Green Bay Packers Thread

adrian522 · 04-02-2016 12:55pm

Watched this last night. Seems like Packers having a go at Favre is a little bit two faced. They didn't want him to play for Green Bay any more, didn't want him playing for anyone else either.

Not sure what the problem Packers fans had with him, he was obviously good enough to keep going so he was obviously going to go to where he had the best chance to win.

If green bay didn't want to start him they should have just released him or traded him to where he wanted to go, he'd earned that much over the previous 15 years.

Billy86 · 04-02-2016 3:09pm

Can't go into too much detail right now, but the Favre situation is a little unique because of how closely tied to the team/area he always was. He might be from right down south with GB right up north, but he pretty much fit the area like a glove and in terms of local hero worship I'm really struggling to come up with equivalents... maybe Alan Shearer at Newcastle? Possibly Cantona when he was still playing.

The situation also was more than us not wanting him to start and him wanting to start in fairness; if I recall it had more to do with us wanting him to compete for his starting spot (and fully justifiably now that we've seen what they saw back then in the guy wearing #12), and to commit to being around for the next season very early in the offseason, whereas he wanted to walk right into the starting spot without question, even after spending up until long after the draft and even free agency debating whether he would return or not. Essentially it became too much about Brett and not enough about the Packers, and while McCarthy & Ted Thompson appear two of the most even-tempered coaches/executives in the league, they both are actually pretty strict disciplinarians who place a very, very strong emphasis on some of the things Belichick is so famously known for - no moaning, heads down, team first, etc.

Apparently that played a big role in us not going for Moss (who ironically went to Belichick's Patriots) which drove Favre spare as his arm and Moss's athleticism would have made an absurd pairing. Then again, we took on Charles Woodson when nobody else would (despite his obvious, ridiculous talent) in Thompson's first year and that same emphasis on those values completely turned him around. On a tangent now, but if you look at his GB numbers (and his OAK numbers the last few years even), if he had been doing that his whole career he might have a sheer bulk-of-stats argument to put him as the greatest DB of all time, period. As in 'JJ Watt of the secondary' numbers, close to 100 INTs, 30-40FFs, 20-30FRs, 30+ sacks and 25-30 defensive TDs on top of 1,000+ tackles, being perhaps the best tackling CB in the game for a decade (after Winfield) and maybe the best in pure coverage for several years (after Bailey), and playing 2/3rds of his career in the much harder (for DBs) post-2004 rule change era. I know, I know... it's all well and good to say "if and but" about these kind of things, but with Woodson in particular it always makes me wonder. Just look at the guys numbers from 2005 onwards... http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WoodCh00.htm . Those are absolutely insane for anyone, never mind a guy that turned 30 just a year later in 2006.

adrian522 · 04-02-2016 3:23pm

Yeah, but it is a bit odd to have to go prove yourself when you are a surefire HOF QB in the same spot for 15 years. I don't get why they wouldn't just grant him a release if that's what he wanted and I understand how he'd be upset by how things played out.

I don't get why he became this hate figure in Green Bay, but having said that I never really followed that story that closely as I wasn't a GB fan and didn't care much for Favre and his constant will he/wont he retirements.

Billy86 · 04-02-2016 3:56pm

adrian522 wrote: »

Yeah, but it is a bit odd to have to go prove yourself when you are a surefire HOF QB in the same spot for 15 years. I don't get why they wouldn't just grant him a release if that's what he wanted and I understand how he'd be upset by how things played out.

I don't get why he became this hate figure in Green Bay, but having said that I never really followed that story that closely as I wasn't a GB fan and didn't care much for Favre and his constant will he/wont he retirements.

Well to be fair, if Rodgers were looking liek Clausen or Manziel I don't think that would have been the issue, but as a 49ers guy you're likely aware of how good McCarthy is with QBs.

Some of the details have faded a bit in my mind, but at first it was actually Thompson who was hated - hated - on the back of this. Rodgers was despised in certain circles, despite not actually doing anything bad at all. In a town where football is everything (seriously, this is Green Bay, it's less than half the population of Galway, there's not much else going on) it became much, much more heated than it ever would have in New York or even football obsessed areas like Dallas & Pittsburgh. It really didn't help him at all that it was on the back of a 13-3 season (even if Favre threw multiple picks that ultimately cost us a SB spot vs the Giants). Having only started watching the spot in 2002, never having visited GB, and having missed Favre's prime years (plus the context of sucking for so long before he came along) the context was lost on me, and I remember that I couldn't understand how Thompson and Rodgers were the bad guys in the situation. It was similar to Peyton/Luck for me... one's a slam dunk first ballot HOFer and one of the best guys his position has seen, but only has 2-3 years left. The other is a young guy with the potential to be just as good, but over the next 15-odd years. In that situation for me, it just makes sense to go with the younger guy.

If I remember correctly, it wasn't really until one year later when the public really turned on Favre for moving to the Vikings (and were more comfortable siding with Ted/McCarthy/Rodgers following a very impressive debut season for Aaron); a sentiment which only got worse as he had two excellent games against us that season, both of which the Vikings won.

baby and crumble · 04-02-2016 3:58pm

adrian522 wrote: »

I don't get why he became this hate figure in Green Bay, but having said that I never really followed that story that closely as I wasn't a GB fan and didn't care much for Favre and his constant will he/wont he retirements.

I think if he'd just played for the Jets it wouldn't have been as big a deal. Over in the AFC, no biggy. But to then come and play for a big division rival, I think that pissed people off.

Not saying I agree, but I can understand it.

adrian522 · 04-02-2016 4:00pm

Are the Vikings really the hated rival? I thought that would have been Chicago more so?

There seems to have been a lot of animosity for the move to Minnesota more than anything.

adrian522 · 04-02-2016 4:03pm

baby and crumble wrote: »

I think if he'd just played for the Jets it wouldn't have been as big a deal. Over in the AFC, no biggy. But to then come and play for a big division rival, I think that pissed people off.

Not saying I agree, but I can understand it.

But that's the thing, if you don't want him you don't get to dictate who he plays for, that was the issue for me, surely for all he'd done in GB he should have been allowed to go chasing another superbowl with any team he liked? I think it was handled badly in the first instance.

The Jets was a bad move for all parties as they were a bad football team with no chance really of giving him a good sendoff.

He shouldn't have announced he was retiring until he was sure he was finished playing though.

Billy86 · 04-02-2016 4:48pm

adrian522 wrote: »

Are the Vikings really the hated rival? I thought that would have been Chicago more so?

There seems to have been a lot of animosity for the move to Minnesota more than anything.

I tend to find the Bears is one of those begrudgingly-respectful rivalries. It gets very heated sometimes, but both teams recognise the other as a central 'pillar' of the game. Both also have very dedicated fanbases, but are quite good in terms of being 'family teams' in that you're less likely to get grief than you would off Eagles or Raiders fans (to use two stereotypes, admittedly) so there's not quite the hostility you might see in some of the NFC East team rivalries for example. Just me 0.02c on it.

The Vikings are like that nasty younger sibling, with a serious chip on their shoulder when it comes to the Packers especially. That they came so close to the SB so many times while GB is known as 'title town' really, really grates them - especially with GB being a small town and Minnesota being a whole damn state (plus Minneapolis being far bigger on it's own). There's an inferiority complex there that is strong... very, very strong. The type of strong that had some Vikings fans trying to claim Bridgewater had surpassed Rodgers during this season, that kind of strong. Trying to compete with the Packers and Bears as an overall franchise, when you've never won a SB must be soul destroying.

The Bears, I love to hate. The Lions, I don't have too strong an opinion on either way. The Vikings, they're just nasty.

Realt Dearg Sec · 04-02-2016 4:56pm

Billy86 wrote: »

I tend to find the Bears is one of those begrudgingly-respectful rivalries. It gets very heated sometimes, but both teams recognise the other as a central 'pillar' of the game. Both also have very dedicated fanbases, but are quite good in terms of being 'family teams' in that you're less likely to get grief than you would off Eagles or Raiders fans (to use two stereotypes, admittedly) so there's not quite the hostility you might see in some of the NFC East team rivalries for example. Just me 0.02c on it.

The Vikings are like that nasty younger sibling, with a serious chip on their shoulder when it comes to the Packers especially. That they came so close to the SB so many times while GB is known as 'title town' really, really grates them - especially with GB being a small town and Minnesota being a whole damn state (plus Minneapolis being far bigger on it's own). There's an inferiority complex there that is strong... very, very strong. The type of strong that had some Vikings fans trying to claim Bridgewater had surpassed Rodgers during this season, that kind of strong. Trying to compete with the Packers and Bears as an overall franchise, when you've never won a SB must be soul destroying.

The Bears, I love to hate. The Lions, I don't have too strong an opinion on either way. The Vikings, they're just nasty.

It's funny, as Bears fan (and obviously the Packers are the main rival, by far, the other two are not even close. I've heard that the Packers museum reflects this as well, Vikings fans who have visited have commented on how dispiriting it is to see that the Packers don't even really acknowledge them as a major rival in comparison and the whole narrative is about the Bears-Packers history) I tend to look at the other two teams the other way round. I find the Lions to be a much more nasty team, and their attitude to the Bears is much more toxic, whereas the Vikings are the only team in the division I could ever see myself rooting for in a game not involving the Bears. Could be to do with the rivalry between the cities themselves, of course.

Billy86 · 04-02-2016 5:04pm

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

It's funny, as Bears fan (and obviously the Packers are the main rival, by far, the other two are not even close. I've heard that the Packers museum reflects this as well, Vikings fans who have visited have commented on how dispiriting it is to see that the Packers don't even really acknowledge them as a major rival in comparison and the whole narrative is about the Bears-Packers history) I tend to look at the other two teams the other way round. I find the Lions to be a much more nasty team, and their attitude to the Bears is much more toxic, whereas the Vikings are the only team in the division I could ever see myself rooting for in a game not involving the Bears. Could be to do with the rivalry between the cities themselves, of course.

I had noticed that, re. the Bears-Lions. There almost seems to be a "friend of my friend" relationship between the Bears & Vikings, and to a lesser extent Packers & Lions (couldn't see them rooting for us though, could be just because I support GB, but we strike me as the consensus enemy #1 in the division)... and I don't get much of a rivalry/divisional feel off the Lions-Vikings at all to be honest. When you look around, the politics that goes on within each division is pretty interesting.

OldMrBrennan83 · 04-02-2016 5:37pm

This post has been deleted.

JCTO · 04-02-2016 8:02pm

One thing that helps the Bears-Packers rivalry is the fact they are one of the oldest rivalries in the NFL. Both in the game close to 100 years at this point.

Also you look how close both are to each other 2 hrs 30mins-45min drive depending on how fast you drive.

You also look at the success of both teams over their time span easier to create a larger rivalry.

I have been to 2 Packers-Bears games and 1 Packers-Vikings game and the atmosphere at the Bear-Packers is definitely more intense than the Vikings-Packers. A lot of Packers fans in WI will see the Bears rivalry been the strongest one also.

Billy86 · 04-02-2016 8:15pm

Bit jealous of ya, I've only made it to a 28-7 loss to the Bucs in 2002 (where Sapp hacked Tauscher's leg off) and a 48-3 MNF loss to the Ravens (still the record biggest ever MNF loss). At least Rodgers got basically his first playing time ever in the second, though.

OldMrBrennan83 · 04-02-2016 8:25pm

This post has been deleted.

Brendan Bendar · 04-02-2016 8:36pm

Billy86 wrote: »

Bit jealous of ya, I've only made it to a 28-7 loss to the Bucs in 2002 (where Sapp hacked Tauscher's leg off) and a 48-3 MNF loss to the Ravens (still the record biggest ever MNF loss). At least Rodgers got basically his first playing time ever in the second, though.

You sure It wasn't Chad Clifton he blindsided?

Billy86 · 04-02-2016 8:36pm

Nah, both away sadly. Looking into trying to get some for next season though since GB is only about 3hrs on a plane from here and just a 1hr time difference.

Billy86 · 04-02-2016 8:38pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You sure It wasn't Chad Clifton he blindsided?

Good shout, those two always strike me as a 1-2 combo to be honest; I'm forever getting their names mixed up for no good reason.

Brendan Bendar · 04-02-2016 8:45pm

Billy86 wrote: »

Good shout, those two always strike me as a 1-2 combo to be honest; I'm forever getting their names mixed up for no good reason.

No worries, nearly ended Cliftons career, if I recollect correctly, he had to spend about five days in hospital in Tampa after the event,

Tauscher was Wisconsin

Clifton was Tenessee.

They were rocks.

Realt Dearg Sec · 04-02-2016 9:03pm

JCTO wrote: »

One thing that helps the Bears-Packers rivalry is the fact they are one of the oldest rivalries in the NFL. Both in the game close to 100 years at this point.

Also you look how close both are to each other 2 hrs 30mins-45min drive depending on how fast you drive.

You also look at the success of both teams over their time span easier to create a larger rivalry.

I have been to 2 Packers-Bears games and 1 Packers-Vikings game and the atmosphere at the Bear-Packers is definitely more intense than the Vikings-Packers. A lot of Packers fans in WI will see the Bears rivalry been the strongest one also.

Billy86 wrote: »

Bit jealous of ya, I've only made it to a 28-7 loss to the Bucs in 2002 (where Sapp hacked Tauscher's leg off) and a 48-3 MNF loss to the Ravens (still the record biggest ever MNF loss). At least Rodgers got basically his first playing time ever in the second, though.

Went to the Packers-Bears game in Soldier a few years ago and the atmosphere was really good. People were worked up and all, plenty of tension and excitement, but it was good craic between the fans (expensive though, really expensive, but for any Bears or Pack fan I'd highly recommend it). Was at the 9ers game this year and it didn't have at all the same spark to it.

OldMrBrennan83 · 04-02-2016 9:03pm

This post has been deleted.

Realt Dearg Sec · 04-02-2016 9:06pm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Go to it in Soldier Field. Easier to get a ticket probably, and you don't have to travel all the way up to Green Bay, and better yet, when it's over, you're in Chicagom, not stuck in Green Bay.

*runs and hides*

OldMrBrennan83 · 04-02-2016 9:08pm

This post has been deleted.

JCTO · 04-02-2016 9:11pm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have friends in Wisconsin that usually get me tickets. I also have used stubhub for one of the Bears games due to the amount of us going to game. We needed 3 extra tickets and got them on Stubhub easily. Pricey but available.

JCTO · 04-02-2016 9:13pm

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Go to it in Soldier Field. Easier to get a ticket probably, and you don't have to travel all the way up to Green Bay, and better yet, when it's over, you're in Chicagom, not stuck in Green Bay.

*runs and hides*

Appleton is where its at after a game. Green Bay has nothing in it. Most travelling fans from out of state stay in Appleton or Milwaukee if they don't mind the drive. But Appleton is great craic. University town and full of great bars and clubs and food.

Realt Dearg Sec · 04-02-2016 9:21pm

JCTO wrote: »

Appleton is where its at after a game. Green Bay has nothing in it. Most travelling fans from out of state stay in Appleton or Milwaukee if they don't mind the drive. But Appleton is great craic. University town and full of great bars and clubs and food.

Ah, I was only poking fun to be honest, I've never been to Green Bay. But I live in South Bend so I know what it's like to live in a frozen, boring city totally dominated by a football team.

OldMrBrennan83 · 04-02-2016 9:30pm

This post has been deleted.

Billy86 · 04-02-2016 9:54pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

No worries, nearly ended Cliftons career, if I recollect correctly, he had to spend about five days in hospital in Tampa after the event,

Tauscher was Wisconsin

Clifton was Tenessee.

They were rocks.

That mid-2000s line was unbelievable to be honest. In my opinion it had to be the best in the league, maybe by a distance, once the Chiefs are discounted (because their line was to lines, what JJ Watt has been to defenders the last few years).

OldMrBrennan83 · 04-02-2016 9:57pm

This post has been deleted.

Billy86 · 04-02-2016 10:38pm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's the one! Wahle was just a monster, would be hilarious to see him and Sitton together... I'll never forget him clubbing the sh!t out of linemen with his 'anvil cast' which I sadly can't find a picture of. Mean looking bugger, too.

OldMrBrennan83 · 04-02-2016 10:44pm

This post has been deleted.

Green Bay Packers Thread

Comments