and childress is clearly a better coach then MM who couldnt get Brett to play this well. Those (WF)of you who said Brett was finished washed up(the majority) were wrong! as were all you TT apologist...now Ive said it  again and there can be no argument...

Brett was all class in his post game comments...took the high road which leads me to believe that TT, Murphy and MM are the chumps....with that said we can all move on now...I wish Brett the best !

Bigger probllems in GB where we have three less then avg people in charge...Murphy , TT and MM canr cover each others azz's forever are not Harlan, Wolf and holmgren ...If this team does not make the PO's Murphy needs to make  some changes...personally I think Cowher would be a nice fit here but Holmgren would work for me as well.m ...Lets hope Mr Norhtwestern has the Ballz!!!

Well, let's turn the tables and put Rodgers in purple and Brett in green and see what happens.

I understand the criticism of TT and MM, but not sure I understand the criticism of Murphy.  Don't think we have enough info on Murphy yet to make that determination.

HurricaneRon wrote:

Well, let's turn the tables and put Rodgers in purple and Brett in green and see what happens.

 

I understand the criticism of TT and MM, but not sure I understand the criticism of Murphy.  Don't think we have enough info on Murphy yet to make that determination.

 

 

Ran Northwestern sportsn program? Nuff said

originalmissinglink wrote:

 

HurricaneRon wrote:

Well, let's turn the tables and put Rodgers in purple and Brett in green and see what happens.

 

I understand the criticism of TT and MM, but not sure I understand the criticism of Murphy.  Don't think we have enough info on Murphy yet to make that determination.

 

 

Ran Northwestern sportsn program? Nuff said

Before Murphy, the Wildcats were an absolute disarray of an athletic program with no future. When Murphy came along, he guided the Wildcats into a new found light, and enlightened their program with loads of potential.

Know what you're talking about, even if the Cats aren't the greatest team.

hell, with Adrian Peterson, harvin berian, sidney rice, and that offensive line, most NFL quarterbacks can throw with alot of success

Clearly

PackerNation wrote: Link, I don't really think it's fair to say Favre is better than Rodgers. As of right now Rodgers is actually the highest rated QB in the entire league. Yes, Brett is 2-0 vs Rodgers this year, but you have to consider that Rodgers has an o-line about as good as Green Bay's high school team. Favre, on the other hand, has many more weapons and a much better o-line.

That doesn't really make any sense, does it?  Are you saying Rodgers doesn't have anything to work with?  Who's he throwing to?  While you may not like the Packer line, the Vikings are starting (for all intents and purposes) 2 rookies.  Its not like they went out and bought 5 Free Agents; they've drafted well and spent wisely. 

What I don't get is why the Packers don't spend more money???  With the fan base they have, they should certainly have the money to spend.

Getting back to Rodgers vs. Favre: Games aren't won with stats but with players.  Favre just seems to me to be the better "player".  AR may run faster and throw farther... but when has a team led by him won (consistently or "a big game")?

i dont get how/why people are able to place an entire game on a QBs shoulders. if favre were on the browns or lions would he still be "better than rodgers"? yes the QB has a lot to do with offensive success, but i think peterson is a better RB than favre is QB at this point. once again we shut down peterson but were weak weak weak vs the pass. it's hard to shut down the run AND pass vs the vikings.

and actually i'd say MM did get favre to play this well. if you remember he was runner up in the MVP race in 2007. if favre is MVP this year then ill say childress did a better job coaching him up, otherwise, nuh-uh.

this post may sound homerish to some, but i truly believe our offense isn't that much of a problem (besides grant who SUCKS, but somehow we compensate). why don't we talk about percy harvin and how he absolutely destroyed us on special teams. most of the points scored by the vikings tonight were scored when they began on their own 40 or closer, which happened a LOT.

originalmissinglink wrote:

and childress is clearly a better coach then MM who couldnt get Brett to play this well. Those (WF)of you who said Brett was finished washed up(the majority) were wrong! as were all you TT apologist...now Ive said it  again and there can be no argument...

Brett Favre retired after a 13-3 season, near Superbowl, and an MVP type season, all under Mike McCarthy so I dont know what you meant by that first comment. 

originalmissinglink wrote:

and childress is clearly a better coach then MM who couldnt get Brett to play this well. Those (WF)of you who said Brett was finished washed up(the majority) were wrong! as were all you TT apologist...now Ive said it  again and there can be no argument...

