PDA

View Full Version : Brett Favre comeback or Aaron Rodger's New Era


07-17-2006, 02:40 PM
Mods: I made a question like this one, but I phrased it wrong and people didn't understand what I was saying (my fault). Hopefully this will be a more accurate poll and people understand this time.

Do you think Favre should have come back, or do you think it is time for the Aaron Rodgers Era of football to begin the Green Bay? This isn't who should start (my fault on last poll), but if you think it would be better for the organization if Favre retired and Rodgers would take over now, or Favre should come back and Rodgers should keep holding a clipboard.

In my opinion, Aaron Rodgers was drafted to be the franchise QB. Brett Favre's career is over and he has nothing more to prove. The Packers, in all likelihood, won't make the playoffs and this is a wasted season if Rodgers doesn't play a lot. If the Pack want to get back in contention they need to look towards the future and give Aaron Rodgers his learning curve. If he doesn't play a lot, they will suffer a lot in 2007 because he won't have that added experience. He should know the playbook pretty well, and he isn't a rookie.

Boston
07-17-2006, 02:48 PM
It was good that Favre came back. Not only did he give the packers a better chance to win, he also gave Rodgers more time to learn under a future HOF. And let's face it. The packers didn't really gain to many playmakers on offense this year, so if Rodgers came in due to favre retiring, he could end up losing confindence and free-falling from there.

07-17-2006, 02:49 PM
Favre retiring would have been better for the team b/c Rodgers needs to start playing asap.

Vince Lombardi
07-17-2006, 03:03 PM
Brett isn't setting back Aaron at all, if anything he could stand to have another year to learn from one of the greats. Alot of great QB's have spent their 1st couple of years on the bench learning the game, one more year isn't gonna hurt Aaron.

ny10804
07-17-2006, 03:08 PM
Brett isn't setting back Aaron at all, if anything he could stand to have another year to learn from one of the greats. Alot of great QB's have spent their 1st couple of years on the bench learning the game, one more year isn't gonna hurt Aaron.

One such example is Matt Hasselbeck. In his first two years in the league with the Packers, he attempted a total of 29 passes. He made his first start in his 3rd year. Now, he's a Pro Bowl QB. Hopefully the same will be said about Rodgers.

07-17-2006, 03:10 PM
Brett isn't setting back Aaron at all, if anything he could stand to have another year to learn from one of the greats. Alot of great QB's have spent their 1st couple of years on the bench learning the game, one more year isn't gonna hurt Aaron.

How many years do you need to sit and learn? You don't learn on the bench after your first year unless you are a project like Vince Young that is serious overhaul. Rodgers has great physical skills and has the mechanics down pat. He needs experience.

He is costing the team millions of dollars holding a clipboard and Favre is costing them more because they won't make the playoffs. Not only will they win 7-9 games and not make the playoffs (a waste of a season) but they won't get that high draft pick they need. If Rogers plays they will only win 5-7 games, but at least he will be learning and he will get a much better player picking #8 instead of #15.

07-17-2006, 03:11 PM
Brett isn't setting back Aaron at all, if anything he could stand to have another year to learn from one of the greats. Alot of great QB's have spent their 1st couple of years on the bench learning the game, one more year isn't gonna hurt Aaron.

One such example is Matt Hasselbeck. In his first two years in the league with the Packers, he attempted a total of 29 passes. He made his first start in his 3rd year. Now, he's a Pro Bowl QB. Hopefully the same will be said about Rodgers.

Bad comparison. Rodgers was a much MUCH more talented QB coming out than Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck was a little bit of a project. Rodgers isn't, he is a franchise QB. Hasselbeck was NOT franchise QB coming out of college.

07-17-2006, 03:12 PM
Favre was a gunslinger when he was great and is still a gunslinger. He got by by talent. How much of that can be taught?

ny10804
07-17-2006, 03:12 PM
Brett isn't setting back Aaron at all, if anything he could stand to have another year to learn from one of the greats. Alot of great QB's have spent their 1st couple of years on the bench learning the game, one more year isn't gonna hurt Aaron.

