance I pro Right, Y home, 44 zone. And then from there run zone with various gaps to run to because 1 FB will go one way, and the other where the play should. Then Grant uses the his vision to hit whatever gap that's open. They have some pretty good, and creative formations they use on offense.

bigbluedefense
06-24-2008, 10:38 AM
That simple gameplan is what got us to where we are today. We just simply aren't a blitzing team as opposed to the majority of the NFL which needs blitzers to apply pressure.

For one we never stuck with the run. Grant only carried the ball 13 times in that game. Harris's struggled against Burress in that game just showed how weak our coverage is at safety. I mean Burress is descent but he's nowhere near the top level of some WRs in the NFL IMO. The Giants used their size at WR to their advantage and it worked.

We also couldn't convert on 3rd downs compared to week 2 when we had almost a 10 minute advantage in time of possession. The Giants had nearly a 20 minute advantage in the NFL Championship game. I didn't think the Giants were the better team but their gameplan and execution was better that night. The veterans stepped up and beat the youngest team in the NFL.

To be fair, that Giants team you played in week 2 was a totally different team than the one you played in the playoffs. It was apples to oranges, very different. The team transformed during the season.

Grant wasn't doing anything. Our team practiced with him for 3 years. The defense knew everything about him and all his tendencies. He averaged like 2 yards a carry, he was going no where. What you needed to do was isolate James Butler and pick on him all day. 2 of your TDs were the result of James Butler doing his best Roy Williams impression. Shouldve picked on him more.

bigbluedefense
06-24-2008, 10:43 AM
Yeah disguising coverages is good, but you're right they didn't do that well. I am not sure that's part of their system. It was very straight forward that game. Alot of cover 2 man, and if it wasn't C2 man, it was cover 1 man free, with Nick Collins I believe, the other safety, playing center field.

I think their matchup that game wasn't favorable. They have such fast LBs and good cover Cbs that teams normally have a hard time getting open to begin with. Factor in a 4 man rush and an occasional blitz and Qbs have trouble finding someone to get the ball too. I think that game our o-line pass protected very well, which gave us lots of time to get open. I would have liked to see more blitzes. I have 3 minutes left in the 3rd quarter, and now it seems like they seem pressed, and now they're sending people on blitzes.

As for Ryan Grant, I am not impressed with him. He has good agility and good vision, but that o-line and the way their offenses plays are drawn up is pretty damn creative. I will post that as well. It seems like that fullhouse set is a main staple of their offense. And they can turn a simple formation of I pro right into a fullhouse formation, but simply tagging the TE.

For instance I pro Right, Y home, 44 zone. And then from there run zone with various gaps to run to because 1 FB will go one way, and the other where the play should. Then Grant uses the his vision to hit whatever gap that's open. They have some pretty good, and creative formations they use on offense.

You brought up another very good point Shock. From my limited view of the Packers this year (about 4 games id say), i came away very impressed with their offensive gameplans. Very creative, and the way they use their personnel to maximize production in the run game left me very impressed. Very unique style, and its somewhat old school, in a sense that theyre more of a pure WCO than most WCOs you see today. They use the slant more than anybody. Theyre untraditional in their packages however. They were very comfortable coming out in 4/5 WR sets, and even running out of those sets. I like Ryan Grant, but having watched him with the Giants, and seeing how he performs in GB, i feel he's more of a product of the system than a great RB. Don't get me wrong, he's a solid RB, but he's not great, and he might ask for "great" money, which i would disagree with. That oline and offensive system is what makes their run game tick, just like ours albeit in a different manner (the Giants).

Mike McCarthey is a damn good coach. And like you also mentioned, they did start blitzing later in that game. I believe they started coming with safety blitzes and WILL blitzes? Don't exactly remember the specific blitzes.

Favre4ever
06-24-2008, 10:49 AM
To be fair, that Giants team you played in week 2 was a totally different team than the one you played in the playoffs. It was apples to oranges, very different. The team transformed during the season.

Grant wasn't doing anything. Our team practiced with him for 3 years. The defense knew everything about him and all his tendencies. He averaged like 2 yards a carry, he was going no where. What you needed to do was isolate James Butler and pick on him all day. 2 of your TDs were the result of James Butler doing his best Roy Williams impression. Shouldve picked on him more.

In all fairness, i think that your front 7 deserves more praises than the fact that you guys knew everything about Grant. In the super bowl you guys shut down Maroney behind one of the best O-line in the league. Our O-line lacked experience and they got owned by your front 4, Grant had simply nowhere to go all game long.

NY+Giants=NYG
06-24-2008, 11:05 AM
You brought up another very good point Shock. From my limited view of the Packers this year (about 4 games id say), i came away very impressed with their offensive gameplans. Very creative, and the way they use their personnel to maximize production in the run game left me very impressed. Very unique style, and its somewhat old school, in a sense that theyre more of a pure WCO than most WCOs you see today. They use the slant more than anybody. Theyre untraditional in their packages however. They were very comfortable coming out in 4/5 WR sets, and even running out of those sets. I like Ryan Grant, but having watched him with the Giants, and seeing how he performs in GB, i feel he's more of a product of the system than a great RB. Don't get me wrong, he's a solid RB, but he's not great, and he might ask for "great" money, which i would disagree with. That oline and offensive system is what makes their run game tick, just like ours albeit in a different manner (the Giants).

Mike McCarthey is a damn good coach. And like you also mentioned, they did start blitzing later in that game. I believe they started coming with safety blitzes and WILL blitzes? Don't exactly remember the specific blitzes.


I agree. Grant is more of a product of a system, then his own talent. That's the great part of a true zone blocking system. Plug and play talent, but certain characteristics a RB must have. Cutback ability and very good vision. If you stick that RB behind a good o-line in a ZBS, then he will be productive. Now the issue is what kind of ZBS does each team run? There soo many different types of styles and teachings, that it can make your head spin.

I actually diagramed their plays to see how their running game is built, and to me it looked like they are blocking space rather than the man. But that's a quick observation, I really didn't study it in depth, because I would be breaking down this game into christmas! But great use of formations and I love how they tag their TE to allow them to go into another formation, fullhouse, and then use the TE as 2nd FB.


Actually everywhere.. Hawk came in, #51 and then Barnett, as well as a safety. So they were sending guys, because they started to feel the pressure with the deep passes we were completing, and so they must have felt that we had too much time to throw, so they dialed it up a notch, in terms of cutting that time down.

I am glad that Grant is in a system like that, and wish we ran more zone with Bradshaw because he as a very good skill set that would allow us to be successful. But then again our running concept it based on overloading at the point of attack using a pulling linemen.

NY+Giants=NYG
06-24-2008, 11:07 AM
In all fairness, i think that your front 7 deserves more praises than the fact that you guys knew everything about Grant. In the super bowl you guys shut down Maroney behind one of the best O-line in the league. Our O-line lacked experience and they got owned by your front 4, Grant had simply nowhere to go all game long.

I was on a GB site, or it may have been here, either way I expressed the fact that Grant wouldn't be a factor because we know him very well. We know what he can and can't do, and then from a coaching standpoint we just have to figure out your zone rules, and then gameplan to mess that up, forcing your RB to use more of his skill set.

Kampman for President
06-24-2008, 08:58 PM
To be fair, that Giants team you played in week 2 was a totally different team than the one you played in the playoffs. It was apples to oranges, very different. The team transformed during the season.

Grant wasn't doing anything. Our team practiced with him for 3 years. The defense knew everything about him and all his tendencies. He averaged like 2 yards a carry, he was going no where. What you needed to do was isolate James Butler and pick on him all day. 2 of your TDs were the result of James Butler doing his best Roy Williams impression. Shouldve picked on him more.

That the same with the Packers. We only ran the ball 13 times in the NFL Championship game. McCarthy thought that we could go 5 wide and pass our way to victory which wasn't the case - especially since it was the run game which put us in the position that got us to where we were.

Quite simply the Giants exectute their gameplan to perfection.

Pacific
06-24-2008, 09:14 PM
That the same with the Packers. We only ran the ball 13 times in the NFL Championship game. McCarthy thought that we could go 5 wide and pass our way to victory which wasn't the case - especially since it was the run game which put us in the position that got us to where we were.

Quite simply the Giants exectute their gameplan to perfection.

Kudos to the Giants on their great run and totally outplaying us in the Championship game, but with us not running enough, Favre playing poorly, and Al getting torched, thinking back on the game I'm actually kind of impressed we took it to OT.

Kampman for President
06-24-2008, 10:14 PM
Kudos to the Giants on their great run and totally outplaying us in the Championship game, but with us not running enough, Favre playing poorly, and Al getting torched, thinking back on the game I'm actually kind of impressed we took it to OT.

I agree. Personally I tought that not running was our downfall. It forced Favre to throw more often which in turn left the defense on the field for way too long.

NY+Giants=NYG
06-24-2008, 10:19 PM
Kudos to the Giants on their great run and totally outplaying us in the Championship game, but with us not running enough, Favre playing poorly, and Al getting torched, thinking back on the game I'm actually kind of impressed we took it to OT.

I am suprised you guys didn't stick to the run more. Don't have any other backs to plug in. Jacobs was ineffective for our concepts, and so once we put Bradshaw in, I thought things went smoother for us. Maybe a different RB, who we were less familiar with might have helped.

ChezPower4
06-25-2008, 09:00 AM
Yeah disguising coverages is good, but you're right they didn't do that well. I am not sure that's part of their system. It was very straight forward that game. Alot of cover 2 man, and if it wasn't C2 man, it was cover 1 man free, with Nick Collins I believe, the other safety, playing center field.

I think their matchup that game wasn't favorable. They have such fast LBs and good cover Cbs that teams normally have a hard time getting open to begin with. Factor in a 4 man rush and an occasional blitz and Qbs have trouble finding someone to get the ball too. I think that game our o-line pass protected very well, which gave us lots of time to get open. I would have liked to see more blitzes. I have 3 minutes left in the 3rd quarter, and now it seems like they seem pressed, and now they're sending people on blitzes.

As for Ryan Grant, I am not impressed with him. He has good agility and good vision, but that o-line and the way their offenses plays are drawn up is pretty damn creative. I will post that as well. It seems like that fullhouse set is a main staple of their offense. And they can turn a simple formation of I pro right into a fullhouse formation, but simply tagging the TE.

For instance I pro Right, Y home, 44 zone. And then from there run zone with various gaps to run to because 1 FB will go one way, and the other where the play should. Then Grant uses the his vision to hit whatever gap that's open. They have some pretty good, and creative formations they use on offense.

I think that's a bad thing that we don't really try to disguising out coverages. I think that it is good to always have your opponents guessing at what your going to run. Confusing the offense can lead to turn over and cause confusion between QB and receivers on option routes. A little confusion won't hurt our defense i think it would make us quite a bit better

NY+Giants=NYG
06-25-2008, 09:38 AM
I think that's a bad thing that we don't really try to disguising out coverages. I think that it is good to always have your opponents guessing at what your going to run. Confusing the offense can lead to turn over and cause confusion between QB and receivers on option routes. A little confusion won't hurt our defense i think it would make us quite a bit better


Yeah I can see your point. I just like the simplicity of the defense, but what the problem, to me is, it's not blitzing as much. Now you don't have disguised coverages AND your hoping the LBs and CBs can cover long enough for your D-line to get there. Our defensive philosophy is different, we want to cut the Qbs time by blitzing AND by using our d-line, you defense uses fast LBs and good press CBs to keep guys covered for your d-line to get there. Most Qbs lose patience and then tend to force plays, and that results in turnovers or 3 and outs.

I would love to see your defense like ours, in terms of blitzing and being aggressive, that would be a good sight to see.

princefielder28
06-25-2008, 10:08 AM
Yeah I can see your point. I just like the simplicity of the defense, but what the problem, to me is, it's not blitzing as much. Now you don't have disguised coverages AND your hoping the LBs and CBs can cover long enough for your D-line to get there. Our defensive philosophy is different, we want to cut the Qbs time by blitzing AND by using our d-line, you defense uses fast LBs and good press CBs to keep guys covered for your d-line to get there. Most Qbs lose patience and then tend to force plays, and that results in turnovers or 3 and outs.

I would love to see your defense like ours, in terms of blitzing and being aggressive, that would be a good sight to see.

I am a big fan of aggression as well....you can have the best cover corners in the league and your linebackers can be stout in that department too, but if you are relying on your front four to get pressure on the QB a majority of the time, then you're going to get beat eventually by a halfway decent QB. You have to test a QB's poise and decision making by getting after him and making him get the ball out quick especially against higher caliber QBs.

NY+Giants=NYG
06-25-2008, 10:35 AM
I am a big fan of aggression as well....you can have the best cover corners in the league and your linebackers can be stout in that department too, but if you are relying on your front four to get pressure on the QB a majority of the time, then you're going to get beat eventually by a halfway decent QB. You have to test a QB's poise and decision making by getting after him and making him get the ball out quick especially against higher caliber QBs.

Not even a good QB. Forget QB for a second, just have that same defensive scheme and line go up against a good to amazing o-line. If an opposing o-line falls between the category good to amazing, then they will neutralize that system. The defensive line will get neutralized, and in this league, you can't cover WRs for all that long before they seperate. If I remember correctly, while I am breaking this game down, Aiken and Buck announced that you guys led the league with PI or some kind of penalty like that. That's a factor of your CB play being aggressive because it's press coverage, and because if they get beat they are going to grab the guy from getting past them.

That was the case in the NFCCG in GB. You guys barely blitzed, and when you did, that's when it helped alittle bit with some incomplete passes. But for the most part I think you guys relied on the CBs, and LBs to to cover long enough and for your d-line to able to win their battles against our o-line.

ChezPower4
06-25-2008, 11:55 AM
Yeah I can see your point. I just like the simplicity of the defense, but what the problem, to me is, it's not blitzing as much. Now you don't have disguised coverages AND your hoping the LBs and CBs can cover long enough for your D-line to get there. Our defensive philosophy is different, we want to cut the Qbs time by blitzing AND by using our d-line, you defense uses fast LBs and good press CBs to keep guys covered for your d-line to get there. Most Qbs lose patience and then tend to force plays, and that results in turnovers or 3 and outs.

