Favre's #4
by king.nothing on May 12, 2011 1:57 PM CDT
Email
PrintESPN has an article on the Packers set to retire Favre's #4 number. Interesting read, with the link for those interested.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6533357
Here is a quote, that I feel is the best line of the entire article:
Green Bay Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy said Wednesday the team one day will retire Brett Favre's No. 4 jersey, but the team will wait a few years to make sure the quarterback is retired for good this time.
82 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
To be expected
There will be some ire over Favre for a few years, but within the next decade nobody will remember Brett as anything but a Packer. Who remembers Joe Montana as a Chief or Johnny Unitas as a Charger or Babe Ruth as a Brave? Favre is the best QB the Packers have ever had (until Rodgers passes him in another 7-10 years), and of course he will have his number retired and going into the team’s Hall of Fame and etc.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
by GMan83201 on May 12, 2011 2:15 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Well said.
It’s been nice not having to hear about him for 3 months (w/ the exception of the recent article about him wanting to be an announcer/coach). Another few years of that and he’ll be less hated.
Super Bowl XLV Champions, the Green Bay Packers!
It would be nicer...
To not have to hear about him for the next 3 yrs or so… By then maybe more fans will open their arms to him. But not yet…
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
You discount the rivarly aspect
Who remembers Babe Ruth on the Red Sox? The Curse of the Bambino lasted 86 years
Great players change teams all the times in the twilight of their careers, rarely do they end up on a rival. I do fully accept that a few years will be a nice buffer, but those comments from the Tailgate Tour highlight that putting on purple is a little different then being Broadway Brett.
Now when Stafford goes down next season (at least he’s consistent) and the Lions need a veteran QB on short notice, we’ll revisit this topic.
"Favre is the best QB the Packers have ever had"
There’s another Packer QB with a handful of rings who would never dispute this claim because he is too classy but I will. Faver is NOT the best QB the Packers ever had.
There is no Holmgren Dynasty……
by PhoenicianPakFan on May 12, 2011 10:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Bart Starr was not a better QB than Favre
Starr was a good QB who also had an outstanding defense and outstanding run game.
/openscanofworms
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
This argument is rehashed every so often and pretty much everything has been said...
so just briefly:
- you don’t win 5 championships just being “good”. He wasn’t perfect and it was a different era but he had far more success than Favre so I consider him better.
- He was 9-1 in the playoffs. He was undoubtedly better when it counted most. Starr was given the ball and a chance to win in the Ice Bowl, and he found a way to do it. Favre was given the same chance, in similar conditions in a game of similar importance in Jan ’08… and promptly threw a pick. The great ones win when it matters, the good ones pad stats. Which one is good and which is great? (For the record I still think Favre was a great QB).
- To me, because football is a team sport, a great QB is one who helps the team with as much success as possible. Starr helped win more championships. Favre’s stats are great, and if thats all he cared about (and he seemingly did despite all the statements to the contrary) then fine, but his stats don’t count in that case along with the team trophies.
by PhoenicianPakFan on May 13, 2011 12:16 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Yes, this does get rehashed because it's the two best QBs in team history.
I hope that ten years from now we argue which one is the 2nd best and which is 3rd.
I know the arguments for Starr. He was great game manager and a winner. You know the arguments for Favre. He helped resurrect the team and guide them to the first title since Starr and was the best player in the league for 3 consecutive years.
I won’t argue this point any longer because I think what it boils down to is two great QBs…and we don’t agree which one was better, and neither of us will convince the other to our respective way of thinking.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
See you don't understand the arguments for any of them
Starr wasn’t a game manager and Favre didn’t resurrect the Packers. If you keep rehashing nonsense like this you are going to turn me into Strohman using exclamation points and harsh language.
See what you just did was a lazy brush of history that doesn’t capture the career of either QB. Starr was one of the top QB’s and players of his day. If you actually watch games from that era or read reports of Starr from that time period then you will realize that the way you are picture Starr is totally wrong.
In the same vein you are looking at a revisionist’s history of Favre. Yes, Favre did stand guard as the Packers rose to prominence once again….but that wasn’t due to Favre. In fact, Favre’s legend almost ended before it began. Holmgren was close to benching Favre simply because Favre was throwing too many picks and not being careful enough with the ball…almost sending in Matt Hasselback instead.