One such example is Matt Hasselbeck. In his first two years in the league with the Packers, he attempted a total of 29 passes. He made his first start in his 3rd year. Now, he's a Pro Bowl QB. Hopefully the same will be said about Rodgers.

Bad comparison. Rodgers was a much MUCH more talented QB coming out than Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck was a little bit of a project. Rodgers isn't, he is a franchise QB. Hasselbeck was NOT franchise QB coming out of college.

All I did was give an example of: " [the bolded] "

07-17-2006, 03:19 PM
[quote=ny10804][quote=Vince Lombardi]Brett isn't setting back Aaron at all, if anything he could stand to have another year to learn from one of the greats. Alot of great QB's have spent their 1st couple of years on the bench learning the game, one more year isn't gonna hurt Aaron.

All I did was give an example of: " [the bolded] "

A lot of great QBs sit their first year then play. Carson Palmer is a prime example. Chris Simms would have played more in his 2nd year, but he got injured. Eli Manning is another. Drew Brees. Daunte Culpepper. Brett Favre (he was traded though). Jeff Garcia. Donovan McNabb, and I am only up to the M's.

The general consensus is to let the rookie start first year, and then play in the 2nd. I think it is bad for Rodgers to keep getting benched because it isn't doing him any good any more. That first year on the sidelines is important to understand what the NFL is about and learn the playbook. After that first year, then experience is the best teacher.

Staubach12
07-17-2006, 03:21 PM
I think Favre coming back this year is best for the team, however, he should retire after this year.

07-17-2006, 03:24 PM
Favre was a gunslinger when he was great and is still a gunslinger. He got by by talent. How much of that can be taught?

Great point. I don't know what all this "mentor" stuff is about. Do you think Favre is going to "teach all of the ins and outs"? No, only Rodgers can learn for himself. That is something only experience can teach.

The only thing I think a QB can help with is set an example through leadership and work ethic. Teach them to be a leader. Rodgers should have learned that by now.

07-17-2006, 03:26 PM
I think Favre coming back this year is best for the team, however, he should retire after this year.

Explain how it is best for the team if they don't make the playoffs.

Because imo, the season would be a waste if he comes back and they don't.

portermvp84
07-17-2006, 03:30 PM
This should be is last year if he does bad like he did last year then it was a big waste. I think he wants to make it to another Sb before he retires.

johbur
07-17-2006, 03:39 PM
If you're talking best for the organization, it depends on what you mean. Do you mean money? Favre does not "cost millions". He brings in millions. Advertisers like being associated with Favre. Look at the Harris Poll. Favre is the third most popular athlete behind Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan. A lot of the TV games the Packers have had recently have been more for Favre on TV than the Packers on TV. Look at their TV schedule this year. How does a 4-12 team get that many national games? Favre. Then if you look at the merchandising the Packers do with him, Packers Pro Shop did $17.5 Million in revenue last year. I wonder what the change in revenue will be when Favre retires?

Aaron Rodgers also does not "cost millions". He has a graduated contract that took into account that he'd likely not be starting until next year, and contains clauses for playing time and performance in case he did become the starter. He'll cost millions next year, not this year.

If you mean wins, Favre has a much better chance of providing wins this year than Rodgers.

If you mean potential wins in the 2007+ season, then starting Rodgers probably the better choice. Nothing is guaranteed though. Favre was a second round pick, didn't play in Atlanta his first season and would not have played in Green Bay his second season if Don Majkowski hadn't had gotten hurt.

Moses
07-17-2006, 03:39 PM
Rodgers needs this season on the bench. He'll get his shot soon enough and until then Favre is giving the Packers the best chance to win.

07-17-2006, 03:50 PM
Rodgers needs this season on the bench. He'll get his shot soon enough and until then Favre is giving the Packers the best chance to win.