I would love to see your defense like ours, in terms of blitzing and being aggressive, that would be a good sight to see.

I think that we should also blitz a lot more than we do. I know that the coaches don't blitz as much because of the good D-line that we have and the coaches are putting pressure on the line to create pressure but IMO that is not always enough just like in the game against the Giants. Your O-line played very well and our four down linemen were not able to generate enough pressure to disrupt Manning.

We have very athletic players at linebacker and safety that if they were asked to blitz would be good blitzers. Hawk was a great pass rusher when asked to in college, Barnett was great last season when he was asked to and
they were having Atari Bigby doing quite a few saftey blitzes in preseason and he was causing all kinds of havoc but when the regular season came around they basically did no more safety blitzes.

NY+Giants=NYG
06-25-2008, 12:05 PM
I think that we should also blitz a lot more than we do. I know that the coaches don't blitz as much because of the good D-line that we have and the coaches are putting pressure on the line to create pressure but IMO that is not always enough just like in the game against the Giants. Your O-line played very well and our four down linemen were not able to generate enough pressure to disrupt Manning.

We have very athletic players at linebacker and safety that if they were asked to blitz would be good blitzers. Hawk was a great pass rusher when asked to in college, Barnett was great last season when he was asked to and
they were having Atari Bigby doing quite a few saftey blitzes in preseason and he was causing all kinds of havoc but when the regular season came around they basically did no more safety blitzes.

Yeah I came away with more respect for your team that game. I thought the scheme held you guys back like it did us for the last two seasons. I always thought we had the talent but two idiots managed to never utilize our players efficiently.

I am 13 minutes left in the 4th quarter, so hopefully by this week, I will have this game broke down.

I broke down the Giants offense to GB defense. So if your defensive minded you get to see exactly what's going on in your system.

I also listed ALL the formations you guys used on offense, to give your fanbase a better idea of what you use during a course of a game. I broke down running places AND diagramed passing plays on your offense to give your fans a good sense of how the zone system works, and what kind of route combos you use on offense.

So everything should be done, scanned, and posted hopefully soon.

PACKmanN
06-25-2008, 12:25 PM
http://pu2006.typepad.com/packer_update/

thoughts?

ChezPower4
06-25-2008, 02:50 PM
http://pu2006.typepad.com/packer_update/

thoughts?

sounds like this guy doesn't really think our picks this year are gonna contribute much and i would have to say that i disagree.

How can you tell how good a player will or won't be in shorts. They still have a lot of time to develop and i really don't like it when people try to grade drafts and label players until they have let everything pan out

neko4
06-25-2008, 04:48 PM
Mike McCarthey is a damn good coach. And like you also mentioned, they did start blitzing later in that game. I believe they started coming with safety blitzes and WILL blitzes? Don't exactly remember the specific blitzes.

Yes. Including one safety blitz that resulted in a roughing the passer which I thought was pretty questionable. It looked like Nick jumped at Eli as he was throwing. But its been while since I've watched the game.

NY+Giants=NYG
06-25-2008, 07:10 PM
Yes. Including one safety blitz that resulted in a roughing the passer which I thought was pretty questionable. It looked like Nick jumped at Eli as he was throwing. But its been while since I've watched the game.

Actually I just passed that play yesterday as I was breaking down the game. It looked to be roughing because it's a good 1.5-2 seconds after releases it and then he gets hit. He threw the ball, and followed through, and took a step, before getting leveled. I took a look at that play 5-10 times to see myself. And the ref was behind ELi to the right side, so he would have a good view of the ball leaving, and then the safety coming in. I believe that guy was Collins #36

GB12
06-25-2008, 07:12 PM
I really have to get a DVR before next season.

neko4
06-25-2008, 07:46 PM
I have DVR so im going to start recording all the games. My dad takes up all the space though recording his damn redskin games

NY+Giants=NYG
06-25-2008, 10:30 PM
I have DVR so im going to start recording all the games. My dad takes up all the space though recording his damn redskin games

Booooooo redskins! : P

Honestly as a coach, I will say this. Recording the games, and then watching them over, and studying them will teach you alot about the game, and what's really going on. It will seperate you from normal football fans.

It also reveals how normal football fans on MB argue. As someone in the industry, everything is Xs and Os, and it's interesting to see how fans argue about "better" players. They don't take into consideration any scheme or systems, and just use stats.

Football fans love stats. It's funny to see people argue, because all they do is shoot stats back and forth, but and hope one person buys into the point being debated.

The best is to tape or dvr the game, and watch it and see what's actually going on.

On another good note I am finally done breaking this game down! Took me a week, and I have 12 pages of play by play, including formations used by both teams, and running and passing plays broke down by both teams. So hopefully tomorrow i can get them all logged and then post it.

ChezPower4
06-26-2008, 11:14 AM
I really have to get a DVR before next season.

Me 2 those things are way helpful and you can watch footall year round

neko4
06-26-2008, 09:47 PM
Booooooo redskins! : P

Honestly as a coach, I will say this. Recording the games, and then watching them over, and studying them will teach you alot about the game, and what's really going on. It will seperate you from normal football fans.

It also reveals how normal football fans on MB argue. As someone in the industry, everything is Xs and Os, and it's interesting to see how fans argue about "better" players. They don't take into consideration any scheme or systems, and just use stats.

Football fans love stats. It's funny to see people argue, because all they do is shoot stats back and forth, but and hope one person buys into the point being debated.

The best is to tape or dvr the game, and watch it and see what's actually going on.

On another good note I am finally done breaking this game down! Took me a week, and I have 12 pages of play by play, including formations used by both teams, and running and passing plays broke down by both teams. So hopefully tomorrow i can get them all logged and then post it.


Im going to try and record some of the repeats NFLN is showing this summer to get used to it. I wanna be a coach one day so this is very useful.

johbur
06-26-2008, 11:25 PM
Im going to try and record some of the repeats NFLN is showing this summer to get used to it. I wanna be a coach one day so this is very useful.

I love the DVR for football. In particular with the one I have from Cox cable, I hit one button and it backs up 8 seconds, which usually puts me around the start of the play. Then you can watch in slow motion, or pause and advance frame by frame. Watching the guys on the O-line is the best application I've seen for this. You can really see who is out there giving the cut-blocks and who isn't winning the battles up front.

NY+Giants=NYG
06-26-2008, 11:48 PM
Im going to try and record some of the repeats NFLN is showing this summer to get used to it. I wanna be a coach one day so this is very useful.

That's the best way to learn. Most people watch their team play once and thats all. Some record it to watch it again, but the trick is to take 5-10 minutes for each play and see, what, both teams are doing. What formation is the offense in? do they run to the motion side or not? Stuff like that.

I feel like I have a very good grasp of our offense, but ask me about our D and I don't know. Since I am an offensive coach, I just fast forward through our defensive stuff.

But for this GB game I watched everything because I had to document your plays in the passing and running game.

I use old school VHS the best, and I know it's reliable, and this way if the game is a classic, I label it and archive it.

JF4
06-27-2008, 04:04 PM
That's the best way to learn. Most people watch their team play once and thats all. Some record it to watch it again, but the trick is to take 5-10 minutes for each play and see, what, both teams are doing. What formation is the offense in? do they run to the motion side or not? Stuff like that.

I feel like I have a very good grasp of our offense, but ask me about our D and I don't know. Since I am an offensive coach, I just fast forward through our defensive stuff.

But for this GB game I watched everything because I had to document your plays in the passing and running game.

I use old school VHS the best, and I know it's reliable, and this way if the game is a classic, I label it and archive it.

I agree that re-watching games is really the best way to break down a game but I just wish there was some place where a top down view of the play's was available. It would be so much easier to break down coverages, routes and schemes. I hope, eventually, that the NFL makes something like this available on there website. Even if you had to pay a small fee I would consider it.

TitleTown088
06-27-2008, 05:19 PM
Rodgers on Rome...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOxC5Mn5cJo

roughrider30
06-27-2008, 05:52 PM
Rodgers on Rome...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOxC5Mn5cJo

Rodger's attitude and confidence really make me feel good going into this year. He seems to have a very good outlook and perspective on his role and situation going into this year.

THUMPER31
06-27-2008, 09:08 PM
Wouldnt you know it, this guy has finally decided to release the #1 Packers Fan screen name on ebay, and now I dont have the money to buy it. Go to ebay and type in Green Bay Packers Screen Name and you'll see it. Good Luck.

ImBrotherCain
06-27-2008, 09:14 PM
Wouldnt you know it, this guy has finally decided to release the #1 Packers Fan screen name on ebay, and now I dont have the money to buy it. Go to ebay and type in Green Bay Packers Screen Name and you'll see it. Good Luck.

Dear god this is the 3rd time you have posted this in 3 different threads... Stop spamming!

GB12
06-27-2008, 09:16 PM
Dear god this is the 3rd time you have posted this in 3 different threads... Stop spamming!
It's getting taken care of, he shouldn't be around much longer.

RockJock07
06-28-2008, 05:29 PM
What's the status of the draft pick's contracts? Have we signed any, where can I get that info at?

Kampman for President
06-28-2008, 05:39 PM
What's the status of the draft pick's contracts? Have we signed any, where can I get that info at?

We haven't signed anybody yet. Reason being is that since there is no NFL Europe anymore teams don't get the roster exemption for the players they send over there. Instead they changed the number of players that teams can have at the OTA's to something like 86 players I believe. Draft picks don't count against that number until they sign their contract. So once we sign a draft pick, we have to release a player. We want as many bodies as possible to take snaps from the vets to keep them healthy. Now that the OTA's and minicamps are done I'd expect the signings top pick up early next month.

bigbluedefense
06-29-2008, 12:33 PM
Speaking of recording games, i need to get back to doing that normally. The thing is it can get tiresome after awhile. I remember at one point last season i started getting tired of breaking down plays as they happened. Sometimes you just wanna watch a game and enjoy it.

Nowadays, I don't have to record em anymore. I can just watch it and notice the basics immediately. If i really want to go into extreme analysis ill watch it again.

I tend to do this only for Giants games though. Ill just casually study the formations and plays of other teams as i watch their games, not OD like i do with the Giants.

I also have a bad habit of seeming to focus more on the defenses. Its in my eyes, much harder to study the offensives bc you don't have the playbook in front of you and you don't know for sure what an option route was, or if the WR ran his route properly etc without having the playbook in front of you.

LonghornsLegend
06-29-2008, 12:37 PM
Im going to try and record some of the repeats NFLN is showing this summer to get used to it. I wanna be a coach one day so this is very useful.

Yea if you want to get basic you can get the DVR setup with your cable company and if it has memory record all the games and store them, that's what I did with the Cowboys games...Still doesn't get me an overhead view which is alot better, but instead of just watching the ball you can watch the trenches and see how those guys are playing, on busted players you can see whose mistake it was, its really useful and for huge fans as we are that's the way it should be...I'm trying to upgrade this season to the DVR that has a DVD recorder in it to transfer all the games, and like you said NFLN replays alot of other games which would be nice to check out as well.

jackalope
06-29-2008, 12:48 PM
Well, I had considered getting a DVR in the past and after all this talk I bought the www.woot.com item of the day.

umphrey
06-29-2008, 01:15 PM
DVRs are like a $5/month charge from Time Warner, I don't know why you wouldn't do it if you watch any TV.

NY+Giants=NYG
06-30-2008, 10:06 AM
I agree that re-watching games is really the best way to break down a game but I just wish there was some place where a top down view of the play's was available. It would be so much easier to break down coverages, routes and schemes. I hope, eventually, that the NFL makes something like this available on there website. Even if you had to pay a small fee I would consider it.

Yeah the wide shot and tight shot is really what closes me down, and makes breaking down games a pain process. That's why I pick which games to breakdown.

The NFL controls all tape exchange from what I heard from one of the coaches. So they are the middle man when it comes to film and stuff. I wouldn't be suprised if the NFL had a great IT system, where coaches can log on and get all the film and angles they need. HS teams can do it, and a billion dollar company like the NFL should have a pretty impressive one.

But having it available for people would make things different. For instance any fan who is a coach at some level can breadown games and send it to the pro coaches. And so it would be like coaches coming to their aide of their favorite team. It would almost be like outsourcing game breakdowns that coaches do, to fans who happen to be coaches as well. You know what I mean? So it would be weird if the NFL did that. I can see issues arising. But that would help me big time if I had all their angles.

NY+Giants=NYG
06-30-2008, 10:09 AM
Speaking of recording games, i need to get back to doing that normally. The thing is it can get tiresome after awhile. I remember at one point last season i started getting tired of breaking down plays as they happened. Sometimes you just wanna watch a game and enjoy it.

Nowadays, I don't have to record em anymore. I can just watch it and notice the basics immediately. If i really want to go into extreme analysis ill watch it again.

I tend to do this only for Giants games though. Ill just casually study the formations and plays of other teams as i watch their games, not OD like i do with the Giants.

I also have a bad habit of seeming to focus more on the defenses. Its in my eyes, much harder to study the offensives bc you don't have the playbook in front of you and you don't know for sure what an option route was, or if the WR ran his route properly etc without having the playbook in front of you.


That's one of the most popular fan talk none sense you always hear. This player runs bad routes. Unless the fan has the WR manuel and has it in front of them, it's impossible to know how long the stem of the route should be, if the release should have been outside or inside, or even the WR alignment. So many factors play into it, and I always catch fans saying, so and so is a good or bad wr because... and they say something about the routes. Fact is it's hard to tell without the playbook.

Duster
06-30-2008, 10:32 AM
That's one of the most popular fan talk none sense you always hear. This player runs bad routes. Unless the fan has the WR manuel and has it in front of them, it's impossible to know how long the stem of the route should be, if the release should have been outside or inside, or even the WR alignment. So many factors play into it, and I always catch fans saying, so and so is a good or bad wr because... and they say something about the routes. Fact is it's hard to tell without the playbook.

