"Truth" - According to Jason Whitlock (FoxSports)

[PackersRS]

The thing is even if he did try to bring him in, he didn't seal the deal. In the NFL trying is not good enough. Every GM/coach tries to do better.

But you don't know if he was stabbed in the back in this one... That's the point. If they raised the price just before the deal was done, when it was all settled, I could understand him backing off from this kind of deal.

If anyone can prove that it would be the same deal the Patriots got, then I'm with you on this one, it should've been made. But I didn't hear anyone say exactly what happened. How can you judge it by assumptions? That's ludicrous. If he didn't even have tried, then you could accuse him. But not that the deal wasn't made, and when you don't know the reasons it wasn't made.

 

[angryguy77]

But you don't know if he was stabbed in the back in this one... That's the point. If they raised the price just before the deal was done, when it was all settled, I could understand him backing off from this kind of deal.

If anyone can prove that it would be the same deal the Patriots got, then I'm with you on this one, it should've been made. But I didn't hear anyone say exactly what happened. How can you judge it by assumptions? That's ludicrous. If he didn't even have tried, then you could accuse him. But not that the deal wasn't made, and when you don't know the reasons it wasn't made.

i'm guessing if thats the case, it would have come out by now. But i agree with you that we may not really know the whole thing. But judging TT by the way he does things I'm thinking he really didn't make a fard enough push. This is the whole reasoning behind my post. Whatever the reason for him not bring in FA x y and z he's not getting it done. I f he cant broker the deal, then we need a guy who can imo

 

[PackersRS]

i'm guessing if thats the case, it would have come out by now. But i agree with you that we may not really know the whole thing. But judging TT by the way he does things I'm thinking he really didn't make a fard enough push. This is the whole reasoning behind my post. Whatever the reason for him not bring in FA x y and z he's not getting it done. I f he cant broker the deal, then we need a guy who can imo

I agree that he's too complacent in FA. But I don't think that was the case, at least not with what informations I have about it...

I wouldn't like an agressive guy, because that usually leads to cap hell. But a guy that sees flaws in his roster and try to correct them through any means necessary, rather than a guy that see flaws and think: next year I'll correct them. And worse, haven't corrected the flaws we had in 07 and 08... Well, to be fair, some of them have been adressed, but not in a substantial way, that we're an elite team...

 

[Jess]

I find Whitlock insufferable. Every time he fills in for Jim Rome, I listen to my iPod.

That's not a comment on the article. I didn't even bother to read it. It's just a comment on him personally. I think he needs to lighten way up.

And if I ever have to hear about effing Ball State football or Tech fricking Nine on The Jim Rome Show again because of him, i'm sending Rome something that would no doubt end up being a Triple-U and getting me blocked (BLOCKED!).

 

[Skol guy]

Rome is hard to watch, the words he makes up like he is a hip or something is laughable. Also had the packers as big winners and how Favre is going to tear up the Vikings lockeroom but so far he has been way off. Whitlock is pretty funny if you ask me. He talks about jeff george like he is the second coming always talking of the glory days.

 

[weeds]

I find it alarming, skol guy, that I'm agreeing with you on farrrrrr tooooo many topics. Rome is a tool ... and Whitlock, though a good writer, tends to fall off the deep end to quickly.

#4 'could' be in the conversation for MVP, IF THE SEASON ENDED TODAY! However, we're about halfway through. We'll see where it goes.

I was listening to Andrew Brandt being interviewed by Chris Havel the other night ... he made a quick pass over the #4 issue saying that he too thought it was time for the Packers to move on to Rodgers - and he LOVED #4. What the fans of #4 fail to realize is that the #4 we're seeing in Minnehaha is NOT the #4 we saw in Green Bay - most probably because of the lack of fat-guy talent up front - but, even when the fat-guy talent was there, we still saw a #4 that did not come close to resembling the contained #4 we're seeing in Minne...and there'll be no convincing those fans otherwise. Same as there was no convincing the "Sherman haters" that he was a good coach -- just a lousy GM. We're condemned to an 11th level of hell until such time that head's roll at 1265, and then, the spectrum will move to the other 'side'.

 

[weeds]

I'll stick with Andrew Brandt's take any day of the week.

Brett and the broadcast guys | National Football Post


...and then, there's this:

The difficult parting of Favre and the Packers | National Football Post

 

[Skol guy]

I find it alarming, skol guy, that I'm agreeing with you on farrrrrr tooooo many topics. Rome is a tool ... and Whitlock, though a good writer, tends to fall off the deep end to quickly.