See this is my problem with those who want to advocate the Favre helped bring them back to prominence point….I’ve heard too many people take it a step too far and think that Favre was the reason the Packers came back to the top. Really I don’t think you can boil down a career like Favre’s, or Starr’s that simply.
by PackApologist on May 13, 2011 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Of course I can't do it that simply.
But I’m not writing a fan post, just comments in a comments section. And I never said Favre was THE reason the Packers became relevant. Notice I said he “helped.” I never credit a single individual with that.
I also know Starr was a great QB in his day or he obviously would not be in the Hall of Fame. I’m not stupid, or at least not as nearly as you want to make me out to be. You disagree and so say I don’t know the history of the game or something. I don’t say things exactly how you want them said and so I don’t know what I’m talking about. I feel as though you have been attacking me, not just my viewpoints. I find that a little unfair.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
If stats made a quarterback then I'd love me some Elvis Grbac.
Even so, if you go this route…read an argument based on statistics.
Good?
You know he only won a bunch of championships…the first two Super Bowls….MVP of BOTH of those Super Bowls….in the Hall of Fame but all you can come up with is good? You know they typically don’t let you into the Hall of Fame unless you are a little more than good.
I don’t mind the defense of Favre but word to the wise, don’t sound like a dumbass while attempting to do so by saying one of the greatest Packers of all time was only “good.”
by PackApologist on May 13, 2011 1:13 AM CDT up reply actions 4 recs
No need to name call. I haven't made anything personal.
Bart Starr was a great game manager like Bob Griese (another Hall of Famer). And HE didn’t win those champioships, the Packers did with him as the QB. Saying he won the titles takes away from dozens of good to terrific players on those teams.
No, the Packers don’t win so many NFL titles in the 1960s without Starr. For damn sure. But I also don’t believe they won that many titles because of him. Does that make sense (I’m not trying to sound condescending, I re-read that last sentence and realized it might look like gibberish)?
The point I’m trying to make is that Starr was a key cog in the mighty machine that was the Packers in the 1960s. But so was Paul Hornung (who I believe was the best offensive player on those teams), Nitschke, and a dozen other players.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
See it's not name calling if it's true, then it's just a description
The problem you are having right now is that you are judging the past game by today’s game’s standards. Starr was not simply a game manager. He was a winner. The game in that day and age wasn’t a pass focused because it was more physical and defenders were allowed to basically mug recievers all the way down the field.
As a result the window were smaller and QB’s were forced to throw the ball in different ways. This also created more of an emphasis on the running game, but also required QB’s to have stronger arms in order to zip the ball into those holes. This doesn’t paint the picture of simply being a game manager.
The other thing you should keep in mind is that Starr is one of five Packers to have his number retired from the Packers. A team with as much history as the Packers don’t retire a number unless that player was truly special and changed the franchise. That’s why Favre will have that honor, but don’t try to sweep the guy who set the stage for that away just because you don’t understand the game from his time.
by PackApologist on May 13, 2011 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not trying to sweep Starr away
I’ve said he’s the second best QB in team history right? And I understand the game was different in the 1960s, and really was different until Bill Walsh installed the West Cost offense in San Francisco and showed it worked. Please don’t make assumptions about me because I disagree with you.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
Saying Starr was just a game manager is sweeping him away
It’s an insult to say that against such a great player. It’s a total misunderstand of the state of the game and QB position at the time.
Yes Walsh did change offenses and the league with the WCO, but it’s not like Walsh made it more about the QB. That came in 1978 with a few key rule changes to make the game less physical and more focused on passing. The WCO offense and others, such as the Air Coryell, were formed as a result.
I’m sorry if you think I’m making assumptions, but rather I’m pointing out where there are serious flaws in your logic and appreciation of the history of our game. As a result the language you are using to describe Starr just doesn’t capture his career and what he means to the franchise. See that’s not making assumptions, it’s pointing out flaws in your language.
by PackApologist on May 13, 2011 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Sorry I didn't use the words you wanted me to use
Perhaps you view game managers as the Trent Dilfer type. I view the Bob Griese, Bart Starr, and even to some extent Terry Bradshaw and Troy Aikman as game managers. They were talented QBs, but their greatest asset was controlling the game, not making bad decisions, and helping provide a strong balance between the run and pass.