You can tell several ways...
-Media reports, specifically from reporters who cover the team you are analyzing only. These guys watch this team day in and day out in practice and generally have a good read on players.
-In games, if a QB is constantly missing the same receiver because of timing, spacing, etc. it's either the QB or the WR. Obviously you can't always tell which but when every other WR is doing fine consistently it's usually a good bet it's the WRs fault.
-Watch the confidence and crispness of the route. Some guys run the proper routes, but they don't do it confidently and it shows because they're not hard in and out of their cuts, preferring to round corners.

Those are a few ways I do analysis.

NY+Giants=NYG
06-30-2008, 10:41 AM
You can tell several ways...
-Media reports, specifically from reporters who cover the team you are analyzing only. These guys watch this team day in and day out in practice and generally have a good read on players.
-In games, if a QB is constantly missing the same receiver because of timing, spacing, etc. it's either the QB or the WR. Obviously you can't always tell which but when every other WR is doing fine consistently it's usually a good bet it's the WRs fault.
-Watch the confidence and crispness of the route. Some guys run the proper routes, but they don't do it confidently and it shows because they're not hard in and out of their cuts, preferring to round corners.

Those are a few ways I do analysis.

Yeah if the media has inside info, that's one way. But if they are making fan like inferences, than I would question that,

Well if the QB is missing that WR that much all the time, then I highly doubt the coaching staff puts him in the game if a PRO wr is screwing up that much. I have yet to see a pro team play someone that bad.

That has nothing to do with confidence that's just sloppy running. Other times the routes can call for that. That's in the skill players playbook my friend. Everything you said will be detailed there. It's not a hard process you compare the routes in the book with what the guy is running.

That's how I graded my TEs game in and game out at 8am on sundays. That's how you fill out their grading sheets. Technique, effort, and assignment.

neko4
06-30-2008, 11:39 AM
That's one of the most popular fan talk none sense you always hear. This player runs bad routes. Unless the fan has the WR manuel and has it in front of them, it's impossible to know how long the stem of the route should be, if the release should have been outside or inside, or even the WR alignment. So many factors play into it, and I always catch fans saying, so and so is a good or bad wr because... and they say something about the routes. Fact is it's hard to tell without the playbook.

I dont know if you ever watched those draftguysTV videos but they really broke things down and showed which WR's ran routes well and which ones didnt. Putting it into slow motion really helped. But they were also running basic routes and you knew what they were running.

Yeah the wide shot and tight shot is really what closes me down, and makes breaking down games a pain process. That's why I pick which games to breakdown.

The NFL controls all tape exchange from what I heard from one of the coaches. So they are the middle man when it comes to film and stuff. I wouldn't be suprised if the NFL had a great IT system, where coaches can log on and get all the film and angles they need. HS teams can do it, and a billion dollar company like the NFL should have a pretty impressive one.

But having it available for people would make things different. For instance any fan who is a coach at some level can breadown games and send it to the pro coaches. And so it would be like coaches coming to their aide of their favorite team. It would almost be like outsourcing game breakdowns that coaches do, to fans who happen to be coaches as well. You know what I mean? So it would be weird if the NFL did that. I can see issues arising. But that would help me big time if I had all their angles.

Thatd be pretty incredible. I'd love to have all those videos available to me.

NY+Giants=NYG
06-30-2008, 11:51 AM
I dont know if you ever watched those draftguysTV videos but they really broke things down and showed which WR's ran routes well and which ones didnt. Putting it into slow motion really helped. But they were also running basic routes and you knew what they were running.



Thatd be pretty incredible. I'd love to have all those videos available to me.


In my opinion you can gauge effort, which I used to grade my players on during the game. One thing is noticable is on running plays. If your supposed to clear out, and your jogging and less intense, teams scout that. That tips run/or pass. So I put that in the effort category.

And yeah even using basic tv angles I can tell the route, but in terms of if it's a good route or not, no fan can tell that. I can't tell it as well, because I don't have the Outside WR, Inside WR, and TE manuels. Each of these playbooks is different, and has a different passing tree and then breaks it down by how long the stem should be, and then gives opens vs different coverages.

That part is hard for anyone to gauge, unless you are a REAL pro scout, and get access to their position coaches. Then you find stuff out about the player, and routes, and precision of the routes, and can question the OC about the stem and #s. Also asking the WR coach helps alot. Perhaps even watch their practice videos, which are taped as well, to see how he practices vs plays in the real game.

mqtirishfan
06-30-2008, 12:41 PM
But having it available for people would make things different. For instance any fan who is a coach at some level can breadown games and send it to the pro coaches. And so it would be like coaches coming to their aide of their favorite team. It would almost be like outsourcing game breakdowns that coaches do, to fans who happen to be coaches as well. You know what I mean? So it would be weird if the NFL did that. I can see issues arising. But that would help me big time if I had all their angles.

I don't see this as a problem. If an NFL coach wants to take the opinion of a guy who isn't an NFL coach on a film breakdown and model the gameplan after this, the NFL should just let them.

Duster
06-30-2008, 12:44 PM
I don't see this as a problem. If an NFL coach wants to take the opinion of a guy who isn't an NFL coach on a film breakdown and model the gameplan after this, the NFL should just let them.

Ha, I highly doubt coaches have the time to look through some random guy's video that he submitted to the team.

umphrey
06-30-2008, 05:23 PM
It would require a lot of bandwidth and a team of software guys making it almost impossible to generate a profit off something like that. Yeah they could put in ads, but the audience isn't marketable enough to sell the amount of ad space required.

I could see them turning a profit on an on demand medium or NFL network type thing though.

NY+Giants=NYG
06-30-2008, 08:58 PM
Ha, I highly doubt coaches have the time to look through some random guy's video that he submitted to the team.

They won't but the quality control guys may. They are like the gophers of the NFL. In college, you have your GAs that do that grunt work like that, and in the NFL, depending on HC, a quality control guy could very well do that with the video coordinator. They are the guys who do the ODK cutups.

mqtirishfan
06-30-2008, 11:28 PM
They won't but the quality control guys may. They are like the gophers of the NFL. In college, you have your GAs that do that grunt work like that, and in the NFL, depending on HC, a quality control guy could very well do that with the video coordinator. They are the guys who do the ODK cutups.

But my point is that they'd have those guys do that work, not people they don't pay to things like that and might not be as good.

NY+Giants=NYG
07-01-2008, 08:07 AM
But my point is that they'd have those guys do that work, not people they don't pay to things like that and might not be as good.


O i know, but I am guessing the NFL will never allow different camera angles to be available to the public. The day that happens, I would order lots of them.

princefielder28
07-02-2008, 11:07 AM
Aaron Rodgers made comments in an upcoming SI about Packers fans needing to get on board or be quiet. This is getting quite a bit of pub, and I think it's getting taken out of context. I'm guessing what he wants is people to be a part of this team or not. He doesn't want people on the fence and if the Packers play well they come to the good side and if they lose they'll blame it on him. In other words, no bandwagon fans allowed.

Football Fan
07-02-2008, 11:52 AM
Aaron Rodgers made comments in an upcoming SI about Packers fans needing to get on board or be quiet. This is getting quite a bit of pub, and I think it's getting taken out of context. I'm guessing what he wants is people to be a part of this team or not. He doesn't want people on the fence and if the Packers play well they come to the good side and if they lose they'll blame it on him. In other words, no bandwagon fans allowed.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=768222


Despite remark, Rodgers asserts loyalty to fans
QB says actions speak for him

GB12
07-02-2008, 03:30 PM
Ryan Grant is closing to signing a long term contract.

Source: NFL Live

NY+Giants=NYG
07-02-2008, 03:51 PM
Ryan Grant is closing to signing a long term contract.

Source: NFL Live

Hopefully you guys don't overpay for him, especially since your system is sick.

EvilMonkey
07-02-2008, 04:09 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3471189

and the favre unretirement crap comes out yet again....

how shockingly convenient for the media that this "team source" leaks this sketchy information when TT and MM are on vacation and cant respond to it immediately. Guess we get to hear all about Favre coming back until next week when this thing can be disproven.

PackerLegend
07-02-2008, 04:34 PM
Ryan Grant is closing to signing a long term contract.

Source: NFL Live

Finally here is a little more from rotoworld

Exclusive rights free agent Ryan Grant expects to reach an agreement on a multi-year contract with the Packers before training camp begins.

Grant says talks have been "positive." SI.com's Bucky Brooks predicted last month that the deal would span three to four years. Grant actually has less leverage than Earnest Graham, but we'd expect him to get more money.

GB12
07-02-2008, 04:43 PM
Finally here is a little more from rotoworld

Exclusive rights free agent Ryan Grant expects to reach an agreement on a multi-year contract with the Packers before training camp begins.

Grant says talks have been "positive." SI.com's Bucky Brooks predicted last month that the deal would span three to four years. Grant actually has less leverage than Earnest Graham, but we'd expect him to get more money.
I'd hope it'd be for at least 4 years. I mean we already control him for 3 years under the rules for exclusive rights free agents. If we're going to give him more money he should give us another year.

umphrey
07-02-2008, 04:48 PM
I'd hope it'd be for at least 4 years. I mean we already control him for 3 years under the rules for exclusive rights free agents. If we're going to give him more money he should give us another year.

Personally I think if we gave him a 1-2 year contract we'd end up re signing him for more money than if we just gave him a 4-5 year contract now. And at that point I hope we're looking for a new RB anyway, since I'm a fan of young legs.

Kampman for President
07-02-2008, 05:17 PM
Personally I think if we gave him a 1-2 year contract we'd end up re signing him for more money than if we just gave him a 4-5 year contract now. And at that point I hope we're looking for a new RB anyway, since I'm a fan of young legs.

Same here, and in all honestly it would be in Grant's best interest to sign a shorter deal around 2-3 years. That way he'll be around 28 years old, not have alot of wear and tear on his body, and be in line for a big payday.

I'm still confident that Brandon Jackson will continue developing and if he plays like he did late in the season he could still be in the future plans at RB for us.

GB12
07-02-2008, 05:32 PM
Same here, and in all honestly it would be in Grant's best interest to sign a shorter deal around 2-3 years. That way he'll be around 28 years old, not have alot of wear and tear on his body, and be in line for a big payday.

I'm still confident that Brandon Jackson will continue developing and if he plays like he did late in the season he could still be in the future plans at RB for us.
Yeah for Grant it'd definitely be best for him to get a short contract, but for our interests I want at least 4 years. We're doing him a favor by giving him a new contract at all. We could control his rights for 3 years with out giving him a new contract, we don't gain anything by giving him a 2-3 year deal. We'd actually be losing a ton if it was a two year contract. Now I don't think we should keep him on the exclusive rights contract, because he does deserve more but at the same time he has no leverage. If we're going to give him that significant raise he has to give us an extra year.

Kampman for President
07-02-2008, 05:40 PM
Yeah for Grant it'd definitely be best for him to get a short contract, but for our interests I want at least 4 years. We're doing him a favor by giving him a new contract at all. We could control his rights for 3 years with out giving him a new contract, we don't gain anything by giving him a 2-3 year deal. We'd actually be losing a ton if it was a two year contract. Now I don't think we should keep him on the exclusive rights contract, because he does deserve more but at the same time he has no leverage. If we're going to give him that significant raise he has to give us an extra year.

I know we control for the next few years, but I don't want to committ to him long term just yet. He's only played 1 year and has a grand total of 188 NFL carries. I disagree that we'd be losing a ton on the deal because I see us giving him a descent contract that has plenty of incentives. He'll be 26 in December so that 3-4 year deal kind of takes him out of the running for one last big payday. In the end I think it will be a 3 year deal that can void after 2 seasons. I think it would be in best interest that way for both parties.

GB12
07-02-2008, 06:06 PM
I know we control for the next few years, but I don't want to committ to him long term just yet. He's only played 1 year and has a grand total of 188 NFL carries. I disagree that we'd be losing a ton on the deal because I see us giving him a descent contract that has plenty of incentives. He'll be 26 in December so that 3-4 year deal kind of takes him out of the running for one last big payday. In the end I think it will be a 3 year deal that can void after 2 seasons. I think it would be in best interest that way for both parties.
I don't see why you don't want to commit to him long term yet. If we had to give him Randy Moss money or something I'd understand, but he's in no position to get that much. The risk for us is very little. He'll for sure get less than it would have costed to resign Ahman Green. If we give him a two year deal and he keeps his level of production that he had last year he's going to be extremely expensive to sign and will be 28. You don't want to give a 28 year old RB a long term deal with that much money involved. We can have him until he's 30 for cheap, we'd be foolish not to get him for at least 4 years.

Kampman for President
07-02-2008, 06:42 PM
I don't see why you don't want to commit to him long term yet. If we had to give him Randy Moss money or something I'd understand, but he's in no position to get that much. The risk for us is very little. He'll for sure get less than it would have costed to resign Ahman Green. If we give him a two year deal and he keeps his level of production that he had last year he's going to be extremely expensive to sign and will be 28. You don't want to give a 28 year old RB a long term deal with that much money involved. We can have him until he's 30 for cheap, we'd be foolish not to get him for at least 4 years.

I guess partly because its the system and Grant's inexperience. I wouldn't be opposed to signing him to a modest long term deal at all, just realistically I think it would benefit both Grant and the Packers to do a 2-3 year deal. IMO Grant would be foolish to sign a deal that will make him a free agent when he's 30.

GB12
07-02-2008, 06:47 PM
I guess partly because its the system and Grant's inexperience. I wouldn't be opposed to signing him to a modest long term deal at all, just realistically I think it would benefit both Grant and the Packers to do a 2-3 year deal. IMO Grant would be foolish to sign a deal that will make him a free agent when he's 30.
It benefits Grant to sign a 2-3 year deal, but not so much for us. We have so much leverage on Grant that it's completely unfair to him. Now I'm not saying we should lowball him or give him a crap deal, but we'd be throwing that all away if we did anything less than 4 years.

EvilMonkey
07-02-2008, 06:55 PM
agree with GB12 that it's gotta be a 4-year deal. Getting him locked up for 2 extra years after we have rights to him is huge to ensure we get value out of him. And it's not like that wont prevent Grant from getting a big deal when he's 29 if he performs at a high level. He still wont have a ton of miles on him (only 4.5 years) and if Ahman Green can get a 4 years for 23 mil deal when he is older and with a ton more mileage on him, surely a 29 year-old Ryan Grant would be able to get a very nice deal as well if he performs with the best backs in the league. A 4-year deal focused on performance incentives is the best thing the Pack can get with him and isnt the worst thing in the world for Grant.