.

Don't tell longtime guy you agreed with me on anything or you might be added to most likely to ban list:happy0005: LOL

 

[longtimefan]

Don't tell longtime guy you agreed with me on anything or you might be added to most likely to ban list:happy0005: LOL

LOL

Dude since the last week or so you been an outstanding poster!!

but dont let it get to your head

 

[longtimefan]

I was listening to Andrew Brandt being interviewed by Chris Havel the other night ... he made a quick pass over the #4 issue saying that he too thought it was time for the Packers to move on to Rodgers - and he LOVED #4.

What the fans of #4 fail to realize is that the #4 we're seeing in Minnehaha is NOT the #4 we saw in Green Bay - most probably because of the lack of fat-guy talent up front - but, even when the fat-guy talent was there, we still saw a #4 that did not come close to resembling the contained #4 we're seeing in Minne...and there'll be no convincing those fans otherwise. Same as there was no convincing the "Sherman haters" that he was a good coach -- just a lousy GM. We're condemned to an 11th level of hell until such time that head's roll at 1265, and then, the spectrum will move to the other 'side'.

I thought about that the other day..Even in his mvp years he NEVER had such a low int total

In 2007 he had 6 ints at the 8 game mark..and only 8 TDs

2004 he had 14 tds and 9 ints

Maybe he is so motivated that he is listening to the coaches and not doing the bone headed plays that fans so much loved for the opposing teams...

But if thats true, why wasnt he motivated enough the last few years in GB? Maybe he was just not motivated because of Ted not listening to him? Maybe Brett just didnt care anymore and his play suffered....

Maybe he was playing that way on purpose in GB to be "forced" out

Thats just me thinking out loud...No real back bone to it..

 

[JeffQuery]

In 2007 he had absolutely NO running game, and a terrible line, and young WR's who were just coming into their own for the first 8 games...

In 2004, he had a decent line and running game, but no WR's...I think that was the year defenses double covered DD and there was no one else to really step up, couldn't get open....and SherRossley was a TERRIBLE coach. Way too predictable. Bad gametime decisions. I don't know if you're remembering things too clearly there, LT.

Now, Favre has a decent O-Line, a GREAT running back, and good WR's...
That's the difference that you are seeing.

Favre doesn't have to do it himself, anymore, and carry the team on his shoulders...and you're seeing how lethal he can be with a decent team around him.

I know you won't agree because you guys ALWAYS think the GB Packers have the best guys in the NFL...but in non-Homer reality, they don't.

 

[Skol guy]

In 2007 he had absolutely NO running game, and a terrible line, and young WR's who were just coming into their own for the first 8 games...

In 2004, he had a decent line and running game, but no WR's...I think that was the year defenses double covered DD and there was no one else to really step up, couldn't get open....and SherRossley was a TERRIBLE coach. Way too predictable. Bad gametime decisions. I don't know if you're remembering things too clearly there, LT.

Now, Favre has a decent O-Line, a GREAT running back, and good WR's...
That's the difference that you are seeing.

Favre doesn't have to do it himself, anymore, and carry the team on his shoulders...and you're seeing how lethal he can be with a decent team around him.

I know you won't agree because you guys ALWAYS think the GB Packers have the best guys in the NFL...but in non-Homer reality, they don't.

Also Special teams and defense are also putting up points and or great field position. Penaltys against are also favorable for the Purple. Percy Harvin is doing alot as wideout,RB and return guy and now chilly wants him returning punts also just because he is a gamebreaker and another weapon for old man river

 

[JeffQuery]

Maybe Favre KNEW that this team wasn't ready for prime time in 2007, as we've clearly seen by NOW, and he knew that Tee Tee wasn't going to do a THING about it...

"Ted Thompson has made assclowns of us all..."
J. Whitlock

 

[longtimefan]

In 2007 he had absolutely NO running game, and a terrible line, and young WR's who were just coming into their own for the first 8 games...

In 2004, he had a decent line and running game, but no WR's...I think that was the year defenses double covered DD and there was no one else to really step up, couldn't get open....and SherRossley was a TERRIBLE coach. Way too predictable. Bad gametime decisions. I don't know if you're remembering things too clearly there, LT.

Now, Favre has a decent O-Line, a GREAT running back, and good WR's...
That's the difference that you are seeing.

Favre doesn't have to do it himself, anymore, and carry the team on his shoulders...and you're seeing how lethal he can be with a decent team around him.

I know you won't agree because you guys ALWAYS think the GB Packers have the best guys in the NFL...but in non-Homer reality, they don't.