The Packs' best chance to win will only amount to 8-9 games at the most (which I think they can get).

The Packs' best chance to win for the future would be to start Rodgers.

It is important to think long term. Rodgers starting now gives this team a legit shot at the playoffs in 2007, which they won't get now or next season if he doesn't get enough snaps or starts.

07-17-2006, 03:53 PM
If you're talking best for the organization, it depends on what you mean.

If you mean potential wins in the 2007+ season, then starting Rodgers probably the better choice. Nothing is guaranteed though. Favre was a second round pick, didn't play in Atlanta his first season and would not have played in Green Bay his second season if Don Majkowski hadn't had gotten hurt.

I do mean for the future. Favre gives them the best chance to win now, but I think the organization knows that the best they will be able to do is win 9 games (I predict them to overachieve in their division with not so tough of a schedule).

The future is more important than the present when you are REBUILDING. Having Favre start every game and Rodgers not getting a lot of snaps (which could happen) could set this team back 1-2 years, or even more.

Moses
07-17-2006, 03:55 PM
Rodgers needs this season on the bench. He'll get his shot soon enough and until then Favre is giving the Packers the best chance to win.

The Packs' best chance to win will only amount to 8-9 games at the most (which I think they can get).

The Packs' best chance to win for the future would be to start Rodgers.

It is important to think long term. Rodgers starting now gives this team a legit shot at the playoffs in 2007, which they won't get now or next season if he doesn't get enough snaps or starts.

There's no point in saying a team has a ceiling or basement in terms of wins because anything can happen. That's why they play the games. Before last year (where the Packers were injury plagued and lost quite a few close games) the Packers were a perennial playoff team with a legitimate shot at getting to the Super Bowl. The group has changed a bit but it's still the same core of guys. I think they could be playoff team next year if some of the younger players step up.

Rodgers isn't ready to start yet. People seem to forget how young he is and I think these two years on the bench will really help him. Rodgers is finally showing some progression and after this year he should be able to glide (as good as any first-time starter can) into the starting role. There's no point in rushing Rodgers in when the Packers have a Hall of Fame QB ahead of him.

07-17-2006, 04:01 PM
Rodgers isn't ready to start yet. People seem to forget how young he is and I think these two years on the bench will really help him. Rodgers is finally showing some progression and after this year he should be able to glide (as good as any first-time starter can) into the starting role. There's no point in rushing Rodgers in when the Packers have a Hall of Fame QB ahead of him.

You make a good point Moses, but do you honestly think the Pack can win the division?

The talent gap is huge on defense between them and the Bears. I also don't think they can get a Wildcard with how tough the East and South is. Plus, Arizona should be tough and maybe even St. Louis (darkhorse, but just as much as GB).

What if Aaron Rodgers has a great TC and preseason and proves he should be the starter, but it doesn't matter how good he is because he isn't going to succeed Favre preseason?

If Green Bay is bad and won't have a chance, I think Rodgers should take the reigns mid season. He needs some experience, so I think we both make really good points and the answer is in the "gray area" and not all black/white.

Moses
07-17-2006, 04:10 PM
Rodgers isn't ready to start yet. People seem to forget how young he is and I think these two years on the bench will really help him. Rodgers is finally showing some progression and after this year he should be able to glide (as good as any first-time starter can) into the starting role. There's no point in rushing Rodgers in when the Packers have a Hall of Fame QB ahead of him.

You make a good point Moses, but do you honestly think the Pack can win the division?

The talent gap is huge on defense between them and the Bears. I also don't think they can get a Wildcard with how tough the East and South is. Plus, Arizona should be tough and maybe even St. Louis (darkhorse, but just as much as GB).

What if Aaron Rodgers has a great TC and preseason and proves he should be the starter, but it doesn't matter how good he is because he isn't going to succeed Favre preseason?

If Green Bay is bad and won't have a chance, I think Rodgers should take the reigns mid season. He needs some experience, so I think we both make really good points and the answer is in the "gray area" and not all black/white.