Kampman for President
07-02-2008, 08:11 PM
It benefits Grant to sign a 2-3 year deal, but not so much for us. We have so much leverage on Grant that it's completely unfair to him. Now I'm not saying we should lowball him or give him a crap deal, but we'd be throwing that all away if we did anything less than 4 years.

Its not like Grant has zero leverage, I mean he can choose not to play. Without him would we have gone as far as we did either?

Yes 4 years works for us, but realistically do you think Grant will want to sign for that long? Players want to make money and he'll look to cash in again.

GB12
07-02-2008, 08:37 PM
Its not like Grant has zero leverage, I mean he can choose not to play. Without him would we have gone as far as we did either?

Yes 4 years works for us, but realistically do you think Grant will want to sign for that long? Players want to make money and he'll look to cash in again.
He doesn't have zero leverage, but damn near close to zero. If he chooses not to play for us his NFL career is over.

Kampman for President
07-02-2008, 09:16 PM
He doesn't have zero leverage, but damn near close to zero. If he chooses not to play for us his NFL career is over.

Then that leaves us with little to no run game.

GB12
07-02-2008, 09:19 PM
Then that leaves us with little to no run game.
The point of my last post being that he's not going to hold out...

Kampman for President
07-02-2008, 09:22 PM
The point of my last post being that he's not going to hold out...

I know, the point of mine was being that there's no way the Packers would let him, we need him which is where his leverage lies.

GB12
07-02-2008, 09:27 PM
I know, the point of mine was being that there's no way the Packers would let him, we need him which is where his leverage lies.
No, because holding out hurts him a lot more than it hurts us.

Kampman for President
07-02-2008, 09:29 PM
No, because holding out hurts him a lot more than it hurts us.

I disagree, like I said without him we have little to no run game.

GB12
07-02-2008, 09:34 PM
I disagree, like I said without him we have little to no run game.
That really has very little to do with it. Grant would be hurting himself a lot more by holding out, therefore there is no threat of him holding out which means nothing to our run game because he's not going to hold out. I don't see your point.

Kampman for President
07-02-2008, 09:36 PM
That really has very little to do with it. Grant would be hurting himself a lot more by holding out, therefore there is no threat of him holding out which means nothing to our run game because he's not going to hold out. I don't see your point.

If that was the case, then why even offer him an extention? We could have him play for minimum and near minimum for the next 2 years. I'm not saying Grant is or would hold out at all, just that he DOES have some leverage in getting a modest extention. Its not that hard to understand...

GB12
07-02-2008, 09:39 PM
If that was the case, then why even offer him an extention? We could have him play for minimum and near minimum for the next 2 years. I'm not saying Grant is or would hold out at all, just that he DOES have some leverage in getting a modest extention. Its not that hard to understand...
The point of offering him an extention is so we would have him locked up for longer than. That's why it doesn't make sense to get him for anything less than 4 years.

Kampman for President
07-02-2008, 09:51 PM
The point of offering him an extention is so we would have him locked up for longer than. That's why it doesn't make sense to get him for anything less than 4 years.

From the Packers/fans standpoint yes, from Grants no.

GB12
07-02-2008, 09:54 PM
From the Packers/fans standpoint yes, from Grants no.
Yeah, we established that point a long time ago...

Kampman for President
07-02-2008, 10:04 PM
Yeah, we established that point a long time ago...

Then why did you quote me for? lol

GB12
07-02-2008, 10:05 PM
I guess I have no idea anymore what you are arguing.

Kampman for President
07-02-2008, 10:27 PM
I guess I have no idea anymore what you are arguing.

I'm not arguing anything, if anything we're agreeing with each other.

umphrey
07-02-2008, 10:51 PM
We want Grant to be happy as well. With our leverage we can still lowball him to some degree, but if we force him to sign a ridiculous contract he's going to be a locker room cancer and constantly come up with hamstring injuries until his contract year. Not because he's that kind of player, just because anyone would be unhappy with that situation.

GB12
07-02-2008, 10:59 PM
We want Grant to be happy as well. With our leverage we can still lowball him to some degree, but if we force him to sign a ridiculous contract he's going to be a locker room cancer and constantly come up with hamstring injuries until his contract year. Not because he's that kind of player, just because anyone would be unhappy with that situation.
Yeah, I'm not saying to give him a bad deal just use the leverage we have to get a reasonable deal with at least 4 years on it.

umphrey
07-02-2008, 11:30 PM
I agree, I'm saying we should be generous even though we don't have to, as a sign of good faith.

Mr.Regular
07-03-2008, 12:29 AM
Has anyone else seen the youtube video of Brett, Don Beebe, and Frank Winters trick or treating at Mike Holmgren's house from 1995? Its awesome.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8AEe1f74vC0

EDIT: I actually think this was 1996. Beebe joined the team in 96 if Im not mistaken and GB12 said that this was included in the 96 season dvd.

GB12
07-03-2008, 12:30 AM
Has anyone else seen the youtube video of Brett, Don Beebe, and Frank Winters trick or treating at Mike Holmgren's house from 1995? Its awesome.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8AEe1f74vC0
I have a DVD of the Superbowl year and that's included on it.

princefielder28
07-03-2008, 06:39 AM
Has anyone else seen the youtube video of Brett, Don Beebe, and Frank Winters trick or treating at Mike Holmgren's house from 1995? Its awesome.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8AEe1f74vC0

EDIT: I actually think this was 1996. Beebe joined the team in 96 if Im not mistaken and GB12 said that this was included in the 96 season dvd.

I saw that video for the first time this winter and thought it was hilarious

Kampman for President
07-03-2008, 07:46 AM
We want Grant to be happy as well. With our leverage we can still lowball him to some degree, but if we force him to sign a ridiculous contract he's going to be a locker room cancer and constantly come up with hamstring injuries until his contract year. Not because he's that kind of player, just because anyone would be unhappy with that situation.

Its going to have plenty of incentives in his. Let him earn the money. If he flops at the very least it will be a friendly contract for the Packers, if he triumphs we easly have the money to pay him for his performance.

Justin Fargas signed a 3 year $15 million contract and Earnest Graham signed a 4 year $11.05 million contact. Both players are 28 years old. Grant will be 26 and likely him and his agent will want to cash in again when he's 28/29 years old which is why he'll sign a shorter contract but a little more money that Fargas and Graham are getting.

GB12
07-03-2008, 01:56 PM
Justin Fargas signed a 3 year $15 million contract and Earnest Graham signed a 4 year $11.05 million contact. Both players are 28 years old. Grant will be 26 and likely him and his agent will want to cash in again when he's 28/29 years old which is why he'll sign a shorter contract but a little more money that Fargas and Graham are getting.
Really? You still don't get this? Grant doesn't have the leverage to get a deal that is that beneficial to him. Why would we give him more money and allow him to get out earlier. That'd be great for him, but he is in no position to demand that much. Interesting how you brought up Graham, he like Grant was an exclusive rights free agent. Take a look at his deal that you listed; 4 years $11 million. Graham put up stats that near what Grant put up and had more leverage as he was in the last year of being an ERFA while Grant has 3 more years before he becomes an unrestriced free agent. Going off of that a 4 year $9 million contract would be fair, though I'm sure we'll reward him for his production and give him quite a bit more money than Graham. If we go for anything less than 4 years it'll be a terrible front office move, but with Ted Thompson at the helm he'll get it right.

Kampman for President
07-03-2008, 02:34 PM
Really? You still don't get this? Grant doesn't have the leverage to get a deal that is that beneficial to him. Why would we give him more money and allow him to get out earlier. That'd be great for him, but he is in no position to demand that much. Interesting how you brought up Graham, he like Grant was an exclusive rights free agent. Take a look at his deal that you listed; 4 years $11 million. Graham put up stats that near what Grant put up and had more leverage as he was in the last year of being an ERFA while Grant has 3 more years before he becomes an unrestriced free agent. Going off of that a 4 year $9 million contract would be fair, though I'm sure we'll reward him for his production and give him quite a bit more money than Graham. If we go for anything less than 4 years it'll be a terrible front office move, but with Ted Thompson at the helm he'll get it right.

You're the one who doesn't get it. Do you think Grant and his agent are sitting there looking for the best interest of the Packers?

GB12
07-03-2008, 02:44 PM
You're the one who doesn't get it. Do you think Grant and his agent are sitting there looking for the best interest of the Packers?
Doesn't matter. Since he is an exclusive rights free agent his options are limited. If you were talking about extending Greg Jennings you would have solid points, but in Grant's situation it's different.

Kampman for President
07-03-2008, 02:48 PM
Doesn't matter. Since he is an exclusive rights free agent his options are limited. If you were talking about extending Greg Jennings you would have solid points, but in Grant's situation it's different.

Uh no it hardly different. We'd still have Driver, Jones, Nelson, Martin, Swain, Bodiford....

At RB we have nobody. You're kidding yourself if you think that Grant will take a team friendly deal and thus forgo another big payday in the future.

GB12
07-03-2008, 03:22 PM
Uh no it hardly different. We'd still have Driver, Jones, Nelson, Martin, Swain, Bodiford....

At RB we have nobody. You're kidding yourself if you think that Grant will take a team friendly deal and thus forgo another big payday in the future.
I said extending Jennings because you are acting like that is how Grant is, not because of the other players at his position. Grant is not a player that has played out his rookie deal and becoming a free agent. it didn't have to be Jennings, maybe if you replace Jennings with Kampman it will make more sense to you.

When Kampman is negotiating a new deal he will hold all the leverage. Grant holds next to none. Grant will take a team friendly deal because he has to take a team friendly deal. We're not going to treat him as if he's an unrestricted free agent because he is not.

You are stuck on the fact that we have a poor group of running backs behind him. That's true, but it doesn't mean a ton in resigning him because there more important factors involved.

Kampman for President
07-03-2008, 03:28 PM
I said extending Jennings because you are acting like that is how Grant is, not because of the other players at his position. Grant is not a player that has played out his rookie deal and becoming a free agent. it didn't have to be Jennings, maybe if you replace Jennings with Kampman it will make more sense to you.

When Kampman is negotiating a new deal he will hold all the leverage. Grant holds next to none. Grant will take a team friendly deal because he has to take a team friendly deal. We're not going to treat him as if he's an unrestricted free agent because he is not.

You are stuck on the fact that we have a poor group of running backs behind him. That's true, but it doesn't mean a ton in resigning him because there more important factors involved.

LMAO, ok buddy, keep deaming.

Just like Walker took a team friendly deal? Just like how Kampman signed an offer sheet with the Vikings? Just like how Mike Wahle and Darren Sharper were willing to take less to remain with the Packers? Just like how Ahman Green bolted for more money in Houston? Want me to keep going?

Get this through you're head, Grant ran for the 2nd most yards in the NFL since taking over as the starter. Before him we had a combination of Brandon Jackson and Deshawn Wynn in the starting role. How can you flat out say that Grant has no leverage when we all know that he's going to get a new contract? Hmm, if he didn't have any leverage then why are we paying him? Or for that matter if he "outperformed" his contract, then why didn't we pay Walker?

Welcome to reality, lol.

PACKmanN
07-03-2008, 03:32 PM
If that was the case, then why even offer him an extention? We could have him play for minimum and near minimum for the next 2 years. I'm not saying Grant is or would hold out at all, just that he DOES have some leverage in getting a modest extention. Its not that hard to understand...

Grant has no leverage at all. Grant hasn't proven anything but that he could produce in half a season, give me a full season before we start talking contract. Grant seems like he wants to make a quick payday, as he still hasn't signed what ever he has been offered. Plus he acting as if he isn't holding out, but still does not practice with the team.

GB12
07-03-2008, 03:40 PM
LMAO, ok buddy, keep deaming.

Just like Walker took a team friendly deal? Just like how Kampman signed an offer sheet with the Vikings? Just like how Mike Wahle and Darren Sharper were willing to take less to remain with the Packers? Just like how Ahman Green bolted for more money in Houston? Want me to keep going?

Get this through you're head, Grant ran for the 2nd most yards in the NFL since taking over as the starter. Before him we had a combination of Brandon Jackson and Deshawn Wynn in the starting role. How can you flat out say that Grant has no leverage when we all know that he's going to get a new contract? Hmm, if he didn't have any leverage then why are we paying him? Or for that matter if he "outperformed" his contract, then why didn't we pay Walker?

Welcome to reality, lol.
It is absolutely nothing like the Javon Walker situation. Kampman's situation was also completely different. Mike Wahle and Darren Sharper have nothing to do with it. Ahman Green is quite the opposite. Sure keep going, because I'd be interested if you could find another player that we had that is in the same situation Grant is in now.

Get this through your head. Grant is an exclusive rights free agent. Huge difference. His leverage that he would have had by being our only real running threat is more than wiped out by being an ERFA.

Welcome to NFL contract rules.

Kampman for President
07-03-2008, 04:04 PM
It is absolutely nothing like the Javon Walker situation. Kampman's situation was also completely different. Mike Wahle and Darren Sharper have nothing to do with it. Ahman Green is quite the opposite. Sure keep going, because I'd be interested if you could find another player that we had that is in the same situation Grant is in now.

Get this through your head. Grant is an exclusive rights free agent. Huge difference. His leverage that he would have had by being our only real running threat is more than wiped out by being an ERFA.

Welcome to NFL contract rules.

Yes we hold Grants right for 2 years, I know that, you know that, we all know that. So then why is Grant getting a new deal? Keep sidestepping the point.

My point with those players is that they weren't willing to take team friendly deals like you think that Grant will do. He'll look to cash in again, its simple ergonomics.

GB12
07-03-2008, 04:28 PM
Yes we hold Grants right for 2 years, I know that, you know that, we all know that. So then why is Grant getting a new deal? Keep sidestepping the point.

My point with those players is that they weren't willing to take team friendly deals like you think that Grant will do. He'll look to cash in again, its simple ergonomics.
I have not sidestepped that point. I have said that we're giving him a new deal to make him happier and lock him up longer. That's the whole point that it'd be dumb to get him for anything less than 4 years.

