Farve says his fans were never really loyal

[Deus Irae]

Why Stallworth? Include everyone who drinks and gets behind the wheel as an unforgivable sin, even if they arrive safely home and hurt no one, but don't call it unforgivable only if circumstances result in a death.

Anyway, Stallworth is a bad example as the DA basically said that DUI may not even have had an effect, that the same result would have occurred whether Stallworth was impaired or not.

But the sin (as opposed to crime) is getting behind the wheel after taking a drink, not someone stepping in front of your car or whatever.

Why is anything unforgivable, for that matter?

I defended Stallworth, and I still do. Nonetheless, I understand that DUI involving a death is going to be unforgivable for some people, even people I generally consider very rational. It's a hell of a lot more significant than "He waffled on his retirement and kept the team in suspense all the way into the summer!".

 

[WhoaDirty]

The only losing season during Favre's entire tenure in Green Bay was the year that his center and both guards were gone. The very first year after he leaves, the team has a 7 game dropoff.

This looks a lot like you were blaming the Packer's decline on the loss of Favre.

 

[Rob0729]

It wasn't hindering anything, obviously, since they signed Rodgers.

They signed Rodgers after a fast start last season. He was signed to a contract extension on November 2nd of last year, nearly two months into the season. If they decided to have Favre back, that might have been in question because Favre wouldn't have accepted a QB competition for the starting role. Rodger only got resigned when he proved he could handle the starting role. He might not have proven that otherwise.

Strahan did it twice, not once. The second time he actually did retire. Strahan was also younger. You love to ignore that obvious part. I refuse to do so.

Then I put Strahan into the same category, but Strahan never officially waffled last year. He also signed on with Fox in late June last year pretty much officially ending any chance of returning to the Giants last year.

And I think your point was wrong. You blame Favre for everything from hindering something that wasn't hindered, to global warming, yet you refuse to credit him when something as obvious as a 7 game drop occurs after he leaves Green Bay. There's really no need to continue this in the face of such an obvious bias.

I don't blame Favre for everything. I blame him for being selfish and an egomanic. Sorry, but Favre's 2007 numbers and Rodger's 2008 numbers are near identical. What changed were the defense and rushing numbers. The Packers scored 26.2 PPG in 2008 and 27.2 PPG in 2007 (only a one point difference). They gave up 23.8 PPG in 2008 and 18.2 PPG in 2007 (or a 5.7 PPG difference). A lot of it had to do with their inability to pressure opposing QBs (their sack total went from 36 in 2007 to 27 in 2008). Are you going to use maverick logic to blame the QB for the defense's fault. The fact of the matter is that the defense gave up more points in 2008 than 2007 and that was the biggest difference in teams so far.

By your logic, Chad Pennington is better than Brady or Manning since his addition to the Dolphins caused them to win 10 more games than in 2007.

Sorry, you might want to look at your own bias because simple logic is on my side. When a team gives up nearly nearly two field goals more a game from one year to the next and only decreases the offenses' production by a point a game, the problem lies primarily on the defense.

The loss of Favre may have affected a game or two, but he wasn't going to rush the passer

 

[Synovia]

I didn't say it was all on Favre, did I?

Yeah, you pretty much did.


Typical Deus, if you don't agree with him, you're wrong, despite the fact that he has no evidence otherwise.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't blame Favre for everything. I blame him for being selfish and an egomanic. Sorry, but Favre's 2007 numbers and Rodger's 2008 numbers are near identical. What changed were the defense and rushing numbers. The Packers scored 26.2 PPG in 2008 and 27.2 PPG in 2007 (only a one point difference). They gave up 23.8 PPG in 2008 and 18.2 PPG in 2007 (or a 5.7 PPG difference). A lot of it had to do with their inability to pressure opposing QBs (their sack total went from 36 in 2007 to 27 in 2008). Are you going to use maverick logic to blame the QB for the defense's fault. The fact of the matter is that the defense gave up more points in 2008 than 2007 and that was the biggest difference in teams so far.

By your logic, Chad Pennington is better than Brady or Manning since his addition to the Dolphins caused them to win 10 more games than in 2007.

Sorry, you might want to look at your own bias because simple logic is on my side. When a team gives up nearly nearly two field goals more a game from one year to the next and only decreases the offenses' production by a point a game, the problem lies primarily on the defense.

The loss of Favre may have affected a game or two, but he wasn't going to rush the passer

Oh, please. Brady took a team to 16-0. The next season, with a performance by Cassel that earned him the Franchise tag and huge cash, the Patriots only won 11 games despite a ridiculously easy schedule. The Patriots defense was clearly not as strong as it had been the season before. Are you seriously going to claim that Brady being there would only "have affected a game or two"?

 

[Synovia]

Oh, please. Brady took a team to 16-0. The next season, with a performance by Cassel that earned him the Franchise tag and huge cash, the Patriots only won 11 games despite a ridiculously easy schedule. The Patriots defense was clearly not as strong as it had been the season before. Are you seriously going to claim that Brady being there would only "have affected a game or two"?

Brady and Cassel put up vastly different stats by most measures.


Favre and Rodgers did not.

 

[Rob0729]

Oh, please. Brady took a team to 16-0. The next season, with a performance by Cassel that earned him the Franchise tag and huge cash, the Patriots only won 11 games despite a ridiculously easy schedule. The Patriots defense was clearly not as strong as it had been the season before. Are you seriously going to claim that Brady being there would only "have affected a game or two"?

BTW, thank you for bringing up the Strength of schedule argument. The Packers had a harder schedule last year (AFC & NFC South, Dallas, both Chicago and Minnesota with winning records) than 2007 (NFC East which was a tough division and AFC West which was not, Carolina at 7-9, St. Louis at 3-13, and no one in the AFC North having a winning record). To quote a favorite phrase from your favorite radio station, "You are proving my point".

Also, Cassel's year last year was nothing close to what Brady did in 2007, few QBs in NFL history have had similiar seasons to that. We are talking apples and oranges here.

 

[Kontradiction]

But, as I've said before in slightly different words, "could have handled it better" is not the same as "it's his fault". There is no story except "Favre waffles on retirement" if the media doesn't blow it up.

You have me a little confused. I never said that it was entirely his fault. As a matter of fact, I said the opposite of that when I allowed a lot of blame for this to be placed on the media. But it's good to see that we both agree that Favre could have handled this a little bit better. My original argument was that it is possible to have been a fan of Favre and be annoyed at his waffling.

If the Patriots stiff Brady the way that Thompson screwed Favre, I'd be on Brady's side and would hope that he'd absolutely crush the Patriots in his return game. That's not about hate for me as a fan. That's about justice and payback. I'd expect that reaction from any rational fan of the Patriots and Brady. Of course, I'd be hoping that the Patriots GM who did such an idiotic thing would get fired before it ever came to that.

This is a direct contradiction to what you said earlier...

When the Patriots make a move that leaves you pissed off or confused, you don't stop being a fan. Same rules apply.

A move like trading Brady would fall under the "pissed off or confused" catagory. When you root for the Jets when they're playing against the Patriots because of a single player, you cease to be a fan of the team. However, I know you as a poster and as a fan better than this so if I'm missing something then please clear it up for me.

 

[jmt57]

I obviously don't follow the Packers the way I follow the Pats, but from what I saw and read the transition from Favre to Rodgers was not the primary reason for the Packers drop from 13-3 to 6-10. The loss of Cullen Jenkins to an early season ending injury was probably the biggest factor, leading to a drop in performance for their defensive line. Their offensive line tailed off as well, and along with a slow start and Ryan Grant's hamstring issues the running game was mediocre. Add to that a schedule which was much more difficult than it was the previous year, and there's your big dropoff in wins.

Besides, when was Green Bay supposed to make the change to a new quarterback? Only when Favre decided to stop playing? Only after his play deteriorates to an unacceptable level? Should Green Bay have only been thinking about this year with no regard to preparing for future years? Maybe with Favre the Packers go 9-7 and lose in the first round of the playoffs; then what? Rodgers still has no experience at that point; would the Packers be better off today heading in to the 2009 season had they kept Favre and started him? Nobody knows for certain but I believe the Packers are in a better position for 2009 and 2010 by making the move, and they weren't going to go anywhere in the playoffs in 2008 with or without Favre. In my opinion moving on without Favre was the right choice for them.

 

[Rob0729]

I obviously don't follow the Packers the way I follow the Pats, but from what I saw and read the transition from Favre to Rodgers was not the primary reason for the Packers drop from 13-3 to 6-10. The loss of Cullen Jenkins to an early season ending injury was probably the biggest factor, leading to a drop in performance for their defensive line. Their offensive line tailed off as well, and along with a slow start and Ryan Grant's hamstring issues the running game was mediocre. Add to that a schedule which was much more difficult than it was the previous year, and there's your big dropoff in wins.

Besides, when was Green Bay supposed to make the change to a new quarterback? Only when Favre decided to stop playing? Only after his play deteriorates to an unacceptable level? Should Green Bay have only been thinking about this year with no regard to preparing for future years? Maybe with Favre the Packers go 9-7 and lose in the first round of the playoffs; then what? Rodgers still has no experience at that point; would the Packers be better off today heading in to the 2009 season had they kept Favre and started him? Nobody knows for certain but I believe the Packers are in a better position for 2009 and 2010 by making the move, and they weren't going to go anywhere in the playoffs in 2008 with or without Favre. In my opinion moving on without Favre was the right choice for them.

I agree. We are fans of a team that has shown little loyalty to their older players when their value diminishes. The Pats have remained a Super Bowl contender for nearly a decade now because they weren't afraid to show older, popular veterans the door like Bledsoe, Law, Milloy, McGinest, etc. I think if Belichick was in this position, he wouldn't have had any problem trading away Favre like Thompson did. I'm sure when Brady is in his late 30s and if he was waffling like Favre had, Belichick won't have a problem trading Brady away if he is still running the team.

All we hear here is how football is a business and management needs to make business decisions when deciding to keep or trade/cut a player. Why would Favre be any different. If Ted Thompson felt for the next five years the best thing to do was to trade away Favre and give Aaron Rodgers a chance to prove he is their starter for the future and resign him if he performs and move in another direction if not, why is he wrong? I don't think Belichick would have done anything different. Belichick has never been one to sacrifice the future for the right now.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If Tom Brady were to ever pull the crap here that Brett pulled in GB they will trade his ass here and justifiably so. Brett started talking retirement back in 2002 when they were still crafting his $100M to retirement deal. They therefore crafted it so that by 2006 he could walk off into the sunset without hamstringing their cap. In 2005 they drafted Rogers so he could be brought along slowly under Favre. Only Favre had no interest in developing his successor. He continued to play the might retire card every offseason until 2007 when be turned around and begged them to let him play one more season and he even promised he would do it there way and study film and adhere to a scheme. They made it to the playoffs. Then he had his emotional farewell, where he admitted he could not play in a system like Brady and Manning - it made his head and heart hurt. He was DONE. They moved on. He got jealous. And the rest is history.

The people in GB treated him like a god for over a decade during which they won one superbowl and he became the all time INT's leader. They even forgave the season with the JETS. It was his wanting to play for their division rival for the last two seasons that they can't forget. He never loved them, either... So I guess they're even. But I bet if offered he'll still take GB up on that marketing offer. Hopefully the fans won't buy it for a minute.

What a freakin' whiner. His problem is the mere concept that anyone would move on from Brett Favre. If Lombardi were still alive he'd have kicked his ass out of his town a long time ago...

 

[Deus Irae]

You have me a little confused. I never said that it was entirely his fault. As a matter of fact, I said the opposite of that when I allowed a lot of blame for this to be placed on the media. But it's good to see that we both agree that Favre could have handled this a little bit better. My original argument was that it is possible to have been a fan of Favre and be annoyed at his waffling.

I was just reiterating an earlier position, nothing more. Nobody is perfect, but blaming Favre for the actions of the media and the crap ass way that the Packers handled things is looking in the wrong direction, in my opinion.

This is a direct contradiction to what you said earlier...

I don't see how.

A move like trading Brady would fall under the "pissed off or confused" catagory. When you root for the Jets when they're playing against the Patriots because of a single player, you cease to be a fan of the team. However, I know you as a poster and as a fan better than this so if I'm missing something then please clear it up for me.

I don't agree with your assertion here, and it may be that we have a different notion of honor. I have no problem cheering for the wronged party to exact 'justice', and I don't see how that impacts fandom at all.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

So if I follow this right...somebody claims to adore you. You jerk them around and trample on their affection for years. Eventually they turn against you. So then you say that proves they "never loved you to begin with"?

That's a little creepy.

:scared:

Madden's right. "He's just like a little kid in the backyard havin' fun out there."

I don't want to know about how he treats those around him... I mean, which way do you think all the emotional support flows in those relationships (illness notwithstanding)? I mean think about it... Family tragedies and medical issues, and it all becomes "Everything that's happened to Brett..."

He's a twist of fate away from having been Jeff George or Ryan Leaf. Right place, right time, right arm...but damn. I think he did okay with that "not real love," yanno? I've seen guys make O-line money for years and say "eh, that's good enough," and have nothing but good things to say about teammates, fans, their teams, whatever... Don't get me wrong. I think athletes have the right to act any way they want, just as you and I do.

But just like you and me, people will think Brett's a di(k if he acts like a di(k.

He's acting like a di(k. Again.

I mean, he was there when he was calling personal press conferences to talk about his future plans or (more often) lack thereof. He called a damn press conference to say he didn't know why there was a press conference.

He's been retiring and not retiring and unretiring and reretiring for like 5 years now, every offseason.

Plus he ruined our second ever SB appearance.

I posted somewhere here that I saw a GB fanmobile recently with big "G" logos, all yellow and green, and little flags beside the front side windows... with a bumper sticker that said "We won't forget you Brent."

And whatever Favrevrah says, they worshipped him maybe 3 years ago. Save your protestations... think about how you feel about Brady. They felt if anything more strongly about Favrevrah. And whereas Brady is in a partnership with this team (at least has always been thus far,) Favrevrah has pitted himself against his team or his teammates on repeated occasions... ask the Packers brass (if there's not a microphone around.) Ask Javon Walker. If you though Peyton Manning threw guys under the bus look at Favrevrah's behavior when he felt like he shoulda been able to play catch but someone else's living got in the way.

I'm sorry, I understand saying that in context, what he said was perfectly okay, or saying that a pro athlete is his own man and doesn't owe anybody anything and blah blah blah.

It's crap. They owe us their livelihoods, their fame, their fortune. Without us -- their fans -- they're nothing. Without them, we have nothing to root for. This fascination with the idea that it's a one-way street either way is ludicrous. We don't have a personal relationship with them... but as a class of people, we make them.

Now don't get me wrong. Only a certain small number of people have the talent and work ethic to make it to that level. But the reason that level exists is us, the fans.

Let's put it in unemotional terms: we are consuming the product (both the personality and the sport.) If you buy a Lamborghini and it does hateful things to you, like refuse to drive uphill or repeatedly blowing out tires after 50 miles, do you really want the company to tell you "You never really loved this car's ability to drive 180 miles per hour"? No... you just get sick of Lamborghinis.

Of course people are sick of Favrevrah... I really don't root for this punk. I want him to continue to burn out his legacy until he's nothing but the little kid that always had so much fun... but was a di(k to every fan he ever had. I want to hear Madden saying "Yeah but that's Brett... Brett's a little kid, but there's bad things about little kids. That's why you kick 'em out of the house at 18." Brett's been playing about that many years, right?

Okay there are all those records. But Barry Bonds hit 73 homers right? Different issue, same effect -- at some point you just don't care about the talent because he's such a colossal ass that the story of his self-centeredness has ecclipsed his talent.

Key-rist.

PFnV