The NFC North is still pretty wide-open in my opinion. I still don't believe the Bears are as good as people think, at least until they prove it by winning again this year.

Packers could win the division since they have an extremely easy schedule and do have quite a bit of talent (offence is lacking but if they can get the run game going and Favre rebounds after last season...) they could make a run at the weak NFC North. The Wild Card is pretty much out of the question for any NFC North team.

The chance of Rodgers playing better than Favre is training camp is less than 1%. Rodgers is not close to starting material at this point in his career. Also, Favre will never be benched for Rodgers.

Give Rodgers one more season on the bench (he needs it). Why rush him in when you have the luxury of having a hall of famer ahead of him holding down the fort?

bearfan
07-17-2006, 04:15 PM
I voted for him to retire, but now I think staying a year is better. Looking at Matt Hassleback and Aaron Brooks (I think AB was a back-up). Craig Nall will be an example to if given the shot.

But as Vince said, it wont hurt Aaron to sit behind Farve for one more year, that way he learns the system, and gets to learn from Farve as Hassleback, Brooks (maybe) and Nall did.

*as you can tell, I am high on Nall :wink:

07-17-2006, 04:17 PM
The chance of Rodgers playing better than Favre is training camp is less than 1%. Rodgers is not close to starting material at this point in his career. Also, Favre will never be benched for Rodgers.

Give Rodgers one more season on the bench (he needs it). Why rush him in when you have the luxury of having a hall of famer ahead of him holding down the fort?

I never said Rodgers would be better than Favre preseason. I just thought if he proved he is good enough to start, then Favre coming back could end up hurting them.

We don't see eye-to-eye on "rushing him in." I don't think playing a 2nd year QB is rushing it at all. I think starting a rookie is. Whether we think he is or isn't ready doesn't matter, because we aren't the QBs coach of the Packers. Only he really knows since he practices with him the most (off coordinator and HC know too, but the QBs coach is around him more).

Moses, how do you think him sitting another year will help him? I think one year is enough, I just want to totally understand your POV. Thanks

Boston
07-17-2006, 04:55 PM
The chance of Rodgers playing better than Favre is training camp is less than 1%. Rodgers is not close to starting material at this point in his career. Also, Favre will never be benched for Rodgers.

Give Rodgers one more season on the bench (he needs it). Why rush him in when you have the luxury of having a hall of famer ahead of him holding down the fort?

I never said Rodgers would be better than Favre preseason. I just thought if he proved he is good enough to start, then Favre coming back could end up hurting them.

We don't see eye-to-eye on "rushing him in." I don't think playing a 2nd year QB is rushing it at all. I think starting a rookie is. Whether we think he is or isn't ready doesn't matter, because we aren't the QBs coach of the Packers. Only he really knows since he practices with him the most (off coordinator and HC know too, but the QBs coach is around him more).

Moses, how do you think him sitting another year will help him? I think one year is enough, I just want to totally understand your POV. Thanks

Maybe it's just coincidence, but don't you think that so many favre backups have went on to become good qb's?

Mark Brunell
Aaron Brooks*
Matt Hasselback
Craig Nall?
Detmer
That's all i got off the top of my head.

You talk about hurting the franchise if he doesn't start this year. That, in fact, is probably not true. As you know the packers, for the most part, have a good, relatively young defense in place. Give them one more year to gel together, and next year you could possibly have one of the greatest D's in the league. A D could really help rodgers when he begins starting, to take off the pressure of needing to score. Kind of like a Ben Roelhlisburger* thing. Right now the packers offense is in disarray, and to put Rodgers in now, would be foolish.

07-17-2006, 04:56 PM
Was I mistaken or didn't Aaron Rodgers back up Favre last year? :?

Boston
07-17-2006, 05:00 PM
Was I mistaken or didn't Aaron Rodgers back up Favre last year? :?

