Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brett Favre comeback or Aaron Rodger's New Era

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Moses
      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.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by johbur
        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Simms2Clayton
          Originally posted by Moses
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Moses
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Simms2Clayton
              Originally posted by Moses
              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?

              Comment


              • #22
                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

                Originally posted by BeansDooma
                who retires first: brett favre or aaron rodgers?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Moses
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Simms2Clayton
                    Originally posted by Moses
                    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.

                    Hitman D

                    "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." - Henry David Thoreau

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Was I mistaken or didn't Aaron Rodgers back up Favre last year? :?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Simms2Clayton
                        Was I mistaken or didn't Aaron Rodgers back up Favre last year? :?
                        You don't consider third-string backup?

                        Hitman D

                        "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." - Henry David Thoreau

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 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.
                            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

                            Originally posted by CraigNall4MVP
                            biigest mistake packers ever make was geting rid of craig nall he beter then bret faver

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              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.
                              myspace.com/strangewavesmusic

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Also favre would be a pretty expensive person to have ride the pine.

                                What do the vikings and marijuana have in common? Every time you put them in a bowl
                                they get smoked.

                                2010-2011 Super Bowl Champions
                                Hint:Not the Bears.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information