Brett was all class in his post game comments...took the high road which leads me to believe that TT, Murphy and MM are the chumps....with that said we can all move on now...I wish Brett the best !

Bigger probllems in GB where we have three less then avg people in charge...Murphy , TT and MM canr cover each others azz's forever are not Harlan, Wolf and holmgren ...If this team does not make the PO's Murphy needs to make  some changes...personally I think Cowher would be a nice fit here but Holmgren would work for me as well.m ...Lets hope Mr Norhtwestern has the Ballz!!!

Link,

You're about the only geezer-stoner that I sincerely like.  And, I mean that in the most flattering terms possible -- seriously.  But you're out of your THC-affected mind on this one.

The difference between Favre and Rodgers was evident today, you're correct on that.  But it was simply a matter of been there done that versus holy sh!t this is big.  Rodgers looked like a young kid thrown into the lions den for the first 30-minutes of football.  After he got the crap knocked out of him, Rodgers played more naturally and instinctively and took over the game, minus the last 7-minutes.

Favre won, in essence, because of a highly INTELLIGENT screen later in the 4th quarter.  Amazingly smart playcall -- I have no idea who could have called that.  Otherwise, it would have been a different story.  Sure, we can point to differet points of that game as important, but I think that sealed the Packers fate.  It turned the momentum and led to the kill shot for the Vikings.

Rodgers took another beating worthy of being in the main event of a Rocky movie and responded like Rocky besides knocking out the Russian.

HurricaneRon wrote:

Well, let's turn the tables and put Rodgers in purple and Brett in green and see what happens.

 

I understand the criticism of TT and MM, but not sure I understand the criticism of Murphy.  Don't think we have enough info on Murphy yet to make that determination.

 

 

LOL, the table WERE turned in 2007.  Tell me, how has the team gone downhill since 2007?  What weapons have been lost?  The offensive line remains the same though with injuries... that line sucked in 07 too you know!  Rodgers has a much better tight end than Favre had.  And the defense is much better than the defense of 07.

So just where does Favre have the trouble Rodgers has?  He had more problems than Rodgers has today, and still got to 14-4 including two playoff appearances.

So your logic doesn't work... AT ALL.  Give it up already.  This Packers lost one major weapon since 07, and he was on the other side of the line of scrimmage today.

He and the Vikings kicked the Packers asses today.  He got his revenge.  Packer fans got to voice their hate.  And the entire world got to see what Thompson and McCarthy have done to kill this franchise in less than 2 short years!

Speaking of screens, when is the last time the Packers have run a halfways decent screen??? Christ they used to be so good at it and ever since Teddy has been here his failure to get any decent OL has led to the Pack never being able to run a screen.

rebels191 wrote:

 

originalmissinglink wrote:

and childress is clearly a better coach then MM who couldnt get Brett to play this well. Those (WF)of you who said Brett was finished washed up(the majority) were wrong! as were all you TT apologist...now Ive said it  again and there can be no argument...

Brett Favre retired after a 13-3 season, near Superbowl, and an MVP type season, all under Mike McCarthy so I dont know what you meant by that first comment.

I made that same argument too before I realized how wrong I was for giving credit where it is not do.  I think if TT would have actually gave Favre weapons while he was here, it would have been at least 1 Super Bowl.  You are for sure entitled to your opinion, but it's pretty easy to see what Brett Favre can do for a not so well head coached team.

i certainly hope this comments meant as a joke. we gave up 30+ pts to the vikings both times we played them. in 2007 guess how many times we gave up that many points? TWICE, and we lost both those games. until our secondary learns to play good zone defense in this 3-4 we're going to struggle vs good QBs, and favres a very good one.

Gimpybutt wrote:

 

And the defense is much better than the defense of 07.

ron wolf, in all his glory, was only able to win 1 super bowl with favre at the helm. i dont think it's as easy as just giving him weapons. as the packers of the 90's and a lot of teams since then have proved, you need DEFENSE to win championships. we've put a lot of effort into assembling a good one, so i dunno what the excuse is really.

superkracker wrote:

 

I made that same argument too before I realized how wrong I was for giving credit where it is not do.  I think if TT would have actually gave Favre weapons while he was here, it would have been at least 1 Super Bowl.  You are for sure entitled to your opinion, but it's pretty easy to see what Brett Favre can do for a not so well head coached team.

We said the same stuff 1st half last year.

How did the second half go?

But you forget that once your offense puts points on the board, and the more it puts up, the better the defense can play the game.  Because they know you have to play catch-up and can blitz the hell out of you.  Today, that couldn't happen because the offense could not put up points and stay with the Vikes until it was too late.  The Vikes could run or throw and control the game.

There is more to playing defense than scheme and talent.  There is the matter of calling plays on defense and based on what the offense is likely to do.  All the Vikes needed to do was pound the rock and let Favre throw if they got bogged down.  They kicked GBs ass!  And Favre was a large part of that!

Keep setting the bar low, thats a sure way to get better!

whos setting the bar low? im saying we need to play better defense and you seem to disagree. if we had a dominant D our offense wouldn't need to be all-world for us to be successful. we put up 1 less point vs the vikings than the steelers did last week yet their result was a W and ours was a L. even though pitt scored 1 more point than us, their offense played much worse than ours as 2 TDs were from the defense.

Haha, ask the vikings how much better the defense can play the game when they have big leads.  How many points did they give up to the Ravens and Packers after their offense got them big leads...

Gimpybutt wrote:

But you forget that once your offense puts points on the board, and the more it puts up, the better the defense can play the game.  Because they know you have to play catch-up and can blitz the hell out of you.  Today, that couldn't happen because the offense could not put up points and stay with the Vikes until it was too late.  The Vikes could run or throw and control the game.

 

There is more to playing defense than scheme and talent.  There is the matter of calling plays on defense and based on what the offense is likely to do.  All the Vikes needed to do was pound the rock and let Favre throw if they got bogged down.  They kicked GBs ass!  And Favre was a large part of that!

 

Keep setting the bar low, thats a sure way to get better!

I'll be glad, in 10-20 more years, when Favre actually does retire, so I won't have to read this constant crap about who is better, who said what, etc, etc, etc. etc.  Favre/Rodgers, blah, blah, blah.

rrgrs wrote:

i certainly hope this comments meant as a joke. we gave up 30+ pts to the vikings both times we played them. in 2007 guess how many times we gave up that many points? TWICE, and we lost both those games. until our secondary learns to play good zone defense in this 3-4 we're going to struggle vs good QBs, and favres a very good one.

Gimpybutt wrote:

 

And the defense is much better than the defense of 07.

 

No, it's called NOT HAVING A PASS RUSH ! ! No ZONE defense can hold up when the QB can sit back for 4-5 seconds in the pocket and go thru ALL of his reads. Unfortunately with Kampman taking weight off to play LB, he no longer can produce enough force to get the OT off balance like he used to in years past. He now looks like a pinball bouncing off those round things.

there is no substitute for experience. brett has seen everything, rodgers hasn't. i will say this for rodgers, he can play, and he maanaged to rally us back after a first half where we looked like crap.

Since MM and BC have come to the NFC North the team that Brett Favre has played for has gone 6-0.  Favre was 4-0 against the Vikings under MM and is now 2-0 against the Packers under BC. 

Don't forget about the 1-1 that occurred with him in NY

rebels191 wrote:

Since MM and BC have come to the NFC North the team that Brett Favre has played for has gone 6-0.  Favre was 4-0 against the Vikings under MM and is now 2-0 against the Packers under BC.

Yeah, face it, Thompson and McCarthy dumped Favre because they were just tired of winning!

Gimpybutt wrote:

Yeah, face it, Thompson and McCarthy dumped Favre because they were just tired of winning!

I think it had to do more with how he WON. He did it HIS way, and not the way TT/MM had planned.

logjam2003 wrote:

Don't forget about the 1-1 that occurred with him in NY

rebels191 wrote:

Since MM and BC have come to the NFC North the team that Brett Favre has played for has gone 6-0.  Favre was 4-0 against the Vikings under MM and is now 2-0 against the Packers under BC.

 

Well he was in NY and didnt contribute much in those games.

My point is the games he has played in the series between the two coaches, he has won them all.  The guy wins games it is what he does.