You don't consider third-string backup?

drowe
07-17-2006, 05:15 PM
i think Brett Favre coming back is good for the present and future. if you look back at QB's that sat for more than one year (Steve McNair, Chad Pennington come to mind) the results are generally positive. And, I do think Aaron Rodgers is a 2 year project.

And to prove I'm not being a homer, if you ask me about 2007, I'd give the opposite answer. having a 1st round pick sit for 3 years just ain't cool. but 2 years has been done.

cuzifelt1ikeit
07-17-2006, 05:23 PM
Brett isn't setting back Aaron at all, if anything he could stand to have another year to learn from one of the greats. Alot of great QB's have spent their 1st couple of years on the bench learning the game, one more year isn't gonna hurt Aaron.
Bingo! Carson Palmer anybody? He sat for 2 or 3 years i think? call me homer, but i truly believe it is better for rookie qb's to sit then be thrown to nfl defenses, no matter the team or players involved

raiderfan_89
07-17-2006, 05:29 PM
I think Favre still has it in him,but for his sake they should have traded for or drafted a target,VD or Lelie,its gonna be sad to see if Favre has a repeat season,although I'am pulling for him,I hope he gets 35 TDs and 5 ints with 3,500 yrds.

TitleTown088
07-17-2006, 05:40 PM
Also favre would be a pretty expensive person to have ride the pine.

07-17-2006, 05:47 PM
Brett isn't setting back Aaron at all, if anything he could stand to have another year to learn from one of the greats. Alot of great QB's have spent their 1st couple of years on the bench learning the game, one more year isn't gonna hurt Aaron.
Bingo! Carson Palmer anybody? He sat for 2 or 3 years i think? call me homer, but i truly believe it is better for rookie qb's to sit then be thrown to nfl defenses, no matter the team or players involved

One year, then he got a lot of experience as a soph...which I would like to see happen w/ Rogers.

07-17-2006, 06:08 PM
Favre was a gunslinger when he was great and is still a gunslinger. He got by by talent. How much of that can be taught?

Great point. I don't know what all this "mentor" stuff is about. Do you think Favre is going to "teach all of the ins and outs"? No, only Rodgers can learn for himself. That is something only experience can teach.

The only thing I think a QB can help with is set an example through leadership and work ethic. Teach them to be a leader. Rodgers should have learned that by now.

From all that I've heard, Rodgers has been a leader in all of the offseason workouts. I've heard a lot of praise from players saying that he is really taking control, especially when Favre is excused from the workout.

Moses
07-17-2006, 07:03 PM
The chance of Rodgers playing better than Favre is training camp is less than 1%. Rodgers is not close to starting material at this point in his career. Also, Favre will never be benched for Rodgers.

Give Rodgers one more season on the bench (he needs it). Why rush him in when you have the luxury of having a hall of famer ahead of him holding down the fort?

I never said Rodgers would be better than Favre preseason. I just thought if he proved he is good enough to start, then Favre coming back could end up hurting them.

We don't see eye-to-eye on "rushing him in." I don't think playing a 2nd year QB is rushing it at all. I think starting a rookie is. Whether we think he is or isn't ready doesn't matter, because we aren't the QBs coach of the Packers. Only he really knows since he practices with him the most (off coordinator and HC know too, but the QBs coach is around him more).

Moses, how do you think him sitting another year will help him? I think one year is enough, I just want to totally understand your POV. Thanks

Rodgers is still young and is not ready to play in the NFL yet. It doesn't matter if he's a rookie or a 5th year player, he's not ready. He needs to get a better grasp of the playbook and how to play the quarterback position in the NFL.

diabsoule
07-17-2006, 07:37 PM
I like Favre coming back for one more year. That way Rodgers gets more instruction and is not rushed onto the field.

It's been proven that in most cases, rookie QB's that are given the time to develop really show the patientce and maturity it takes to lead a team on the field.