The thing is none of those players were exclusive rights free agents and had much more of a choice on their contract. Wahle, Sharper, and Green were all able to negotiate with other teams, Grant can't do that. Kampman was a restricted free agent. He got an offer from another team, we matched it. Those are the special rules for RFAs just like there are special rules for ERFAs. In Walkers case it was different from the other three in that he still had a year on his deal and couldn't talk to other teams yet. He could however hold out not get paid that year and then talk with other teams (though he chose to play not missing any games because of the contract, but the injury). Grant doesn't even have that option. If Grant holds out it is one less accumulated season he has. If he sits out this year he'd be sitting out gaining absolutely nothing. He'd still have 2 years before he'd be a free agent. The only way he can become a UFA is by playing out his time with us therefore giving him no leverage. He'll sign a contract for less than he'd get on the open market. He has three options:

1) Sign the ERFA tender and play for the minimum of a 3rd year player (I think roughly 550k), then do it again in 2009, then finally become a FA in 2010.

2) Sign to the team friendly deal that we offer him which probably be 3-5 million a year which is about 5-10 times more than he'd make in option 1.

3) Put that Notre Dame education to good use and find a job

Now he's obviously not going to choose #3. #1 would be too much of a risk to him. He'd have to be counting on having two very good seasons and then cashing in on the FA market at 28, while making next to nothing in those seasons by NFL standards. That leaves #2 which is exactly what I've been telling you.

Kampman for President
07-03-2008, 04:38 PM
I could really care less anymore, this is really getting kind of pointless. We'll find out in the upcoming weeks.

GB12
07-03-2008, 04:53 PM
I could really care less anymore, this is really getting kind of pointless. We'll find out in the upcoming weeks.
I just want to say one more thing and then we'll let it go.

Look at the other few occasions that this has happened. In fact it's so rare that there are only two others that I can think of off the top of my head. They are great examples however. Earnest Graham who you already mentioned and Willie Parker are who I'm talking about.

Earnest Graham
Age: 28, 898 yards, 10 TDs
Contract: 4 years $11 million

Willie Parker
Age: 25, 1202 yards, 4 TDs
Contract: 4 years $13.6 million

Ryan Grant
Age: 25, 956 yards, 8 TDs
Contract: ?

I'm expecting a 4 year $15-16 million deal.

umphrey
07-03-2008, 04:53 PM
It's really simple. I have no idea how you guys wrote so much about it.

Grant can either:
1. Retire
2. Sign the ERFA contract for ~ $500,000
3. Sign the contract we offer him

We'll give him a fair contract because we want him to play for us and be happy, but we get to make the rules since his other choice is construction worker.

Kampman for President
07-03-2008, 05:14 PM
I just want to say one more thing and then we'll let it go.

Look at the other few occasions that this has happened. In fact it's so rare that there are only two others that I can think of off the top of my head. They are great examples however. Earnest Graham who you already mentioned and Willie Parker are who I'm talking about.

Earnest Graham
Age: 28, 898 yards, 10 TDs
Contract: 4 years $11 million

Willie Parker
Age: 25, 1202 yards, 4 TDs
Contract: 4 years $13.6 million

Ryan Grant
Age: 25, 956 yards, 8 TDs
Contract: ?

I'm expecting a 4 year $15-16 million deal.

Graham only has this years $2.5 million salary guaranteed. They also have questions at RB because of Carnell Williams injury.

The Steelers paid Parker AFTER his 2nd season.

GB12
07-03-2008, 05:17 PM
The Steelers paid Parker AFTER his 2nd season.
I know, and...?

Kampman for President
07-03-2008, 05:23 PM
I know, and...?

And Grant has .5 seasons in. Its not the same. Parker got paid for a full season's worth, not just 8 games.

GB12
07-03-2008, 05:27 PM
And Grant has 1 season in. Its not the same. Parker got paid for a full season's worth, not just 8 games.
Woah, so now you're saying he deserves less? If so you completely just flipped your stance on the issue.

Parker's first season was just 32 carries by the way.

Kampman for President
07-03-2008, 05:31 PM
Woah, so now you're saying he deserves less? If so you completely just flipped your stance on the issue.

Parker's first season was just 32 carries by the way.

Are you blind or just retardded? I said that Parker got paid after he put up 1200+ yards. He had a FULL season, not a half a season like Grant.

GB12
07-03-2008, 05:34 PM
Shut the **** up, I didn't say **** you dumbfuck. I said that Parker got paid after he put up 1200+ yards. He had a FULL season, not a half a season like Grant.
Yes, which means you completely flip-flopped your opinion, that or you're making a terrible argument. You were just saying how Grant shouldn't take a team friendly deal, and now are saying that he isn't proven. Well which is it?

Kampman for President
07-03-2008, 05:37 PM
Yes, which means you completely flip-flopped your opinion, that or you're making a terrible argument. You were just saying how Grant shouldn't take a team friendly deal, and now are saying that he isn't proven. Well which is it?

I didn't flip flop ****, read back and look how I consistantly say that he'll get a 2-3 year deal with plenty of incentives. The Packers will let him earn his money.

Grant will look out for Grant, cash in one more time before his career is over.

Next retardded question?

GB12
07-03-2008, 05:47 PM
You clearly don't get it. I'm really not sure what's so hard for you to understand, but I'm done with this.

umphrey
07-04-2008, 12:52 PM
Random story:
My friend is a valet in Brookfield, WI. Donald Driver gave him a $100 tip, Nick Collins only gave him $15. We don't want cheap skates, bench him for Rouse...

GB12
07-04-2008, 12:58 PM
Random story:
My friend is a valet in Brookfield, WI. Donald Driver gave him a $100 tip, Nick Collins only gave him $15. We don't want cheap skates, bench him for Rouse...
Where was that at?

umphrey
07-04-2008, 01:12 PM
The Majestic movie theater

neko4
07-04-2008, 07:12 PM
Random story:
My friend is a valet in Brookfield, WI. Donald Driver gave him a $100 tip, Nick Collins only gave him $15. We don't want cheap skates, bench him for Rouse...
Maybe Nick knew Donald was tipping alot so he just gave him 15.
From what I hear Donald is a real cool guy.

PACKmanN
07-06-2008, 01:44 PM
Maybe Nick knew Donald was tipping alot so he just gave him 15.
From what I hear Donald is a real cool guy.

that and maybe the difference between the amount of money they make. Nick is being smart and not throwing away his money on stupid things.

TitleTown088
07-06-2008, 09:30 PM
Random story:
My friend is a valet in Brookfield, WI. Donald Driver gave him a $100 tip, Nick Collins only gave him $15. We don't want cheap skates, bench him for Rouse...

You think the correlation between tips has anything to do with their salaries perhaps?

umphrey
07-07-2008, 01:24 AM
Not sure how you guys took it, but I was mostly sarcastic/joking. Except about benching Collins. Rouse is awesome.

ChezPower4
07-07-2008, 10:34 AM
Random story:
My friend is a valet in Brookfield, WI. Donald Driver gave him a $100 tip, Nick Collins only gave him $15. We don't want cheap skates, bench him for Rouse...

Wonder how much Donald tips at a restaurant? I would think quite a bit if he tips 100 bucks to have his car parked

NY+Giants=NYG
07-07-2008, 10:57 AM
Wonder how much Donald tips at a restaurant? I would think quite a bit if he tips 100 bucks to have his car parked


15 bucks is alot to tip a valet. 100 is insane!

JF4
07-07-2008, 12:06 PM
You know it's a slow offseason when we have in depth discussions about tipping.

TitleTown088
07-07-2008, 03:03 PM
I'm real surprised there hasn't been more talk about the impending Favre debacle in here... Looks like it could potentially become serious for him and the organization.
Here is a great article on it...http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?id=3475850&sportCat=nfl

umphrey
07-07-2008, 05:11 PM
Peter King expects Favre's agent to send a letter to the Packers within the next 10 days, stating that Favre, 38, wants to be taken off the National Football League's reserve/retired list. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/07/07/favre/index.html?eref=si_writers)

Pretty bold, IMO. I think it's all stupid. Maybe I missed something, but Favre hasn't said anything about coming back. He just seems to deny a comeback and distance himself from the situation as much as possible. Hardly the behavior of a guy trying to make a comeback. Writers can put whatever spin on it they want, but in the end it's still pure speculation right now.

But the further he's gotten from the season, the more he realizes he still wants to play.
Why would a writer say something like this? There is absolutely no way he knows what Favre is really thinking right now. Articles about a comeback are loaded with this kind of language, and it bugs the hell out of me because there are people that buy into it.

PackerLegend
07-07-2008, 06:02 PM
I'm real surprised there hasn't been more talk about the impending Favre debacle in here... Looks like it could potentially become serious for him and the organization.
Here is a great article on it...http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?id=3475850&sportCat=nfl

I think its because most any NFL fan is sick of hearing about the constant Brett Favre talk and speculation. We all realise not to believe anything surrounding Favre until it actually happens, after the years of rumors and speculation.

RockJock07
07-07-2008, 07:16 PM
I'm not sure what Brett is thinking. He seemingly took enough time after the NFC champ game and thought it out. I just don't understand what he expects the packers to do. I get the fact that he still knows that he can play, but that's not why he retired, he said he could everything other then the games on sundays.

He's never wanted to be in the limelight and if this is all a fabrication, then he needs to make a public statement and let people know that this isn't true. My guess is that this is real and he really does wanna come back.

jackalope
07-08-2008, 02:28 PM
I will most likely be going to the December 28th Lions game, last game of the season.

johbur
07-08-2008, 10:42 PM
If Brett decides he wants to play football, let the man play football. It's not like he's a broken down QB like Joe Montana who missed a lot of games prior to leaving SF for KC, though he regained his health in KC. He passed for more yards at age 38 than Montana did in any year of his career.

If it is Rodgers, great. We'll see what he's capable of. If it's Favre, even better, as I know what he's capable of.

princefielder28
07-09-2008, 03:10 PM
According to Packers' scout Reggie McKenzie, via a personal conversation with him, the Packers met with Favre today....no specific details.

ChezPower4
07-09-2008, 03:27 PM
hmmm makes you wonder....? would the Packers take him back if he wanted to come back? what do you guys think?

umphrey
07-09-2008, 05:11 PM
Harlan said he would hate to see Brett come back and tarnish his reputation. Murphy said his retirement seemed sincere and it is reasonable for GB to move on.

It seems like we are set on not taking Favre back but don't want to announce it publicly.

RockJock07
07-11-2008, 12:00 PM
hmmm makes you wonder....? would the Packers take him back if he wanted to come back? what do you guys think?

No, the packers will not let him come back. However that doesn't mean he won't try to make it interesting.

I would say that meeting, if indeed true, was probably to remind him that many people are still reeling from his retirement that coming back would divide the team to the point where it may not in the best interest for him to come back.

bearsfan_51
07-11-2008, 01:01 PM
He's never wanted to be in the limelight

Are you serious?

princefielder28
07-11-2008, 01:17 PM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8092e064&template=with-video&confirm=true

Pat Kirwan gives his input

roughrider30
07-11-2008, 01:44 PM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8092e064&template=with-video&confirm=true

Pat Kirwan gives his input

who hasn't in the last couple weeks ;)

mqtirishfan
07-11-2008, 03:20 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3483521

Balls.

ImBrotherCain
07-11-2008, 03:31 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3483521

Balls.

:-O nooooooooo!!!!

Twiddler
07-11-2008, 03:37 PM
Well, here it goes. Nice one Brett. Smooth.

PackerLegend
07-11-2008, 04:04 PM
In case you didnt look at the other thread in NFL section...

From Packers.com sounds like Favre is going to be cut or traded.


Statement From The Green Bay Packers Organization

The Green Bay Packers are aware of the latest developments regarding Brett Favre.

Brett earned and exercised the right to retire on his terms. We wanted him to return and welcomed him back on more than one occasion.

Brett's press conference and subsequent conversations in the following weeks illustrated his commitment to retirement.

The finality of his decision to retire was accepted by the organization. At that point, the Green Bay Packers made the commitment to move forward with our football team.

As a retired player, Brett has the option to apply for reinstatement with Commissioner Goodell. If that were to occur, he would become an active member of the Green Bay Packers. As always, the Packers will do what's right and in the best interest of the team.

As with all Packers greats, Brett's legacy will always be celebrated by our fans and the organization, regardless of any change in his personal intentions.

Brett and Deanna will always be a part of the Packers family.

RockJock07
07-11-2008, 06:33 PM
Well, here it goes. Nice one Brett. Smooth.

This just turned from bad to worse. Brett just put the Packers in a no win situation. There is no way in hell that he gets released, they trade him if anything.

Good for the packers, TT and MM did the right thing here, even thought most will think it is the wrong move. Brett do you here that noise, it's you losing fans that have adored you for 16 years.

princefielder28
07-11-2008, 10:49 PM
Ted Thompson's introduction song from now on should be ACDC's "Big Balls"

princefielder28
07-11-2008, 10:51 PM
According to Packers' scout Reggie McKenzie, via a personal conversation with him, the Packers met with Favre today....no specific details.

I guess Reggie wasn't lying :(

Sportsfan486
07-12-2008, 02:00 AM
Congratulations, Brett Favre, you just tarnished your legacy. Way to go.

People forgave his idiot remarks to the media and what not when he was our team and did amazing things. No one is going to forgive him for pulling this crap.

Packers. Please. PLEASE. I BEG YOU. ADD HIM TO THE ROSTER. DO NOT RELEASE OR TRADE HIM. FORCE HIM TO SIT ON THE BENCH OR REMAIN RETIRED. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

If we release him expect to see him two times next season, likely on the Vikings.

Dr. Gonzo
07-12-2008, 02:46 AM
Go ahead, pay him 10+ million to sit on the bench. It doesn't matter that Favre brought this on himself. The fact is doing that will make th many Packer fans who only like the team because of Favre all the sudden hate the team. There would be an insane amount of backlash if that happened. Either he will be traded for I can bet no higher than a 4th or he will be released. There is no other solution.