Maybe you thought I was being offensive to Starr because of semantic differences. But whatever. You’ve probably already made up your mind about me. I’ll drop it.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
...maybe not Terry Bradshaw. That was a bad example.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
hmmm......
1. I’ve been reading your posts and you seriously need to get a better sense of history in all of this. I don’t just say this because of our current conversation, but rather that as a whole you don’t seem to really grasp what is happening in the context of this whole Favre thing….why fans are angry and what the big picture is going to look like. You’re not wrong per se, but you are just not really getting it. You want to get this point across so bad that you don’t really sense the moment we are in and the road we are traveling. Right now people are angry because many see Favre as pulling one of the great screw jobs in the history of the franchise and sports on the Packers. People who have this view aren’t totally out of line and they are going to take time to heal. Pushing against that is counter productive and ill advised.
2. Seriously learn the history of the game. My suggestion to start is by reading the Ask Vic column at Packers.com. Go through some of the old ones too and you can get a better sense of what the game was like and how it’s evolved.
3. When you do decide to be controversial explain yourself on the front end instead of the backend. You have to get that game manager is a loaded term in today’s NFL, I say that because you believed I thought it was the Dilfer style of QB (I do because that’s the way the term is used today). If you knew people have that conception of the term don’t use to describe one of the best Packers in all of history. You may not use it in that fashion, but that’s not the point. You should be trying to communicate ideas not make yourself look smart so explain how you are using these terms if you don’t want to have people just believe you are uninformed and ranting Favre backer (which you come across as when you say things like Starr was a game manager). Explain your own terms later just comes across as attempting to reset the rules in a way to make yourself look good, and still doesn’t really make it look like you know what you are talking about.
By the way, if you think you got a bad reaction here go over to Behind the Steel Curtain and say that Terry Bradshaw was a game manager. See what kind of reaction you get.
by PackApologist on May 13, 2011 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't appreciate you telling me to learn the history of the game
I know it. I know it well. You are basing your opinion that I don’t know it on the fact that I said Bart Starr was a game manager, which I obviously meant differently than you interpreted (and I meant it at the outset…notice how I compared him to Bob Griese…another Hall of Famer).
What else have I said to imply that I don’t know the history of the game? I mentioned the West Coast offense, you mentioned the rule change, I suppose I could go back a step farther and point out that the rules changed because the league wanted more offense in the mid 1970s with the Steelers blanketing everything with their defense (and the Dolphins before that, and the Vikings during that), or even go back to the AFL’s passing games as earlier examples of more prolific passing offenses.
I know how the game has evolved, from a time when it was mostly an emphasis on kicking (when field goals were worth 5 points and TDs worth 3), to the running that was emphasized for much of the first 3 decades, to how the passing games began to open up in the 50s and 60s, to how it a balanced attack became the focus in the late 1970s and 1980s, and now on to the more modern offenses we are mostly seeing now. I HATE that you assume I don’t know the history based on one semantic misunderstanding of “game manager.” HATE it.
I know people are angry at Favre, and I’ve never said they shouldn’t be. I am more against people who say he should never be welcomed back. Like you said and I’ve been saying, it will take time but people will get there and welcome him back. It will probably take 5-10 years, but people will get there. Sorry if that is “counter-productive.” What exactly are we trying to produce here?
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
Why do the Packers play in Green & Gold today and not Blue & Gold?
If you reflect upon this question it should unlock the answer to many of the things that are troubling you right now about my posts. You wonder what the productivity of this is….or more specifically why I say what you are doing is unproductive. The answer is there. The reason why people don’t want to hear about Favre right now, especially this offseason, the answer is there. Trust me…
As for you being upset I don’t think you know football history….well that’s the chance you take when you get sloppy in talking about players from the past. So far you haven’t really shown yourself to really know football history. Some examples:
-Most things you’ve said about Starr
-Lumping Starr in with Aikman and Griese (three very different players)
-Use of a term you know means different things from what you intend it to mean and then using it anyways
- Thinking it was the WCO that changed the modern game. Really the WCO was the result of the 1978 rule changes that opened up the game in general.
-The most glaring is the continued posts about Favre and taking the moral high ground there. Montana wasn’t back in the fold of the 9ners until well after Young was gone and there wasn’t half the bad blood there as there was between Favre and the Packers organization.
See consistently making these mistakes opens yourself up that criticism. It suggests that you need to continue to grow in that history of the game like we all do.
by PackApologist on May 13, 2011 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Starr, Aikman and Griese
All posted modest stats but were the leaders on very successful teams. That is why I call them game managers and why I lumped them together. I know I am not the first to call them game managers. Just maybe the first on this blog. Whatever. Continue to believe you are educating me if it helps. You get 50 internet points.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
Hey don't be bitter
There is a point to all of this and it’s not just your education. The reason why the Packers made that switch was to move on from Curly Lambeau’s vision of the team. Lambeau left in a bitter divorce akin to Favre’s and the Packers and the fans wanted just forget him for a while.
We are in the same point in history. The organization, the fans, and Favre all need a time to heal and forget. Having people bang the drum for his being forced back into the fold before all are ready really doesn’t help that.
So let the people say what they will. It’s fans spouting off their emotions. They are fans and they have the right to do what they want. If you you do have the appreciation of history you claim realize that we are in a similar moment and let them get it out of their system because they will also probably be the loudest cheerers when Favre comes back home.
by PackApologist on May 13, 2011 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions
WHO GIVES A DAMN.
These threads are looking more and more like some bush-league-DN junk.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on May 13, 2011 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions 6 recs
RecRecRecRec
It’s really getting old, and I for one am getting put off from participating in the discussions because very little of it is reasonable lately.
Brewers, if you're really that desperate to disprove the saying "Defense wins championships" you're going to have to at least hit the ball occasionally.
You want reasoned discussion?
Don’t go here, then. Seriously, don’t. Your skin will crawl.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on May 13, 2011 7:24 PM CDT up reply actions
I REALLY HATE YOU NOW.
Why drag me into this and THEN use DN in the same sentence as Bush League. Friendship over.
by Bush League All Star on May 13, 2011 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
You knew what you signed up for
Brewers, if you're really that desperate to disprove the saying "Defense wins championships" you're going to have to at least hit the ball occasionally.
Sorry man, this is what happens when you don't keep up your posting game.
Gotta comment like a champion all the time, every time, if you want to stay safe her-
HOLY CRAP, BRETT FAVRE JUST THREW ANOTHER INTERCEPTION!
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on May 14, 2011 12:58 AM CDT up reply actions 4 recs
I shoulda just went with this right away...
by Bush League All Star on May 14, 2011 1:29 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Right now
it’s more like not played, Mauer. PSN is still down.
Brewers, if you're really that desperate to disprove the saying "Defense wins championships" you're going to have to at least hit the ball occasionally.
Now it is up in select areas.
Fly-over country getting owned.
by Bush League All Star on May 15, 2011 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions
It's up everywhere again
If I didn't know better, I'd think the Brewers were a halfway decent baseball team...
Starr...
Wasn’t a great game manager. He was a GREAT player! The Ice Bowl game he won. He had to move the ball against a great Defense some 70 yds downfield with virtually no running game to speak of (Chuck Mercein was the best RB on that team), in -60 degreee wheather. That is a drive for the ages, that a game manager can’t finish. And on the last play… It was supposed to be a run to Mercein, but Starr w/o telling ANYONE (including Lombardi or his OL) had the stones to keep the ball in his hands when it mattered most. Please don’t downgrade Starr by calling him a “game manager” he was a Great Player.. Period!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
by Strohman on May 13, 2011 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
As I have already stated
I believe we have a different definition of what a game manager is. And thanks for the info on the Ice Bowl, but I knew it. It was supposed to be a run over Kramer’s hole, but Starr decided to not risk the handoff and just took it himself.
There have been other great players that have been game managers. I’ve listed some. Trent Dilfer, who is the modern example, gives them all a bad name. Game managers win games without glitzy stats. Starr didn’t turn the ball over and always had the team in position to win. He didn’t have showy stats like other QBs of his era such as Johnny Unitas, Fran Tarkenton, or Y.A. Tittle, but he won.
Think of Tom Brady pre-2007: he didn’t have the showiest stats, but his team won because Brady effectively managed the game. Think Troy Aikman- he never led the league in TDs, Yards, QB rating, and only once in completion %, but he always managed the game so that his team was in position to win.
That is what I mean about a game manager. I don’t consider it a downgrade.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
I don't really care what your definition is..
for a game manager. Its irrelevant. The point is your NOT calling him a Great Player! Which you should be… drop all the game manager statements and start calling him what he is… A Great Player! Period…
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
How have I not called him a great player?
I’ve said he’s the second best QB in Green Bay history. I’ve acknowledged his Hall of Fame status. I’ve said he was the leader of the greatest dynasty in NFL history. If it will calm you down, here you go: Bart Starr was a Great Player. Better?
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
I think I understand where you are coming from....
but it’s a little ‘off’ though. If Starr was a ‘game manager,’ then what does that make all the other QB’s of his era? Were they all game managers? As mentioned above, it was a different era from today’s standards. Starr most certainly wasn’t a game manager by any means. Surely he was more conservative compared to Favre, but also far more productive when it mattered the most (playoffs). That’s the ultimate sign that shows that Starr was a winner, among the best QB’s in the history of the game, and the best QB in Green Bay history.
I certainly understand that Favre had some bad teams around him, but he also had some insanely talented teams around him. He had a darn good team that was capable of going to the Superbowl from 1994-1998. He came away with 1 Superbowl victory. He also had opportunities as his career progressed, although those teams were not the same.
Ultimately though, Starr and Favre are 2 very different QB’s, as you already know. It is hard to compare the 2, but there wasn’t a game manager at that time. It was a different era. There were the winners and losers. That’s it. Starr’s remarkable 9-1 record in the playoffs speaks for itself. That’s an accomplishment that’ll be hard for anyone to overcome. Favre was never known as a great QB in the playoffs (when it mattered). Favre was known for his magic, charisma, and humor. Favre was certainly far more entertaining than Starr, but Starr was far more successfull in big games. Both were great QB’s, but neither were game managers.
Superbowl Champs Baby!!!!!
13 World Championships, soon to be 14 after next season...GUARANTEED!!!!!
Nuff said....
by Jabooty on May 20, 2011 5:31 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Couple link for you to broose
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2774_Favre_fantasy_vs._reality.html
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Yep. Seen that and read it before. And many things like it.
Favre choked in the playoffs continually from 2002-2009. You also have to wonder if the team would even be in the position to choke in the playoffs without him.
You are also selecting only half of Favre’s Packer tenure. You should look at Starr’s performance and the team’s performance outside of 1960-1967. There’s 8 years of mediocrity to severe suckitude there too. Few QBs are great all through their careers.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
You can do whatever you want w/ them...
I know full well about Starr’s entire career. Just providing them.
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
and
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2774_Favre_fantasy_vs._reality.html
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Is it okay if I disregard that?
It lacks John Elway and Dan Marino and Terry Bradshaw, so I can’t tell if they are judging by individual accomplishment (Marino), team accomplishment (Bradshaw), or a combination (Elway), and if we are being practical here I believe that hardly anyone puts Bart Starr as the greatest QB in history.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
I believe they are judging it by who played best (not necessarily won)
When it mattered most. The playoffs and championship games.
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Then Terry Bradshaw really belongs there
Did I miss him?
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
He won...
But did he play the best? I don’t know his numbers in all those playoff and SB games off hand. I remember the great day he had in a SB throwing to Swann, but what about the games?
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
He had two consective Super Bowl MVPs
And neither of them were in the Super Bowl where Swann made those ridiculous catches.
Career Super Bowl stats:
84 attempts, 49 completions (good percentage for those days)
932 Yards (or 233/game)
9 TDs, 4 INTs (3 in one game, but he won MVP in that game)
Career SB passer rating of 112.8 (Super Bowl IX: 108.0, Super Bowl X: 122.5, Super Bowl XIII: 119.2, Super Bowl XIV: 101.9).
So yes, I would say he played his best.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
last one
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_1541_CHFF_classic:_The_Ice_Bowl_revisited.html
For the record. We can agree to disagree right now…
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Is Stroh going to get 50 internet points too?
by PackApologist on May 13, 2011 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions
No. He gets 40.
You put forth better and more thought out arguments. Strohman gets points for providing sources .
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
On a scale of 1 to terrific
Your arguments were a 6.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
Hey, that's not bad!
Better than a 5 for damn sure.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
Sure,
but it doesn’t hold a candle to7
Brewers, if you're really that desperate to disprove the saying "Defense wins championships" you're going to have to at least hit the ball occasionally.
Not a big candle anyway
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
Your facts dispenser
is ob(li)viously out of order,
because this is 100% pure B.S., through and through!
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
I don't want to think about Favre, so I'm just going to talk about Al Harris . . .
and his shiny new Super Bowl ring.
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Packers-will-give-a-Super-Bowl-ring-to-Al-Harris.html
Can we talk about Al instead? I’ve always liked Al. Classy guy.
"A weapon based on Time . . ." mused Viktor Mulciber. "Well, why not? The one force no one knows how to defeat, resist, or reverse. It kills all forms of life sooner or later. With a Time-weapon you could become the most feared person in history."
"I'd rather be loved," said Root.
Mulciber shrugged. "You're young."
by I voted for Kodos on May 12, 2011 11:54 PM CDT reply actions
We should do this for all (insert name of he-who-must-not-be-named) articles.
He definitely was an important piece to our secondary from 2003-2009. Nice move, Green Bay.
Super Bowl XLV Champions, the Green Bay Packers!
Very classy move
I liked Harris.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
WOW!
All I can say is # 1 GMan83201, the way you have been all over these blogs about Favre I would think you might be Favre himself, or could it be the, dare I say it, REVENGE 4 FAVRE (instert monster music here). Blah, Blah, Blah and yet you still just keep going on and on about how he did everything for the city, how it was all the Packers fault and not Favre. Well, can we talk about what that city did for him (and by the way, I’ve been watching the Packers since 93’). How about that steak house that he made millions off of, or the Brett Favre Pass out in fornt of the stadium, or about how that city rallied around him and his wife when the whole breast cancer thing come about. You know, Green Bay a few years ago was awashed in a sea of pink to show him (his family) respect, long before it was popular for sporting teams to have “pink days”. So come on, he was shown respect for what he did. Now you keep running on and on about how he was let go (rightfully, I like how you always seem to throw that in because you know most of us think he actually cause the whole problem,NOT THE PACKERS) You talk in general terms about how he didn’t do anything, or show me the proof. Well many have, the talking with the Lions, the fact the Packers had to file tampering charges against the Vikings, telling Julius Peppers to “go get them”, telling everyone how the Vikings we’re the best team he has ever played for. Sorry, I’m not going to buy it. Messy divorce yes, but he took shot after shot at the Packers organization, Packers players, Packers fans and YES even the city of Green Bay. I for one am one person who would not show up for that fateful day that the Packers would honestly put that traitor’s number up on the ring, in fact I might be convinced (with enough beer in me) to picket the stadium that night to so protest to that fact that tney would be honering that traitor! My final statement, is my statement I have made all along, and I will continue to think it for the next 50 years. FAVRE WANTED TO BE A VIKING, LET HIM STAY A VIKING!!!!!! By the way Kodos thank you for sharing that information with us, I wonder about that ever since we won the SB, and in the end I just think it is so very right for Al Harris to recieve a SB ring. Had he been able to rehab a little faster (or even if we had not had so many other injuries and room on the roster) he would have been there playing for us. Harris was one of are better players for years, just dumb luck. I would heartly extend a hand and welcom Al Harris as a member of the the NFL 2010 Superbowl Championship Team.
I know GMan is defending Favre a lot more than we've been used to lately....
but I wouldn’t compare him to R4F (or any troll for that matter). He’s standing by his assertion that Favre is getting a bad rap and was better than we are giving him credit for, and thats fine. Just like it was never required to be a Favre fan to be a Packer fan, its not required to be a Favre hater either.
But I agree with you, I will not forgive him any time in the near future and even if he did come up with an apology or remorse or anything else, I would chalk it up to an act at this point anyway. You just can’t trust the guy for anything (and I guess you never could).
by PhoenicianPakFan on May 13, 2011 1:30 AM CDT up reply actions
In his own way,
He’s standing by his assertion that Favre is getting a bad rap and was better than we are giving him credit for…
so did R4F.
At the very least, this person sounds like one of those self-alleged Packers fans who deserted the Packers to follow Favre whereever he went, and is now trying to slink back into the fold!
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
True, and he may very well be.
But I don’t think you can compare him to R4F. At least GMan is making coherent statements and engaging in conversation, and has been fairly pleasant considering the overwhelming opposition to his stance.
by PhoenicianPakFan on May 19, 2011 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions
I'll give you that, anyway. :)
At least GMan … has been fairly pleasant considering the overwhelming opposition to his stance.
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
Ha! I've been aroudn this blog since the start of last season...and I appreciate the joke
comparing me to REVENGE 4 FAVRE…aka the one who could create 400 post threads all by himself.
I get that a lot of people are mad at Favre now because we are less than a year removed from his Viking tenure. And I know the reasons people hate him. I just don’t hate him for them. I’m not even saying he did the right thing- I disagree with how he left (I’m not just saying he was rightfully let go to mollify the masses here), and I hate that he went to Minnesota. And good two key losses to him in 2009 really freaking hurt. But I won’t let the issues from the past 3-4 years overshadow all the good memories, especially from the 1990s.
I’m not even saying that other people have to agree with me in not hating Favre. I just imagine the passing of time will heal this wound and the majority will come around to liking him again in a few years. Not even saying that YOU will. It’s just how these things have gone historically.
I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.
I don't particularly care for.....
the reaction at times by some fans that say: “If you support Faver you must be a Viking fan! Or a troll! Or R4F! You can’t be a Packer fan!” That just serves to avoid an actual discussion by yelling nonsense.
I guess a lot of people liken Favre to Benedict Arnold, for example. Nobody remembers all the great things he did and how he would be a hero if not for those egregious decisions/mistakes late in his career….. and few can forgive him.
by PhoenicianPakFan on May 13, 2011 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions
But,
Nobody remembers all the great things he did…
people like GMan83201 would have you forget the other side of that coin!
I’ve said it before, and it bears repeating.
One can make a good positive case for Bart, and I will grant that you could do the same for Bertt,
BUTT (it’s a big but),
you can make one helluva negative case against Favre that you could never make against Starr, and, to me, that slams the door on the argument about which was better!
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
No question Starr was better.....
in a lot of ways.
And he still is to this day, while some other Southern Princess is still acting jilted cause the King told her she couldn’t run the castle anymore.
by PhoenicianPakFan on May 19, 2011 10:26 PM CDT up reply actions
That was a very nice and resonable reply
It seems (to me) that you have relexed a little, so now if feel bad for the R4F shot. But I still stay with what I said, Yes I’m mad he went to the Vikings, but the really thing is saying “it’s the best team I’ve ever played for.” that is what gets me, along with other comments that he has said, that if he might have kept his mouth shut, people probobly would eventually let the anger go. As stated before messy divorce, yes. But after that it was all #4 doing all the talking he burning more bridges. I really not so upset as what he did to the Packers, bjut what he did to the city (and fans) of Green Bay.
Another quick excerpt for those who didn't click on the links above:
My last comment on this thread about Starr v. Favre. The Packers as a dominant run team, eh?
In their 1965 championship season, the Packers were 11th in the 14-team league with an average of 3.4 yards per rushing attempt. They were second in the league, with an average of 8.2 yards per passing attempt.
In their 1966 championship season, the Packers were 14th in the 15-team league, with an average of 3.5 yards per rushing attempt. They were first in the league, with an average of 8.9 yards per passing attempt.
In their 1967 championship season, the Packers were 4th in the 16-team league, with an average of 4.0 yards per rushing attempt. They were first in the league, with an average of 8.3 yards per passing attempt (Starr himself that season averaged 8.7 YPA).
Thats why I posted those for gman...
Starr was anything but just a game manager. He was a playmaker and a great QB! Everyone thinks the SB 1 & 2 teams were these great run dominated teams, but they no longer were. In fact at that point they were an aging team that was already in steep decline from the early 60’s. Starr basically willed those teams to SB victories thru shear force of his will… Along w/ Lombardi, they just wouldn’t allow those teams to lose.
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
So right.
In 1967, IIRC, Chuck Mercein was a mid-season pickup to bolster an injury-depleted running hame.
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
*running game. :)
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
Not to mention an accurate passer
His completions without an interception was just broke by Brady last season
Actually,
it was broken by Bernie Kosar in 1991,
26 years after Mr. Starr set it.
Brady broke Kosar’s record.
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
Just re-read your comment.
The record in question was for consecutive attempts without an INT, not completions (unless, of course, I am misunderstanding what you are saying, and we are talking about two different things, in which case, I don’t have a clue what you are talking about). :)
"It's a great day to be great, baby!"
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."
THE BEARS STILL SUCK!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
Related FanShots on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