I think Favre will have a good year this year. After this, though, he should call it quits.

jackalope
07-17-2006, 09:26 PM
Favre coming back was best for the organization and Rodgers. they will be learning a new offence this year and giving Rodgers another year to learn will help him. the packers will do better with Favre than Rodgers this year. after the season Favre will retire and Rodgers will be ready to take over.

ninerfan
07-17-2006, 10:08 PM
its time to move on without Brett

Shane P. Hallam
07-17-2006, 10:49 PM
I've alwas been an avocate of sitting a QB for a year, but after that, I feel there isn't much more he can learn, he has to get out there. Favre could set this team back by coming back. They have a younger offense. Gado may start, Jennings may start, and a new young O-line. They should have a young leader to grow with them. Teams that have done this (Cinci as a prime example,) have gotten places. I think Favre may just be setting the team back a year or more by coming back, unless he CAN do the unthinkable and win this division. If he can, it was well worth it, even for a playoff run.

TitleTown088
07-17-2006, 10:53 PM
its time to move on without Brett

says the niner fan who just wants to get over favre knocking them outta the playoffs

yourfavestoner
07-18-2006, 02:05 AM
How do Packer's fans feel about the hiring of Mike McCarthy, because I was under the impression that many other, more qualified candidates were passed up just so Brett wouldn't have to deal with learning a completely different offense.

TitleTown088
07-18-2006, 04:20 AM
How do Packer's fans feel about the hiring of Mike McCarthy, because I was under the impression that many other, more qualified candidates were passed up just so Brett wouldn't have to deal with learning a completely different offense.

if brett was the concern when they hired a coach they probably woulda hired marriochi IMO.

johbur
07-18-2006, 04:26 AM
I think Favre still has it in him,but for his sake they should have traded for or drafted a target,VD or Lelie,its gonna be sad to see if Favre has a repeat season,although I'am pulling for him,I hope he gets 35 TDs and 5 ints with 3,500 yrds.

Raider fans are the best! They always be smoking the best stuff, and willing to share it to! Favre with 35 TDs and 5 INTs = Super Bowl. Actually, just about any QB with those numbers = SB.

I have much love for the Raiders right now, as I always follow former Packers, and I'm interested on if Aaron Brooks can get his stuff together throwing to Moss.

Packers and Raiders in the Title Match!!!

GermanSaint
07-18-2006, 05:09 AM
brett favre stops the developing for the future , so iam looking forward to see what rodgers can do

PACKmanN
07-18-2006, 07:28 AM
Rodgers should start. MM (our new head coach) has to get this team winning and he knows it, if he doesnt he is gone so If Favre doesnt produce and still throws those INT dont be surpirsed if you see Rodgers starting in that game and maybe the next week.

PACKmanN
07-18-2006, 07:33 AM
How do Packer's fans feel about the hiring of Mike McCarthy, because I was under the impression that many other, more qualified candidates were passed up just so Brett wouldn't have to deal with learning a completely different offense.If you watch the interviews MM words that he uses are different then from what they are normaly called. Favre said that if Sherman was fired he would retire but I guess that wasnt the case now was it. The only reason I think that TT would have brought in MM is to teach Rodgers and then when Rodgers does well I dont see Mike in GB anymore.

07-18-2006, 07:37 AM
I think they should sit Rodgers again exactly how we are doing jason campbell.

drowe
07-18-2006, 08:15 AM
How do Packer's fans feel about the hiring of Mike McCarthy


eh, he looks like a porn star, so he can't be too bad.

Jensen
07-18-2006, 08:32 AM
I think Favre coming back was not great for the team, but it was good for the team. All Rodgers can do is learn from one of the best QB's of all-time, who wouldn't want to do that? I mean sure he wants to play, but I don't think its a bad experience for him to sit and learn from Favre.

07-18-2006, 04:55 PM
I voted for him to retire, but now I think staying a year is better. Looking at Matt Hassleback and Aaron Brooks (I think AB was a back-up). Craig Nall will be an example to if given the shot.