PACKmanN
07-12-2008, 03:00 AM
Didn't the Eagles put T.O on the bench as well but the PA got involved and stopped that?

cuzifelt1ikeit
07-12-2008, 11:17 AM
Congratulations, Brett Favre, you just tarnished your legacy. Way to go.

People forgave his idiot remarks to the media and what not when he was our team and did amazing things. No one is going to forgive him for pulling this crap.

Packers. Please. PLEASE. I BEG YOU. ADD HIM TO THE ROSTER. DO NOT RELEASE OR TRADE HIM. FORCE HIM TO SIT ON THE BENCH OR REMAIN RETIRED. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

If we release him expect to see him two times next season, likely on the Vikings.

youre just upset hes leaving.. this doesnt tarnish his legacy. we just have to face it. hes leaving, life goes on. the only ones to blame are ted thompson and mike mccarthy... he said he wanted to come back three weeks after he retired only to have the packers send a private jet down to announce his unretirement and then only to have brett change his mind again. and after that ted and mike had enough and decided that aaron would be the starter no matter what. they also didnt really believe this time when he said he wanted to come back.

its kind of like the boy who cried wolf thing

JF4
07-12-2008, 12:54 PM
youre just upset hes leaving.. this doesnt tarnish his legacy. we just have to face it. hes leaving, life goes on. the only ones to blame are ted thompson and mike mccarthy... he said he wanted to come back three weeks after he retired only to have the packers send a private jet down to announce his unretirement and then only to have brett change his mind again. and after that ted and mike had enough and decided that aaron would be the starter no matter what. they also didnt really believe this time when he said he wanted to come back.

its kind of like the boy who cried wolf thing

I personally don't see how you could blame TT and MM. They gave Favre a deadline to make his decision and he chose not to return. In turn, the Packers drafted two QB's and spent the off-season preparing for a Favre-less season. Now, after all the Packers have done to move on, which includes handing the QB reigns to Aaron Rodgers, Favre nor anyone else should expect GB to be welcom him back with open arms.

Right now is the right time for the Packers to move on without Favre and like you I agree that this will have no effect on his legacy because when we look back in 10 years, everyone will always remember Favre as a Packer.

RockJock07
07-12-2008, 12:55 PM
youre just upset hes leaving.. this doesnt tarnish his legacy. we just have to face it. hes leaving, life goes on. the only ones to blame are ted thompson and mike mccarthy... he said he wanted to come back three weeks after he retired only to have the packers send a private jet down to announce his unretirement and then only to have brett change his mind again. and after that ted and mike had enough and decided that aaron would be the starter no matter what. they also didnt really believe this time when he said he wanted to come back.

its kind of like the boy who cried wolf thing

I'm confused, so you think it is or isn't TT or MM fault that this is happening. Him wanting to play again is not tarishing his legacy, the way he's going about it is.

Apperently the packers are to tell the media today that Brett is welcome back but only as a back-up. That's an expensive back-up but the only other thing to do is trade him.

JF4
07-12-2008, 01:02 PM
I'm confused, so you think it is or isn't TT or MM fault that this is happening. Him wanting to play again is not tarishing his legacy, the way he's going about it is.

Apperently the packers are to tell the media today that Brett is welcome back but only as a back-up. That's an expensive back-up but the only other thing to do is trade him.

I really hope someone offers something for a trade. If that doesn't happen, I fully expect the Packers to release him. They will take the high road for sure and grant his wish to be released.

I am pretty confident that a team will offer something at least. It will give the Packers a chance to control what team he goes to.

Mr.Regular
07-12-2008, 01:13 PM
According to PFT the Packers will not release Favre. They also would welcome him back only as a backup (aka hes not welcome back).
So its either A) Brett changes his mind yet again or B) Trade.


Im so confused right now. I feel such hatred to my biggest hero ever. It isnt right....

JF4
07-12-2008, 01:16 PM
According to PFT the Packers will not release Favre. They also would welcome him back only as a backup (aka hes not welcome back).
So its either A) Brett changes his mind yet again or B) Trade.


Im so confused right now. I feel such hatred to my biggest hero ever. It isnt right....

Thank God PFT reported that...It must not be true!

And why hate Favre? He changed is mind and I personally see no problem in that, we see it all the time in sports. Just that he should've known he wouldn't be welcomed back with open arms.

Mr.Regular
07-12-2008, 01:26 PM
Thank God PFT reported that...It must not be true!

And why hate Favre? He changed is mind and I personally see no problem in that, we see it all the time in sports. Just that he should've known he wouldn't be welcomed back with open arms.

EDIT: WTF, I was trying to edit, not double post.
Because he put is in a lose lose situation. There is no way the Packers come out on top of this situation. His constant wavering and me-first attitude has putten the Packers inbetween a boulder and a hard place. We let him play and ruin months of preparation and possibly ruin the career in Green Bay for Aaron Rodgers. Or we tell him to hit the road and I dont think the state of Wisconsin could stomach that.

Brett is a great guy and a great QB, and Ill always love him. But hes gone too far. He is screwing over the organization with this BS. Us Cheeseheads are the ones that buy his merchandise, support him in every way, and cheer him on every Sunday and now he is scewing us over. He told Green Bay he was done. He said he was moving on and he told the organization to as well. So they did. Now he wants back?! Well sorry, it just cant happen we moved on like we were told. So now you want to be released and play for whomever you choose?! Well thats a dick move to the organization and to all of your loyal fans.

Geo
07-12-2008, 01:36 PM
Hopefully Thompson isn't so stupid as to say behind closed doors what that rumored report indicates, with a fax of a letter Favre could be on the active roster tomorrow and force Thompson to live up his big words (supposedly) and pay him 12M as the back-up quarterback. And that would be a complete and utter ruin for Rodgers and the team, the kid won't even make it to Week 4.

Or then they will release him outright, and a pissed off Favre could be motivated enough to sign with the Bears or Vikings.

JF4
07-12-2008, 01:45 PM
Because he put is in a lose lose situation. There is no way the Packers come out on top of this situation. His constant wavering and me-first attitude has putten the Packers inbetween a boulder and a hard place. We let him play and ruin months of preparation and possibly ruin the career in Green Bay for Aaron Rodgers. Or we tell him to hit the road and I dont think the state of Wisconsin could stomach that.

Brett is a great guy and a great QB, and Ill always love him. But hes gone too far. He is screwing over the organization with this BS. Us Cheeseheads are the ones that buy his merchandise, support him in every way, and cheer him on every Sunday and now he is scewing us over. He told Green Bay he was done. He said he was moving on and he told the organization to as well. So they did. Now he wants back?! Well sorry, it just cant happen we moved on like we were told. So now you want to be released and play for whomever you choose?! Well thats a dick move to the organization and to all of your loyal fans.

Well Said.

RockJock07
07-12-2008, 02:13 PM
Buffulo could use a QB, send him up there to play for a 3rd place team were he's gonna have to play NE twice a year.

What kind of value is Brett worth in a trade. 1st this and next year, or 2 seconds?

bearsfan_51
07-12-2008, 02:45 PM
There isn't a chance in hell the Packers keep Favre on their roster. Playing Rodgers with Favre on the sidelines will destory him. I think it'll be hard enough as is with Favre still in the NFL, but in a way this may unite the fans behind him, assuming he doesn't suck of course.

bearsfan_51
07-12-2008, 02:46 PM
What kind of value is Brett worth in a trade. 1st this and next year, or 2 seconds?

Hahahahahahaha....dude give me a ******* break. They'll get a 3rd rounder if they're lucky. Most likely a 4th or 5th rounder.

RockJock07
07-12-2008, 03:04 PM
Hahahahahahaha....dude give me a ******* break. They'll get a 3rd rounder if they're lucky. Most likely a 4th or 5th rounder.

If that's all TT could get, which i highly doubt, then let him ride the pine for the next three seasons.

TT holds all the cards here, he can ask for whatever he wants, he can ask for a draft pick or a promising young defensive star in the making. A 4th or 5th rounder for a HOF QB is unacceptable.

Hawk
07-12-2008, 03:06 PM
Buffulo could use a QB, send him up there to play for a 3rd place team were he's gonna have to play NE twice a year.

What kind of value is Brett worth in a trade. 1st this and next year, or 2 seconds?

There's no way in hell we could get a 1st or 2nd for Favre.

BF has it right.

If that's all TT could get, which i highly doubt, then let him ride the pine for the next three seasons.

TT holds all the cards here, he can ask for whatever he wants, he can ask for a draft pick or a promising young defensive star in the making. A 4th or 5th rounder for a HOF QB is unacceptable.

Favre is 38 years old and will most likely only play 2 more years, tops. No one is going to give up anything higher than a 4th for him.

princefielder28
07-12-2008, 03:08 PM
Brett can look optimistic at the chance because Aaron can go one of three direction : play well, play poorly, or get hurt. If 2 of the 3 occur then Favre will play

GB12
07-12-2008, 05:04 PM
Wow, what a bad week I picked to be gone. Nothing had happend in forever and then in 7 days the Brewers finalize a trade for CC Sabathia and he makes his first start, Andrew Bogut resigns with the Bucks, and this whole Favre situation really took off.

I haven't caught up entirely on what's going on, but it seems like there is still a lot that hasn't been released to the public.

bearsfan_51
07-12-2008, 06:00 PM
If that's all TT could get, which i highly doubt, then let him ride the pine for the next three seasons.

TT holds all the cards here, he can ask for whatever he wants, he can ask for a draft pick or a promising young defensive star in the making. A 4th or 5th rounder for a HOF QB is unacceptable.
You are wrong on almost every count.

TT holds all the cards. False. Ridiculously false in fact. Favre's presence on the team could destroy the Packers. I said a few days ago prior to this announcement that the best thing that could happen to the Packers is that Favre would either change his mind or die. Anything he does from here on out has a negative effect on the Packers.

So, that being said, they have to get rid of him. They just have to. They know it. Favre knows it. Everyone else in the NFL knows it too.

So what would you give up to rent one year from a 38 year old quarterback that has quit the game of football twice in the last few months, hasn't done anything in the playoffs since 1997, and has a salary of 12 million dollars? Oh, and don't forget that you're likely only bidding against one or two other teams since the Packers won't even talk to the Bears or Vikings.

McNair got a 5th rounder I believe. Like I said, I think a 3rd is very generous. If I were the Packers I would trade Aaron Rodgers and hope that Brohm can be the QB of the future, but that ship sailed a while ago.

GB12
07-12-2008, 06:15 PM
So what would you give up to rent one year from a 38 year old quarterback that has quit the game of football twice in the last few months, hasn't done anything in the playoffs since 1997, and has a salary of 12 million dollars? Oh, and don't forget that you're likely only bidding against one or two other teams since the Packers won't even talk to the Bears or Vikings.

McNair got a 5th rounder I believe. Like I said, I think a 3rd is very generous. If I were the Packers I would trade Aaron Rodgers and hope that Brohm can be the QB of the future, but that ship sailed a while ago.

Joe Montana got the 49ers a first and third coming off of elbow surgery that kept him out for 2 seasons. Times have changed and we wouldn't get anywhere near that, but I'd say a 3rd seems fair.

Trading Rodgers was something that I had thought about. Favre could play and then have Brohm be the QB of the future, we are set up for that perfectly. However we'd be trading away a first round QB with out letting him start a game. You just can't do that.

Smokey
07-12-2008, 07:20 PM
Brett can look optimistic at the chance because Aaron can go one of three direction : play well, play poorly, or get hurt. If 2 of the 3 occur then Favre will play

This is an excellent point. Once Favre officially announced his retirement I felt as though I had taken a bat to the gut. It threw me into a deep funk (and now he decides he wants back in - I'm slightly pissed and saddened but fault the Packers in no way - It's as if my frustation over the offseason these last three years has solidified.).

But eventually I began to think of the future of the Packers. And Aaron Rodgers. And my first moment of doubt for him, in spite of my hope, was his history of injuries. It remains to be seen but I wonder if he's not a bit brittle. The past has certainly pointed that way.

And if Rodgers does go down, barring a miracle from Brohm, the season is tanked.

GB12
07-12-2008, 10:11 PM
Some idiot thought it would be a good idea to stir up trouble. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=771871

cuzifelt1ikeit
07-12-2008, 10:15 PM
its not bretts fault it turned out like this.. im just saying that if ted and mike wouldve welcomed him back none of this would be going on. BUT it isnt ted and mikes fault for not wanting him back. they gave him one chance to many and finally got tired of the flip flop game so they moved on.

i forgot to quote whoever asked me what side im taking.. thats kind of confusing but i think it makes sense haha oh well

FLORIDA PACKER
07-12-2008, 10:28 PM
according to PFT Johnny Jolly has been busted on felony drug charges, Codeine.

A rather shatty weak if I do say so myself X_X

EvilMonkey
07-13-2008, 10:55 AM
according to PFT Johnny Jolly has been busted on felony drug charges, Codeine.

A rather shatty weak if I do say so myself X_X

little story on it
http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/2008/07/13/jolly-arrested-in-houston.aspx

could really hurt our defense if we lose him. Was playing really good last year and we needed him to step up this year after trading Williams. Might get to see a lot of Harrell this year it looks like. Hopefully he can live up to his draft position.

cuzifelt1ikeit
07-13-2008, 12:05 PM
In the United States, codeine is regulated by the Controlled Substances Act. It is a Schedule II controlled substance for pain-relief products containing codeine alone or more than 90 mg per dosage unit. In combination with aspirin or acetaminophen (paracetamol/Tylenol) it is listed as Schedule III or V, depending on formula. Preparations for cough or diarrhoea containing small amounts of codeine in combination with two or more other active ingredients are Schedule V in the US, and in some states may be dispensed in amounts up to 4 fl. oz. per 48 hours without a prescription. Schedule V specifically consigns the product to state and local regulation beyond certain required record-keeping requirements (a dispensary log must be maintained for two years in a ledger from which pages cannot easily be removed and/or are pre-numbered and the pharmacist must ask for a picture ID such as a driving licence) and also which maintain controlled substances in the closed system at the root of the régime intended by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 -- e.g. the codeine in these products was a Schedule II substance when the company making the Schedule V product acquired it for mixing up the end product. In locales where dilute codeine preparations are non-prescription, anywhere from very few to perhaps a moderate percentage of pharmacists will sell these preparations without a prescription. However, many states have their own laws that do require a prescription for Schedule V drugs. Other drugs which are present in Schedule V narcotic preparations like the codeine syrups are ethylmorphine and dihydrocodeine. Paregoric and hydrocodone were transferred to Schedule III from Schedule V even if the preparation contains two or more other active ingredients, and diphenoxylate is usually covered by state prescription laws even though this relative of pethidine is a Schedule V substance when adulterated with atropine to prevent abuse.

Codeine is also available outside the United States as an over-the-counter drug in liquid cough-relief formulations. Internationally, codeine is a Schedule II drug under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

i think this says that you can get codeine without prescription in some states... also that it is used as a pain killer.. so it makes sense why he had it. however 200 mg is alot to have

TitleTown088
07-13-2008, 09:38 PM
Jolly being in trouble is not good news for the Packers should he be suspended. There will be no depth, this sucks.

If Teddy can pull the franchise out of all of these situations I'm going to be thoroughly impressed.

Pacific
07-13-2008, 09:46 PM
I don't know what the legal ramifications will be, but from an NFL standpoint, he doesn't have any history so he should get 4 games right?

GB12
07-13-2008, 09:48 PM
Terrence Kiel was suspended for one game in 2006 for codeine. Hopefully that's all it'd be for Jolly. That'd still be a terrible time to miss. Week 1 we have the Vikings and AD.

umphrey
07-14-2008, 01:08 AM
Maybe it's the green and gold glasses but it seems like he was just searching for pain relief. If he was trying to get f***ed up he probably would have had oxycontin or something.

PACKmanN
07-14-2008, 01:13 AM
Terrence Kiel was suspended for one game in 2006 for codeine. Hopefully that's all it'd be for Jolly. That'd still be a terrible time to miss. Week 1 we have the Vikings and AD.

do preseason games count?

neko4
07-14-2008, 08:53 AM
according to PFT Johnny Jolly has been busted on felony drug charges, Codeine.

A rather shatty weak if I do say so myself X_X
God dammit you idiot (Jolly)
I hope Harrell steps up now

TitleTown088
07-14-2008, 01:57 PM
do preseason games count?

What do you think?

Favre is supposed to appear on foz news tonight.

http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/2008/07/14/favre-on-fox-news-tonight.aspx

PACKmanN
07-15-2008, 06:31 PM
has anyone heard of any rookies signing? all we hear out of GB is Favre news.

RockJock07
07-15-2008, 07:39 PM
You are wrong on almost every count.

TT holds all the cards. False. Ridiculously false in fact. Favre's presence on the team could destroy the Packers. I said a few days ago prior to this announcement that the best thing that could happen to the Packers is that Favre would either change his mind or die. Anything he does from here on out has a negative effect on the Packers.

So, that being said, they have to get rid of him. They just have to. They know it. Favre knows it. Everyone else in the NFL knows it too.

So what would you give up to rent one year from a 38 year old quarterback that has quit the game of football twice in the last few months, hasn't done anything in the playoffs since 1997, and has a salary of 12 million dollars? Oh, and don't forget that you're likely only bidding against one or two other teams since the Packers won't even talk to the Bears or Vikings.

McNair got a 5th rounder I believe. Like I said, I think a 3rd is very generous. If I were the Packers I would trade Aaron Rodgers and hope that Brohm can be the QB of the future, but that ship sailed a while ago.

Maybe you have inside information that I don't because I'm not sure how you could assume that Favre would only come back for one year. He's so back and forth that I'm not sure what the hell would happen in seasons to come.

McNair was a solid QB at the time of his trade, and is a HOFer in my eyes, however to compair this situation to Steve is crazy. Let's just talk about Mcnair's injury history, if he were in the same position as brett (started every game) then that pick goes up to a solid 3rd maybe even 2nd.

You are right however that the packers will never trade Brett to the vikings or Bears. Plus, you can be sure that if TT chooses to trade him, there will be an agreement that the team he goes to can't turn around and trade him to the Bears or Vikings.

TitleTown088
07-16-2008, 06:29 PM
Packers filed tampering charges agianst the Queens. Ha.

Geo
07-16-2008, 06:51 PM
I doubt the Vikes will give up anything. This is different, Favre and the OC are friends, barring an audio recording there is no proof tampering is involved. Even though it probably happened.

Boston
07-16-2008, 07:39 PM
Brett can't be dumb enough to go and play for the Vikings now. That would be beyond unbelievable.

Twiddler
07-16-2008, 07:45 PM
Brett can't be dumb enough to go and play for the Vikings now. That would be beyond unbelievable.

I must say, that after listening to him last night in the interview and reading what he had to say in the unbroadcasted part, I wouldn't be that surprised. The guy has some major sour grapes at this point. And why? Because Ted Thompson didn't bow down and let Brett play GM at certain points? Give me a break.

GB12
07-16-2008, 08:23 PM
Brett can't be dumb enough to go and play for the Vikings now. That would be beyond unbelievable.
You know what? I doesn't matter because it's not his decission. As much as he'd like to think so it's not his choice as to where he's going to play next year, and we're not going to let him go to a division rival.

Smokey
07-16-2008, 10:57 PM
Let him go if that's his choice. He deserves as much if we're truly moving on. Man oh man first game of the season would be a madhouse. One for the ages.

Twiddler
07-17-2008, 10:46 AM
Let him go if that's his choice. He deserves as much if we're truly moving on. Man oh man first game of the season would be a madhouse. One for the ages.

Sorry, he's still under contract with us and the NFL is a business. We're just doing whats best for the franchise. Also, we don't really owe him anything. Yes he changed the face of the franchise and all that but as far as I know, we made him one rich sob.

The Legend
07-17-2008, 01:11 PM
I wouldnt say we dont owe, your right this is a bussiness and we should send him to the team that is willing to give the best offer and if thats the Vikings i say we do it. If the Vikings are willing to give a 1st round (I dont think so.) then we should do it, its worth it to have a top player and vs Favre 1 or 2 years. The best option for us is to send him to the Ravens, thats far away and we wont have to vs him unless its in the Superbowl.

Smokey
07-17-2008, 01:23 PM
Sorry, he's still under contract with us and the NFL is a business. We're just doing whats best for the franchise. Also, we don't really owe him anything. Yes he changed the face of the franchise and all that but as far as I know, we made him one rich sob.

It is a business and treating it so this is a PR nightmare and, if Favre were to return to the team, could seriously disrupt the organization.

I think everyone involved, including Favre, realizes this. I'm of the opinion he won't be playing more than 2 years. get what you can for those 2 years, even if it's from the damned Vikings.

Twiddler
07-17-2008, 01:52 PM
It is a business and treating it so this is a PR nightmare and, if Favre were to return to the team, could seriously disrupt the organization.

I think everyone involved, including Favre, realizes this. I'm of the opinion he won't be playing more than 2 years. get what you can for those 2 years, even if it's from the damned Vikings.

I see where you're coming from, I guess I just value trading between division rivals differently. Plus, thinking of Favre in Minnesota and coming over here for the first game of the year makes me cringe, haha.

I wouldnt say we dont owe, your right this is a bussiness and we should send him to the team that is willing to give the best offer and if thats the Vikings i say we do it. If the Vikings are willing to give a 1st round (I dont think so.) then we should do it, its worth it to have a top player and vs Favre 1 or 2 years. The best option for us is to send him to the Ravens, thats far away and we wont have to vs him unless its in the Superbowl.

Yeah, I think the Ravens are also starting to be a good option.

Overall though I'm starting to think that Favre might not be able to be traded. First of all, we have to find the team that is right for him and won't interfere with our own team this year (like a division rival). Then he has to agree with it and approve of the trade because of the clause in the contract. Finally the team we are trading him to actually has to want to trade for him and we have to get some decent value. Odds are against us, in my opinion.

GB12
07-17-2008, 03:52 PM
Trading Favre to the Vikings is one of the dumbest things I've read.

Twiddler
07-17-2008, 04:27 PM
I'm not usually very big an articles that Don Banks writes but his piece on Favre hit almost every single thought I have on this situation to the tee. Great article.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/don_banks/07/17/favre.snaps/index.html

Smokey
07-18-2008, 04:56 PM
I'm not usually very big an articles that Don Banks writes but his piece on Favre hit almost every single thought I have on this situation to the tee. Great article.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/don_banks/07/17/favre.snaps/index.html

Agree. An excellent article.

RockJock07
07-19-2008, 05:18 PM
Well according to Bus and Brett, they haven't made definate plans to apply for reinstatment. They keep saying they have until week 6 to do it. My guess is that they weren't counting on the packers to play hardball and now that they have, they really don't have an option.

princefielder28
07-19-2008, 08:30 PM
Well according to Bus and Brett, they haven't made definate plans to apply for reinstatment. They keep saying they have until week 6 to do it. My guess is that they weren't counting on the packers to play hardball and now that they have, they really don't have an option.

Or Favre doesn't want to go to training camp....

johbur
07-20-2008, 12:51 AM
Trading Favre to the Vikings is one of the dumbest things I've read.

Trade him for AD and Kevin Williams.

Gatz
07-20-2008, 01:18 AM
I know it's old news but the fact that Favre actually wouldn't mind and probably wants to go to play for the vikings really, Really pisses me off.

GB12
07-20-2008, 01:46 AM
I know it's old news but the fact that Favre actually wouldn't mind and probably wants to go to play for the vikings really, Really pisses me off.
That's a common feeling for a player to have when they're upset with their team. The best way to get back at them is to go and play well for a rival.

PackerLegend
07-20-2008, 10:52 AM
I dont know if you guys heard about it already or not but the 3 things Favre felt Thompson was untruthful/lied about and made him upset.

1. Not trading for Randy Moss

2. Letting Marco Rivera and Mike Wahle go, Rivera sucked after he left Green Bay and Wahle did alright but he is also a couple years younger then Rivera. We got new guards at the time that carried a much lower price tag then these aging vets.

3. Not interviewing Steve Mariucci for the head coaching spot after Sherman was fired. Steve happens to be one of Favres close friends.

Appartently Brett is the GM and its his job to decide who the next head coach should be, who the Packers should bring in yadda, yadda, yadda. The only move he listed that actually made some sense was trading for Moss, but even that didnt make much sense. Sure Moss put up insane numbers but did anyone see it coming? We would have had to push Greg Jennings back to the #3, James Jones back to #4 and Favre would constantly have a woody to throw deep to Moss. Moss is also an aging vet who still has time but we have a bunch of pretty good young looking guys. Who havent comanded the salary that Moss has thus far.

Favre has made it seem like throughout this whole ordeal it is all about what Brett wants. What Brett should do, blah blah blah he never once talked about the team and how close to a SB we were. Never said that we were a great young team and we had a good shot to get back to where we wanted and that he wanted to be apart of that. Mr. Favre has yet to learn there is no I in team.

Twiddler
07-20-2008, 12:30 PM
I dont know if you guys heard about it already or not but the 3 things Favre felt Thompson was untruthful/lied about and made him upset.

1. Not trading for Randy Moss

2. Letting Marco Rivera and Mike Wahle go, Rivera sucked after he left Green Bay and Wahle did alright but he is also a couple years younger then Rivera. We got new guards at the time that carried a much lower price tag then these aging vets.

3. Not interviewing Steve Mariucci for the head coaching spot after Sherman was fired. Steve happens to be one of Favres close friends.

Appartently Brett is the GM and its his job to decide who the next head coach should be, who the Packers should bring in yadda, yadda, yadda. The only move he listed that actually made some sense was trading for Moss, but even that didnt make much sense. Sure Moss put up insane numbers but did anyone see it coming? We would have had to push Greg Jennings back to the #3, James Jones back to #4 and Favre would constantly have a woody to throw deep to Moss. Moss is also an aging vet who still has time but we have a bunch of pretty good young looking guys. Who havent comanded the salary that Moss has thus far.

Favre has made it seem like throughout this whole ordeal it is all about what Brett wants. What Brett should do, blah blah blah he never once talked about the team and how close to a SB we were. Never said that we were a great young team and we had a good shot to get back to where we wanted and that he wanted to be apart of that. Mr. Favre has yet to learn there is no I in team.

But there's a me in team. I think that's what Brett is going after.

And I hope that this is the realization that all Packer fans are coming to soon. It just sucks that whenever people all over the country think of Packer fans they think of drooling Favre worshipers who think their man can do no wrong and will eternally be the QB of the Green Bay Packers. Some of us actually understand some football.

PackerLegend
07-20-2008, 06:46 PM
Have any rookies been signed?

Jordy Nelson
Brian Brohm
Patrick Lee
Jermichael Finley
Jeremy Thompson
Josh Sitton
Breno Giacomini
Matt Flynn
Brett Swain

and we still have Ryan Grant to sign.


Just wondering because training camp starts next Monday July 28th and today is July 20th. Last year we had atleast some draft picks signed in June and early July, this year we still have 0. I know probably most will get signed but I just hope we can get everyone in on time because it causes setbacks.

Countdown

Training Camp- 8 days away
1st Preseason game- Aug 11th- 22 days away almost 21 now!
1st Reg season game- Sep 8th- 50 days away


Football season is almost back baby! Training camp is almost here and finally we can get the new scoop on all the Rookies and returning players.

GB12
07-20-2008, 06:48 PM
I'm not worried about it. It's not like anyone we drafted would hold out. I mean we didn't even have a first round pick.

TitleTown088
07-20-2008, 10:28 PM
he Packers are expected to sign wide receiver Jordy Nelson to a four-year contract worth about $4.55 million within the next few days. The rest of the draft picks should also be in the fold by the end of the week

http://www.packerupdate.com/

PackerLegend
07-20-2008, 11:02 PM
How reliable is that site? Never heard of it. But I mean this isnt something to hard to predict as training camp starts next Monday.

TitleTown088
07-21-2008, 11:26 AM
How reliable is that site? Never heard of it. But I mean this isnt something to hard to predict as training camp starts next Monday.
Not overly reliable. I've read a few things on there that have come to fruition but I wouldn't look at as rock-solid.

GB12
07-21-2008, 03:31 PM
Ryan Grant was just on NFL Live, and Greg Jennings is about to be on Jim Rome.

cuzifelt1ikeit
07-21-2008, 03:47 PM
Ryan Grant was just on NFL Live, and Greg Jennings is about to be on Jim Rome.

jennings in my eyes just threw together a great interview. i hope he stays with us for a long time.

Pacific
07-21-2008, 05:04 PM
The Packers are expected to sign wide receiver Jordy Nelson to a four-year contract worth about $4.55 million within the next few days. The rest of the draft picks should also be in the fold by the end of the week

$4.55 million total? That seems kind of low even for a second round pick.

GB12
07-21-2008, 05:11 PM
$4.55 million total? That seems kind of low even for a second round pick.
It's really not. That's deal sounds right where it should be. Pick #36 last year was Kevin Kolb, he signed a 4 year $4.32 million contract. In 2006 Chad Jackson signed a 4 year $3.9 million contract after being picked 36th.

Twiddler
07-21-2008, 09:04 PM
http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=4874

Yes, I know its from a Bears site but I think this article does a good job showing the lack of options when it comes to trading Favre.

TitleTown088
07-21-2008, 09:36 PM
http://schultzscountrybarn.com/images/Corn%20Maze%202008.jpg

Twiddler
07-21-2008, 09:46 PM
http://schultzscountrybarn.com/images/Corn%20Maze%202008.jpg

I saw that earlier. Talk about a devoted fan.

RockJock07
07-22-2008, 12:04 AM
But there's a me in team. I think that's what Brett is going after.

And I hope that this is the realization that all Packer fans are coming to soon. It just sucks that whenever people all over the country think of Packer fans they think of drooling Favre worshipers who think their man can do no wrong and will eternally be the QB of the Green Bay Packers. Some of us actually understand some football.

I agree. Look, I can speak for most that I was a Brett Favre fan through and through but when you start this nonsense and people's pantience was already growing thin because of the crap he's pulled the last 3 years, that's when I have a problem with Brett.

Brett can piss and moan all he wants about the moves made and not made. Alot of us including myself wondered the same things, why not give up a 4th for Moss, why not keep the Guards, why not SM, but in the end, the team is light years ahead of where it would have been had these moves had been made.

TT is a top 3-4 GM in football, he and MM have formed something really special here. We all questioned some of TT's moves, but in the end he's been here awhile now and has placed the pack in very good position. I guess I expect Brett to understand that football is a biz, and now after bitching and complaining about how things were run, he's finding out that GB and packers fans are treating this whole thing like a business.

PackerLegend
07-22-2008, 10:48 AM
Ryan Grant is already doing commercials... just saw him in one for fantasy football, wasn't to bad.

Smokey
07-22-2008, 05:59 PM
Posted this in the main NFL thread as well. Boy oh boy:

Heard this on ESPN radio on the way home, and can't find anything in print to back it up, but ESPN is claiming that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting hard evidence on the Packer's charges of tampering against Minnesota.

Apparently Favre still had a cell phone in his possession given to him and billed to the Packers. On the bill for that cell phone are multiple calls being placed to two numbers, that of Favre friend (& former Packers coach and current Minny O coordinator) Darrel Bevell and to Minnesota head coach Brad Childress.

If true that's pretty damning.

Pacific
07-22-2008, 06:03 PM
BUSTED!!!!

Twiddler
07-22-2008, 06:09 PM
That would definitely (in my mind) be enough to make a good case. Just because he contacted Childress though, I don't think the Bevell situation would get us anywhere because of their prior relationships. But damn, if that's true thats good news.

Smokey
07-22-2008, 06:16 PM
That would definitely (in my mind) be enough to make a good case. Just because he contacted Childress though, I don't think the Bevell situation would get us anywhere because of their prior relationships. But damn, if that's true thats good news.

Agree. If he indeed contacted Childress, and the Packers have the records to back it up, then it should be ironclad that the league should take action.

Why would favre had been so dense as to use a Packer's cell to talk to the Vikings though? Still - the Packers claimed they had strong evidence. This could be it.

* Been combing multiple sites, including JS online. Can't find anything in print. I'll take a wait and see.

Twiddler
07-22-2008, 06:20 PM
Agree. If he indeed contacted Childress, and the Packers have the records to back it up, then it should be ironclad that the league should take action.

Why would favre had been so dense as to use a Packer's cell to talk to the Vikings though? Still - the Packers claimed they had strong evidence. This could be it.

* Been combing multiple sites, including JS online. Can't find anything in print. I'll take a wait and see.

Haha, yeah if that ends up being the case then I'll have a pretty good laugh at it. I haven't been able to find anything either.

GB12
07-22-2008, 07:04 PM
We have our first draft pick signed. It is...




...Brett Swain

GB12
07-22-2008, 07:28 PM
Second one signed, Matt Flynn.

TitleTown088
07-22-2008, 08:12 PM
Posted this in the main NFL thread as well. Boy oh boy:

Heard this on ESPN radio on the way home, and can't find anything in print to back it up, but ESPN is claiming that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting hard evidence on the Packer's charges of tampering against Minnesota.

Apparently Favre still had a cell phone in his possession given to him and billed to the Packers. On the bill for that cell phone are multiple calls being placed to two numbers, that of Favre friend (& former Packers coach and current Minny O coordinator) Darrel Bevell and to Minnesota head coach Brad Childress.

If true that's pretty damning.
PFT was also reported that if favre had a cell phone paid for by the Packers it potentially could be a salary cap violation.

I think that seems a little far fetched.






Yay, the practice squanders signed!

PackerLegend
07-22-2008, 10:51 PM
PFT was also reported that if favre had a cell phone paid for by the Packers it potentially could be a salary cap violation.

I think that seems a little far fetched.






Yay, the practice squanders signed!

I read that, like the cost of the phone would have to be included in Favre's salary cap number (when he wasnt retired, now that he is it doesn't matter) or its a violation. Sounds stupid to me, anyways Favre a traitor??? sounds like it to me.

Ahmad Carroll is also back. The Jets have signed him again

Mr.Regular
07-22-2008, 10:52 PM
ready for some funny news? ahmad carroll signed with the jets lol! WOW, ahahahahahahahahaha


he better "grab on" to this oppurtunity because there is no way he will get another one.


ahahaha ahmad carrol...the name alone is a punchline.

Twiddler
07-22-2008, 11:58 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3500610

The video on the side that is second down is the footage of ESPN discussing the news that you heard Smokey. I know its not in print (I still haven't found anything on jsonline), but its evidence that it is being talked about by more than just bloggers.

And sorry to burst your bubble Mr. Regular but PackerLegend beat you to it. But I guess there can never be too many Grabby Smurf and Highway 28 jokes.

GB12
07-23-2008, 12:05 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3500610

The video on the side that is second down is the footage of ESPN discussing the news that you heard Smokey. I know its not in print (I still haven't found anything on jsonline), but its evidence that it is being talked about by more than just bloggers.

And sorry to burst your bubble Mr. Regular but PackerLegend beat you to it. But I guess there can never be too many Grabby Smurf and Highway 28 jokes.
That's what I don't get. ESPN keeps citing JSOnline as their source, yet JSOnline has nothing about it up.

Smokey
07-23-2008, 09:05 AM
The Red Zone has posted a link to a Vikings web site that is citing JS Online in regards to the improper phone calls from Favre. Still nothing from JS Online themselves though. Is from a blog though, so take that for what it's worth.

http://blogs.twincities.com/Vikings/...u_hear_me.html


Update: ESPN has a full article up on the subject, including news that the NFL security arm is visiting Minnesota over these charges.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3501459

Twiddler
07-23-2008, 10:58 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/extramustard/specials/morning_jolt/2008/07/23/morning.jolt/index.html

SI.com has reported the teams (as a rumor) that we shopped Favre to. They include the Jets, the Ravens, the Dolphins, the Houston Texans, the Panthers, Buccaneers, Falcons and Redskins.

Interesting. My guess is that this is just to say we shopped him.

Smokey
07-23-2008, 11:04 AM
Don't know. The more I'm hearing the more the possibility of Favre to the Bucs seems plausible.

princefielder28
07-23-2008, 12:44 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/extramustard/specials/morning_jolt/2008/07/23/morning.jolt/index.html

SI.com has reported the teams (as a rumor) that we shopped Favre to. They include the Jets, the Ravens, the Dolphins, the Houston Texans, the Panthers, Buccaneers, Falcons and Redskins.

Interesting. My guess is that this is just to say we shopped him.

Redskins can't take on the money so they can be eliminated

TitleTown088
07-23-2008, 03:59 PM
Apparently we're going in order
Giacomini and Sittin signed http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playernews.aspx?sport=NFL

princefielder28
07-24-2008, 10:05 AM
Shareholders meeting is today....should be interesting to see what kind of questions they throw at TT....I was thinking about going but I have to work :(; it's not worth sitting through all the finance and stuff like that to hear TT talk, even though it is interesting to hear about revenue and where it all goes and what direction they're looking to go in

princefielder28
07-24-2008, 11:44 AM
Brady Poppinga has been signed to an undisclosed extension according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Smokey
07-24-2008, 01:48 PM
More on the Brett Favre cell phone issue - it's being strongly disputed:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3502994

GB12
07-24-2008, 02:11 PM
Brady Poppinga has been signed to an undisclosed extension according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Good move. I like Poppinga and as the article said even if he doesn't take a hold of the SLB starting job for good he's a valuable special teamer. Kind of strange to get this one done before Grant though.

TitleTown088
07-24-2008, 03:25 PM
Shareholders meeting is today....should be interesting to see what kind of questions they throw at TT....I was thinking about going but I have to work :(; it's not worth sitting through all the finance and stuff like that to hear TT talk, even though it is interesting to hear about revenue and where it all goes and what direction they're looking to go in

On ESPN radio they said TT was greeted to a round of applause. That's something I like to hear.

Smokey
07-24-2008, 03:30 PM
On ESPN radio they said TT was greeted to a round of applause. That's something I like to hear.


There were some dissenting voices. The Red Zone of course played it up like Thompson was being heckled and jeered but when you get into the meat of the story it's clear this was not so.

TitleTown088
07-24-2008, 03:57 PM
There were some dissenting voices. The Red Zone of course played it up like Thompson was being heckled and jeered but when you get into the meat of the story it's clear this was not so.

Thompson was next and was generally greeted with cheers. Many fans stood to applaud Thompson.

per Jsonline.com

PackerLegend
07-24-2008, 04:17 PM
Brady Poppinga has been signed to an undisclosed extension according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

per rotoworld

Packers signed SLB Brady Poppinga to a four-year, $17 million extension through 2012.

Starter money for someone isn't a great starter. The BYU alum was a pass rusher in college, but Green Bay had asked him to do more covering to this point. They'll have Brandon Chillar do that now, and probably start. Poppinga's snaps will be cut, but he'll focus on his specialty; blitzing and special teams.

GB12
07-24-2008, 04:32 PM
per rotoworld

Packers signed SLB Brady Poppinga to a four-year, $17 million extension through 2012.

Starter money for someone isn't a great starter. The BYU alum was a pass rusher in college, but Green Bay had asked him to do more covering to this point. They'll have Brandon Chillar do that now, and probably start. Poppinga's snaps will be cut, but he'll focus on his specialty; blitzing and special teams.
It's actually a 4 year extension that brings the total up to $17 million. So really it's 17 million over 5 years. Considering the market that's good value for us.

Twiddler
07-24-2008, 04:45 PM
It's actually a 4 year extension that brings the total up to $17 million. So really it's 17 million over 5 years. Considering the market that's good value for us.

That doesn't seem too bad. Especially with the way that player salaries are rising too and its not like we don't have the room.

PackerLegend
07-24-2008, 11:02 PM
Sorry dont know where to post this....but anyone know when the NFLDC front page will change to something else. We have been looking at Matt Forte for atleast a month and only got to look at Jordyzzz for 1 or 2 days tops. I know the team reviews are done but isnt there a 2009 theme??? No more Matt Forte!

princefielder28
07-24-2008, 11:03 PM
Sorry dont know where to post this....but anyone know when the NFLDC front page will change to something else. We have been looking at Matt Forte for atleast a month and only got to look at Jordyzzz for 1 or 2 days tops. I know the team reviews are done but isnt there a 2009 theme??? No more Matt Forte!

probably within two or three weeks

GB12
07-24-2008, 11:38 PM
Jeremy Thompson signed.

princefielder28
07-25-2008, 11:33 AM
Brett is showing up for TC...let the circus continue

Twiddler
07-25-2008, 11:43 AM
Alright TT, lets get down to business. Trade his ass so that we don't have the media circus come attack Green Bay. Please.

drowe
07-25-2008, 11:49 AM
yikes, i'm seriously considering driving over to St. Norbert on sunday with a lawn chair and a 6 pack and just watch the Favre drama unfold.

bearsfan_51
07-25-2008, 12:11 PM
yikes, i'm seriously considering driving over to St. Norbert on sunday with a lawn chair and a 6 pack and just watch the Favre drama unfold.
You should drive over there with a steel chair so you can hit Favre over the head with it.

Twiddler
07-25-2008, 12:46 PM
In an interview with Fox News last week, Favre said it was "tempting" to show up to Packers camp to call the Packers' "bluff."

But, Favre added: "I don't want to go back there just to stick it to them."

Jackass...

TitleTown088
07-25-2008, 01:28 PM
Jackass...

It could be a ploy for a trade. say he's showing up to make it look like the Packers aren't as desperate to deal him.

I think he's going to the big apple to reunited with Bubba and Ahmad Caroll.

drowe
07-25-2008, 02:29 PM
You should drive over there with a steel chair so you can hit Favre over the head with it.

wow. ya know things have gotten bad in Bearsland when ya have to quote Stephen A Smith to find a negative perception of the Packers.

PACKmanN
07-25-2008, 02:44 PM
It could be a ploy for a trade. say he's showing up to make it look like the Packers aren't as desperate to deal him.

I think he's going to the big apple to reunited with Bubba and Ahmad Caroll.

He probably misses burning Carroll during TC, and watching Bubba do nothing but block.