I do understand that he had horrible players at certain points of his career, but when we mention how Rodgers has no running game we are told it doesnt matter..

So please Pack66, recall your statement that Brett had do do it all by himself..when blasting Rodgers

Now onto your skewed view of things...


I love how you tell me I wasnt remembering things correctly, but yet your the one that was not remembering


2004 Walker---89 catches, 1400 yards and 12 tds
2004 Driver---84 catches, 1200 yards and 9 tds
Green was 12th in rushing yards but 7th in rushing average

I love it when a person such as your self spews some stuff they think is right, with out double checking facts..

Nice try, but you failed

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...3-s=RECEIVING_YARDS&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-n=1

Driver and Walker top 10 receiving

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...erence=ALL&role=TM&season=2004&seasonType=REG

Packers #3 in offense

 

[JeffQuery]

NFL Stats: by Team Category


OK..so it was the DEFENSE that ranked 25th overall...I said I "thought" it was 2004...it actually was 2005, 2006..but the point is that it was alway SOMETHING that the Packers were lacking...yet with that same team that was STILL LACKING, Favre went 14-4 in '07...and Rodgers is unable to do so....

You guys always have an "excuse".

Favre must be tired of always proving you guys wrong, over and over, at this point...I surely would be.

Rodgers holds on to the ball too long, is not great at the quick read and making fast decisions, and has happy feet. These are the same things he's been doing for three years now. He is also a game manager who is afraid to take chances when things don't go his way. He opts for the safe option. You lose football games that way if you're not a difference maker....

Nice try though...LT.

 

[longtimefan]

NFL Stats: by Team Category


OK..so it was the DEFENSE that ranked 25th overall...I said I "thought" it was 2004...it actually was 2005, 2006..but the point is that it was alway SOMETHING that the Packers were lacking...yet with that same team that was STILL LACKING, Favre went 14-4 in '07...and Rodgers is unable to do so....

You guys always have an "excuse".

Favre must be tired of always proving you guys wrong, over and over, at this point...I surely would be.

Rodgers holds on to the ball too long, is not great at the quick read and making fast decisions, and has happy feet. These are the same things he's been doing for three years now. He is also a game manager who is afraid to take chances when things don't go his way. He opts for the safe option. You lose football games that way if you're not a difference maker....

Nice try though...LT.

I love how you start out explaing on why Brett did poorly in years past, then change it to how Rodgers sucks..

sounds like a TTT

Typical troll tactic..change subject when losing a argument

so lets keep it to the topic shall we?

Why is Brett playing lights out? When in the past (2004) he did have the talent but didnt play this well

 

[Pack_Attack_Is_Back]

I love the article, and agree with 95% of what is said. I wish Favre was still in green and gold. I'm sickened and angry to see him wearing purple but Favre was looking for another ring and knew he has a chance with the Vikings. I, absolutely love Favre, and despise him at the same time, but Favre is playing in a way that shows Thompson for what he really is... an ***. He needs to go and take McCarthy with him.

 

[weeds]

I thought about that the other day..Even in his mvp years he NEVER had such a low int total

In 2007 he had 6 ints at the 8 game mark..and only 8 TDs

2004 he had 14 tds and 9 ints

Maybe he is so motivated that he is listening to the coaches and not doing the bone headed plays that fans so much loved for the opposing teams...

But if thats true, why wasnt he motivated enough the last few years in GB? Maybe he was just not motivated because of Ted not listening to him? Maybe Brett just didnt care anymore and his play suffered....

Maybe he was playing that way on purpose in GB to be "forced" out

Thats just me thinking out loud...No real back bone to it..

I know what you're saying. 2007 was a 'blessed' season..make no bones about it (that's just me talkin' ...). Most of the #4 fans, count me among them because I really and truly hoped that he'd return in 2008 ) remember only "black and white" - again in the words of Andrew Brandt - when most of that little saga played out in the 'gray areas'.

I think that even Jeff Query would have to admit that #4 isn't in that "gunslinger" mode so far this season. 'Gunslinger', to my way of thinking was actually an insult to #4 - but the people who are now part of his travelling fan entourage see that term as a commentary on his 'gamesmanship'. Astounding as it is, the guy is playing a very smart game this year - more intelligent than any season since Holmgren was here...and they'll argue tooth and nail as to whether he's a 'game manager' or not...they view that term as the insult...and treasure "gunslinger". If I'm a coach, I want the game manager...the field general... erm.... Joe Montana.

#4 is more of QB this season than he has been since '98. ..and that's a compliment.