But as Vince said, it wont hurt Aaron to sit behind Farve for one more year, that way he learns the system, and gets to learn from Farve as Hassleback, Brooks (maybe) and Nall did.

*as you can tell, I am high on Nall :wink:

And Kurt Warner and Mark Brunell

07-18-2006, 04:58 PM
Favre coming back was best for the organization and Rodgers. they will be learning a new offence this year and giving Rodgers another year to learn will help him. the packers will do better with Favre than Rodgers this year. after the season Favre will retire and Rodgers will be ready to take over.

Good point that no one has mentoined so far

07-18-2006, 05:00 PM
How do Packer's fans feel about the hiring of Mike McCarthy, because I was under the impression that many other, more qualified candidates were passed up just so Brett wouldn't have to deal with learning a completely different offense.

if brett was the concern when they hired a coach they probably woulda hired marriochi IMO.

he didn't want the job

70challenger457
07-18-2006, 05:15 PM
How do Packer's fans feel about the hiring of Mike McCarthy, because I was under the impression that many other, more qualified candidates were passed up just so Brett wouldn't have to deal with learning a completely different offense.

if brett was the concern when they hired a coach they probably woulda hired marriochi IMO.

he didn't want the job
well brett is learning a new offense with all new vocabulary

TitleTown088
07-18-2006, 05:40 PM
How do Packer's fans feel about the hiring of Mike McCarthy, because I was under the impression that many other, more qualified candidates were passed up just so Brett wouldn't have to deal with learning a completely different offense.

if brett was the concern when they hired a coach they probably woulda hired marriochi IMO.

he didn't want the job

did they even offer it to him? and where di you hear he didnt want it? JW cause i never heard that.

07-19-2006, 01:13 PM
another year behind Favre will help Rodgers but will not do any good for there coach also favre will be back next year which will prove my point they took rodgers way to early they have could have gotten Cutler or Leinart and both of them are better in my oppion and maybe even Quinn

and Favre should have went to the raven and yes the ravens did offer to to the packers back it was not accepted

drowe
07-19-2006, 02:20 PM
and Favre should have went to the raven and yes the ravens did offer to to the packers back it was not accepted

can you go into a little more detail on this trade with the Ravens? what was offered?

Geo
07-20-2006, 11:50 PM
It should have been Rodgers' year imo.

Pack_Attack_4
07-21-2006, 11:55 AM
Favre=God

Hyphii Kid
07-21-2006, 11:55 AM
Favre=GoodAlex Smith=GOD

07-21-2006, 12:53 PM
How do Packer's fans feel about the hiring of Mike McCarthy, because I was under the impression that many other, more qualified candidates were passed up just so Brett wouldn't have to deal with learning a completely different offense.

if brett was the concern when they hired a coach they probably woulda hired marriochi IMO.

he didn't want the job

did they even offer it to him? and where di you hear he didnt want it? JW cause i never heard that.

the never gave them a chance to offer it to him. I was really excited about the possibility of him coming to GB but I remember hearing on the news that he took himself out of the running because he wanted some time off from coaching

Ravens1991
07-21-2006, 03:35 PM
and Favre should have went to the raven and yes the ravens did offer to to the packers back it was not accepted

can you go into a little more detail on this trade with the Ravens? what was offered?

yea please do so.

CraigNall4MVP
07-21-2006, 03:38 PM
if the pack was smart nall wud still be qb

Immaculate Tackle
07-21-2006, 03:49 PM
another year behind Favre will help Rodgers but will not do any good for there coach also favre will be back next year which will prove my point they took rodgers way to early they have could have gotten Cutler or Leinart and both of them are better in my oppion and maybe even Quinn

and Favre should have went to the raven and yes the ravens did offer to to the packers back it was not accepted
Have you ever heard of punctuation? I can barely understand your posts.

bearfan
07-21-2006, 04:35 PM
if the pack was smart nall wud still be qb

I LoVVE YOU :wink: