Skip to content

PFTV looks the Favre's final revenge

Now that Brett Favre finally has made good on his desire (as much as he tried to downplay it) to stick it to the Packers, let’s take one last look at the question of whether the Packers screwed up by not letting Favre come back in 2008.

It’s the last we’ll say on the matter. 

Until, that is, the Vikings and Packers meet again in the playoffs.

Permalink 86 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
86 Responses to “PFTV looks the Favre's final revenge”
  1. Bill Cowher's Chin says: Nov 4, 2009 10:59 AM

    I dont know if I agree that he has “stuck it to the Pack” quite yet. For all intents and purposes, yes, he has, but should the Pack meet them in the playoffs, and win the game, would you still agree that he got his revenge…?

  2. Vikes-N-Favre says: Nov 4, 2009 11:00 AM

    Florio, get over yourself. Really, its done and over with.
    As far as them meeting up in the playoffs? That is not going to happen. GB will not be the WC winner. Even if they did win the WC, the Vikings would love it because they beat them down twice this year already, and that game would be played in Minnesota. I see no way of GB winning a WC spot though, there are better teams in the NFC to take those honors.

  3. CapsLockKey says: Nov 4, 2009 11:06 AM

    Favre would have been forced into retirement playing behind GB’s line.

  4. stetai says: Nov 4, 2009 11:06 AM

    so in other words it IS the last you’ll have to say on the matter.

  5. Treezs says: Nov 4, 2009 11:08 AM

    Not even close. Farve doesn’t like to practice. In a few weeks you’ll see what happens..

  6. merrillhodgestoupee says: Nov 4, 2009 11:10 AM

    Playoffs? Playoffs? You think the Packers are going to make the playoffs? they have beaten crap teams…they will end up 7-9 and miss the PLAYOFFS?

  7. PurpleNGold says: Nov 4, 2009 11:10 AM

    media drama
    it’s almost like pro wrestling
    it feeds on itself

  8. Fan_Of_ Four says: Nov 4, 2009 11:11 AM

    Eight and Eight Teams don’t make the playoffs so Favre Bowl III ain’t going to happen. Things in Green Bay will never be the same until Thompson is gone. His over sized ego is the reason Packer country is divided. Hell I won’t even eat at Curly’s Pub until he’s gone.

  9. stetai says: Nov 4, 2009 11:12 AM

    Great analysis, but I disagree that if he won the Super Bowl for the Vikings he could never return to Wisconsin.
    The Favre supporters in WI (which are many, including me) would feel even more justified in our hatred for Ted and Mike, and all of the regular Packer fans would be forced to acknowledge that no matter how it played out, Ted and Mike gave the Vikings a Super Bowl.

  10. Krow says: Nov 4, 2009 11:19 AM

    That will teach the Packers and their fans for making him incredibly rich and famous.

  11. PerryMason says: Nov 4, 2009 11:23 AM

    Has anyone noticed whenever Packer fans predict something will happen, the opposite comes true?

  12. AutumnWind999 says: Nov 4, 2009 11:27 AM

    Seriously,
    Does anyone know where I can get some post-game analysis of Favre’s return to Green Bay?
    I’ve scoured the internet. Watched all the Sunday night highlight shows. ESPN. Nothing. I really need to hear more about this game.
    (Psssst. I’m being sarcastic.)

  13. Youngs79 says: Nov 4, 2009 11:29 AM

    Green Bay has no chance of making the playoffs. Let’s see how they do against Baltimore and Pittsburgh, who the Vikings have already played. In the unlikely scenario they do make it, I would enjoy nothing more than beating them a third time in one season. Especially knowing the game would be played in the Metrodome. More sacks for the defense, more touchdown passes for Favre, more yards for AP. That team is going nowhere until they address their offensive line. With the rate they are going, Aaron Rodgers might be hurt by then. The most sacked QB in the NFL. How long can he take the beatings each week?

  14. danlinker says: Nov 4, 2009 11:33 AM

    Keep raising the bar and beating the drum florio. Otherwise you look like an idiot right? Right.

  15. Supersuckers says: Nov 4, 2009 11:37 AM

    Merril,
    Who exactly has Minnesota beaten? By your denouncing of Green Bay’s skill level I can only assume you consider Green Bay to be a “crap team” Please explain yourself….

  16. Ambrose says: Nov 4, 2009 11:39 AM

    I think it was in 2004 that the Packers beat Minnesota twice during the regular season and then lost to them in the postseason. The Packers have a team good enough to make the playoffs. Once you get there, anything can happen. Don’t forget the cakewalk game the Vikings had against Atlanta..at home…heavily favored…the headlines already printed…and they lost! The fervor the current Viking fans are displaying reminds me a lot of that year. The fans are puking out their praise for their new best friend Favre because they can’t get the words out of their mouths fast enough. That is what desperation for acknowledgement will do to a fan. Favre makes them think they matter. If any team should be mindful of history repeating itself, it should be Minnesota. I don’t think the Packers are done with them yet. Denying the Vikings any advance in the playoffs would be more satisfying than the two losses were painful. (Notice I said “denying the Vikings”, not denying Favre)..he’s just one part of that picture.

  17. Supersuckers says: Nov 4, 2009 11:42 AM

    Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that Minnesota went into their bye 3-4 last year after seven games and turned out to win a division. This season is so young. It certainly isnt a foregone conclusion that Green Bay cant make the playoffs. Anyone that says that is just slinging trash. The one glaring thing that stands out as to why people like Mike Florio and personell decision makers, broadcasters, journalists have got to where they are is they all are objective and levelheaded.

  18. Hauschild says: Nov 4, 2009 12:01 PM

    Mikey – me likey. I agree with pretty much everything you talked about.
    Now, if the Vikings lose the Super Bowl or NFCCG, could the talk then be, “Favre tanks big game to remain in good graces with Packers fans.”
    I’m also curious that now that Brett has accomplished one of his preceived goals, which was to beat Green Bay twice, will he subconsciously rest on his laurels and lose interest down the stretch???

  19. mike says: Nov 4, 2009 12:02 PM

    If I’m a Packers fan, I don’t blame Brett. I blame the coach and GM for letting this icon go. It’s a damn shame what’s happened.
    Good for you Brett. I’m glad you ripped ‘em a new one.

  20. mw says: Nov 4, 2009 12:08 PM

    Interesting take but you forget about the Moss to GB rumors. Short version: Favre wanted Moss in GB. Favre believes in players rather than coaches.
    When GB didn’t make an effort to get Moss (or failed, whatever), Favre decided GB management wasn’t serious about getting back to the Superbowl. He wanted to see a commitment to winning and found GB management lacking. Great players (like Favre, Moss, and those two linemen GB refused to re-sign) win Superbowls.
    Meanwhile, over in Minnesota, he sees the exact commitment he felt lacking in GB. (e.g., Berrian, Allen, Hutchinson, and others)
    What does he do? First, he threatens retirement. Then he lobbies for a trade. Then he retires. (What good is a bluff if you’re not willing to back your bet. )
    GB management, meanwhile, thinks great coaching (rather than great players) wins ball games. They stipulate to Favre that he can go to another team, just not the Vikings.
    Favre, wanting another superbowl — and wanting to be on a team ostensibly committed to winning with good players — goes to the Jets (a second choice, but not necessarily such a bad one.) He blows out his arm and loses the opportunity to get to the superbowl again. So, he tries again, this time with Minnesota. Great players, rather than “great” coaching wins games in his mind; he’s committed to proving that simple axiom with the few months/years he has left as a player.
    The rap on Favre in the Jets locker room was that he’s aloof and distant. Yet we’ve seen just the opposite in Minnesota; his friends there — Hutchinson, Peterson, Allen, Harvin — are the great players while the role players are not, apparently, worth his time. (Watch his body language on the sidelines when talking with, say Hutchinson versus Rosenfels. The difference is distinct.) He wants a team that can win. GB refused to give him that so he became first, recalcitant and thenopenly rebellious.
    GB, under the management of “great” management, wanted — needed — players who are willing to completely submit themselves to brilliant coaching. Favre didn’t fit that profile so he became not only expendable, but detrimental. GB’s management had to get rid of him (thus the offer of $20 million not to play) without taking the pr hit of getting rid of their best player.
    Favre had/has something to prove. Not that TT and MM were wrong to get rid of him, but that their entire approach to football is wrong-headed and bad for the game.
    Thus our own fascination with Brett Favre; we admire the spirit of the “diva” committed to excellence while we reject the corporate belief that mediocrity coupled with “brilliant” managerial scheming defeats excellence on the field.

  21. cvh2009 says: Nov 4, 2009 12:12 PM

    Supersuckers, I can answer that question for Merril: They have beaten the Packers, twice!

  22. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 4, 2009 12:15 PM

    “Were the Packers wrong about Favre?”
    That’s a loaded question. What exactly did they say about Favre? Did Ted Thompson or anyone else within the Packers organization EVER say Brett was washed up? They went in a different direction because Brett retired, waited 4 months, then wanted to waltz back in and pick things up like he was never gone. They would’ve lost Rodgers if they screwed him over like that.
    So were the Packers wrong about Favre? Let’s see how Rodgers’ career turns out first. To judge this move after a season and a half would be short-sighted and knee-jerk reactionary. But if they had kissed Rodgers goodbye and he went somewhere else and performed like he has so far this season and last season, wouldn’t that have been a mistake?
    This is actually the first PFTV segment I think I’ve ever watched. In the segment, you throw up these stats:
    Favre
    241 yards/game – 11th
    16 TD passes – T-1st
    68.0 completion percentage – 4th
    7.52 yards/attempt – 10th
    3 INT – T-26th
    Don’t foget about these stats:
    Rodgers
    284.1 yards/game – 7th
    14 TD passes – 6th
    65.3 completion percentage – 11th
    8.8 yards/attempt – T-1st
    2 INT – T-30th
    And Rodgers’ numbers are with arguably one of the worst O-lines in football and an under-performing running game. Factor in the age and salary of each player and I think it’s a no-brainer. I’ve supported Packers management in how they handled Favre from the start and Favre’s performance in Minnesota, while surprising, doesn’t change my opinion.

  23. gopher says: Nov 4, 2009 12:15 PM

    Who has Minnesota beat, I guess 6 out of the 7 teams they have played. People, get over this, Farve has played well but I don’t think his offensive line gets any credit and they have a rookie at right tackle and a first year starter at center.

  24. VonClausewitz says: Nov 4, 2009 12:21 PM

    Moving Favre out of GB was the best for the Pack long term. If they didn’t move him last year there’s a good chance they don’t keep Rodgers around, which is their long term answer at QB. And if Favre stays there’s no way he’s having the same level of success as he is now with the Vikes. And it’s up in the air whether he’d be a marked improvement over Rodgers. Slice it how you’d like it was the best move for both Favre and the Pack that he left last year.

  25. wrath4771 says: Nov 4, 2009 12:24 PM

    I think what everyone keeps missing about this is the play of Aaron Rodgers. He takes too many sacks, but the guy is a top 5-6 quarterback in the league. Farve has played well, but he would get murdered behind that Packers offensive line, he wouldn’t have Petersen and Taylor or Percy Harvin. Hell, I’d be 5-2 quarterbacking the Vikings. The Packers did the right thing by keeping Rodgers and Farve did the right thing by going to the Vikings.

  26. Fan_Of_ Four says: Nov 4, 2009 12:25 PM

    I’m with STETAI on this one. Florio is way off base saying Favre would never be welcome in Wisconsin if Brett takes the Vikings to the super Bowl. He still has a ton of support in Wisconsin and he always will. I look forward to the day when Ted Thompson is gone and Brett returns to see his number retired and have his name added to the ring of glory inside Lambeau next to guys like Bart Starr, Ray Nitschke and Reggie White.

  27. Supersuckers says: Nov 4, 2009 12:38 PM

    Adam,
    very good perspective and levelheadedness. i agree with all of your last post.

  28. MN FAVRE says: Nov 4, 2009 12:39 PM

    Just a thought from a Wisconite who’s witnessed the entire drama close up – and my 18-year-old son and I drove the 686-mile roundtrip to Minnie for game one with our MN FAVRE license plates held up at game. (We hate his waffling 7 months a year, but, LOVE HIS PASSION 5 months a year!) The KEY MISTAKE MADE (and it seldom gets mentioned, except by Gruden) was*** TT SHOULD HAVE TRADED FAVRE TO TAMPA BAY IN AUGUST OF 2008! *** Gruden (as we all heard) LOVES FAVRE and WENT TO BED NEARLY ASSURED THEY HAD HIM! When TT renigged and traded him to the 4-12 Jets (admittedly his right to do so) and compounded it by adding the POISON PILL (3 1st round picks to Packers if he’s traded to VIKINGS), it was like telling your daughter (and I have 2 of them) DON’T DATE THE BAD BOY! All TT had to do was treat Favre like Joe Montana was treated by S.F. (traded to KC) and send him to a decent team! Frankly, he’d still be there today, probably his last year and they wouldn’t be 0-7 but, they wouldn’t be 7-1 and would have only played the Packers ONE TIME only LAST YEAR on SEPT. 28th! MUCH EASIER for G.B. fans to swallow! We watch EVERY PACKER game (plus ALL FAVRE GAMES FOR 2 YEARS on SUNDAY TICKET) but, will NOT BE BACK AS 100% Packer Backers until FAVRE RETIRES and TT is FIRED! We just do NOT like the LACK OF TALENT that TT surrounds his franchise QB’s with! But, TT set the ball rolling NOT by saying NO to Favre returning (that was a good football decision), but, by the way he treated Favre and the president offering Favre #25. million to stay retired. Again, like telling your daughter … DON’T DATE THE BAD BOY! We love A-Rodg, but, he’s gonna get killed – on pace for 71 sacks! They need 2 OL guys AND another RB! All the responsibility of TT! The NEW VERSION of the “PACKER SWEEP” was SWEET!

  29. LBPACKFAN says: Nov 4, 2009 12:41 PM

    Favre has played not well…but ridiculously good.
    I dont understand why Favre would doubt the Pack and not wanna go back to them. Regardless of not going after Moss, they had a 2nd year beast in Greg Jennings…a defense that looked good….13-3 record…and a home NFC championship game (which Pharv pissed away). I had no doubt in my mind that he would come back…I thought for sure he would.
    When was Brett EVER not welcomed back?
    I guess holding the organization and fans emotionally hostage every year got a little old. Vikes will have a taste this offseason…

  30. goetta-head says: Nov 4, 2009 12:43 PM

    Boooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnggg

  31. Heat says: Nov 4, 2009 12:46 PM

    “PFTV looks the Favre’s final revenge”
    I am of the understanding that it is easier to look like you are knowledgeable without the typos and nonsense. I guess I am getting worse at reading Florio’s gibberish. At least no one looks at headlines.
    Hire a proofreader.

  32. Waffle says: Nov 4, 2009 12:50 PM

    Packers in the playoffs? Take emotion and bias out of it, and look at the facts.
    So far this year the Packers have beaten the 4-3 Bears, 1-7 Rams, 1-6 Lions and 1-7 Browns. That is, three of their four wins were against the worst teams in the NFL.
    In future weeks they have games against the Cowboys, 49ers, Ravens, Steelers and Cardinals, among others. That’s five more losses right there.
    The Pack will end up 7-9 or 8-8 at best. I’d look for the 2nd and 3rd place teams in the NFC East and the Atlanta Falcons to all have better wildcard records than that.
    The Vikings are likely to end up 12-4 at the worst, and may do much better than that. Whether the Vikings with the Super Bowl or not, look for Ted Thompson and company to be seeking new employment.

  33. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 4, 2009 12:59 PM

    gopher says:
    November 4, 2009 12:15 PM
    Who has Minnesota beat, I guess 6 out of the 7 teams they have played. People, get over this, Farve has played well but I don’t think his offensive line gets any credit and they have a rookie at right tackle and a first year starter at center.
    ——————————
    No, they’ve beaten Green Bay 3 out of the last 7 times they’ve played.
    2009 – Minnesota sweeps (2-0)
    2008 – They split (3-1)
    2007 – Green Bay sweeps (3-3)
    2006 – Green Bay sweeps (3-5)

  34. PerryMason says: Nov 4, 2009 1:00 PM

    But if they had kissed Rodgers goodbye and he went somewhere else and performed like he has so far this season and last season, wouldn’t that have been a mistake?
    How is it a mistake to give another team a 6 and 10 quarterback?

  35. spyboots says: Nov 4, 2009 1:10 PM

    mw hit it the nail on the head in his/her comments above.

  36. stetai says: Nov 4, 2009 1:16 PM

    “Hauschild says:
    Now, if the Vikings lose the Super Bowl or NFCCG, could the talk then be, “Favre tanks big game to remain in good graces with Packers fans.”
    I’m also curious that now that Brett has accomplished one of his preceived goals, which was to beat Green Bay twice, will he subconsciously rest on his laurels and lose interest down the stretch???”
    After the treatment Brett got from Packer fans, I think the last thing he wants to do is help their team out by throwing a game for the Vikes. As much as it pains Packer fans, Brett’s life doesn’t revolve around Packer fans. He’s not going to be hawking Van Vreede’s or Fleet Farm to pay his bills for the next 20 years. He has moved on and is committed to his new team, and he’s doing a lot for the Vikings and their fans. It’s not his responsibility anymore to please Packer fans, to quote Mike McCarthy, “That train has left the station”.

  37. Supersuckers says: Nov 4, 2009 1:20 PM

    Perry Mason,
    I am embarrased for you for that last comment.

  38. stetai says: Nov 4, 2009 1:22 PM

    I found it funny how many in-denial-Packer fans still defiantly refuse to admit any wrongdoing by Packer management despite 2 losses to Favre.
    And their checklist of reasons Favre is wrong, keeps dropping every week. Last count, all that’s left is “fade in the second half of the season”, and “poor playoff record (in the past 10 years, and not counting 2007).
    So what on Earth will you bitter people resort to if Brett finishes with his 4th MVP, a 13-3 or better record, and a Super Bowl? Is there nothing that can show you that they gave up on Brett too soon, and chose to rebuild a 13-3 2007 team rather than to build ON that team?
    As for your “switch places” argument, Brett did play with crappy o-lines for a majority of the past ten years, and he never had a 3rd ranked D either. The other problem is when you hold onto the ball for 5 seconds, you’re going to get sacked. If you re-watch the game, Brett releases the ball in under 2 seconds for 90% of the plays. (and unlike Aaron he has more than 2 reads)

  39. Chickenfoot says: Nov 4, 2009 1:38 PM

    If Favre went back, Rodgers wasn’t going anywhere. He had time left on his contract, Favre plays 1 more year and leaves, If Rodgers contract is up….FRANCHISE HIM!!!!
    I’m so sick of you packer fan idiots. Sitting at 4-3 with no offensive line a coach that has no discipline on his team. Jolly’s penalty was so stupid….guess Mumble was teaching technique there?
    Vikes fans, it”ll never end, I have a freind who last year when GB was sitting at week 14 thought the Pack still had a chance last year!!
    I’m embarassed for him.
    You are going nowhere Pack fans with that OL.
    You can directly blame Teabag and Mumbles for that.

  40. PerryMason says: Nov 4, 2009 1:43 PM

    Perry Mason,
    I am embarrased for you for that last comment.
    I should be ashamed of myself.
    But I’m not.
    SKOL Vikings

  41. Occam says: Nov 4, 2009 2:07 PM

    “Is there nothing that can show you that they gave up on Brett too soon, ”
    Gave up on Favre??? I was under the impression that the man retired. Silly me….must’a been that teary eyed and boo-hoo-hooing press conference when he said, “I retire.”

  42. PackFaninPackLand says: Nov 4, 2009 2:08 PM

    You gotta love Olbermann, err, I mean Florio. Once one lie doesn’t fit the template he’s set out to portray, he just moves on to the next lie and the next template, just like ole Uber-Moron, right Mike ???
    First, Florio didn’t believe that Favre was really hurt at the end of last year (apparantly Florio is blind and could not see what everyone else saw !) and was just using the injury as a crutch (oh yeah, because, you know, Favre is ALLLLL about faking injuries. Oh wait, no, he’s plays every game for 17 years – even playing the last 12 games of the 2003 season with a broken thumb, on his throwing hand, and leading the NFL in touchdown passes), but then Favre had surgery on his shoulder (something he hates) so THAT bullsh– theory goes out the window.
    THEN, when Favre says he has sore ribs in pre-season Olbermann, I mean Florio, says that Favre now “has a built in excuse” for has poor play, should it occur. Oh wait, damn, he’s playing at an MVP type level, so he can’t use that bullsh– lie.
    Then Florio says Favre will, essentially, crap his pants playing against his old team in the Metrodome and toss several interceptions. Oh wait, damn, he looked maginificent and was throwing around 100 MPH lasers all over the place and playing like his did in his MVP years of 95-96-97, so he can’t use THAT bullsh– lie either.
    Then Florio said Favre would melt under the pressure of having to come INTO Lambeau and that the boos would get to him and the real Favre would come out. Oh wait, then he destroys the Packers on their own field and puts up mind-boggling numbers in the 2 games of: 7 TD passes, 0 interceptions, 0 sacks, and 2 wins. Nope, that bullsh– lie wouldn’t fly either.
    NOW the next lie is if Favre wins the Super Bowl as Viking (god forbid), that Favre can never step foot back into Wisconsin. So the lie by Keith, I mean Mike, has been moved … YET AGAIN.
    No, the person who should never step foot into Wisconsin ever again if that happens, is Satan, I mean Ted Thompson. He’s run this team into the ground, and ruined a once proud franchise, and if he had any self-respect would just resign in shame right now. He has ruined my favorite team almost from the minute he became GM by letting Pro Bowl caliber Guards Marco Rivera and Mike Wahle leave, saying, and I quote “guards can be found anywhere”. And yet, clueless Ted, over 4 1/2 years after taking over, we STILL have medicore to poor Guards – that will ultimately get our quarterback killed. But hey, we’re the youngest team in the league now, 4 years running. Woo Hoo !!! Of course teams that win the Super Bowl (see Patriots and Steelers) actually go out and get wiley ole vets to shore up their team and provide leadership to their younger players, but nope, not Ted the genius ! Oh and being $16 Million under the cap. Brilliant move Ted .. BRILLIANT !!!!

  43. Ambrose says: Nov 4, 2009 2:38 PM

    The Packers would not be better off with Favre than Rodgers. It made good sense to let him go. Rodgers is producing as effectively as possible behind a terrible O-line and pedestrian running backs. Favre would not be able to do any better on this team. At least Rodgers can scamper out of the way once in awhile. Favre is thriving because of his current team. His YTD performances are on par with Rodgers. If Rodgers were playing for the Vikings they would be absolutely unstoppable (instead of almost unstoppable.) The issue here is the ability to manipulate that Favre insisted he deserved. He didn’t. The needs of many outweigh the needs of one (kudos to Spock.) I will never regret that Favre is playing elsewhere. If he wanted to be the Packer QB, he had all the means by which to do so. He waffled (as usual) and the Packers moved on. Better for it I say. I root against the Vikings no matter who they have playing for them. That ’98 Viking team was something special too but where did it get them? That is why they play the games and that is why I have not given up on the Packers. The guy that is proud and makes a big deal out of cheering for the Vikings but will become a Packer fan again some day? What a jerk. We don’t need you or want you back and the Viking fans are only humored by you. You are a novelty, no more no less. You are without a team and deservedly so.

  44. sand0 says: Nov 4, 2009 2:52 PM

    Ambrose,
    You don’t know your history.
    1) Atlanta was not a cake walk at home in the 98 NFC Championship. Atlanta was 14-2 that season and none of their 14 wins were by less than 7 points. They were almost as dominate as the 15-1 Vikings that year.
    2) Vikings lost to the Packers twice in 2004 before beating them in the playoffs. But remember, the Vikings lost both games by 3 points in fluky lucky packer fashion. One of the game was lost on a miracle catch off of freeman’s back. Both teams were 10-6 and very similar in quality. In the playoffs, they did not manage to get lucky and they were smoked. This year the Vikings will finish better than 10-6 and the Packers will be lucky to go 10-6. Sure, anything can happen in the playoffs but it would be a much different situation if GB could beat them there as heavy underdogs.
    Also remember that the Vikings started slow and finished strong last year while the Packers did the opposite. I honestly believe that the Packers will get weaker as the season goes on. Just wait. They will not make the playoffs.

  45. Supersuckers says: Nov 4, 2009 2:54 PM

    Waffle,
    Can you send me the crystal ball you are gazing through? I’ll pay for the shipping. We are all NFL know nothings. You must have a crystal ball if you see all 5 games as losses already. i could use one of those for things that matter. Yes Chicken, until that astericks is next to Green Bay in the standings that reads “eliminated from playoff contention” I am going wish and cheer my ass off that they get there.

  46. Supersuckers says: Nov 4, 2009 2:55 PM

    Well said Ambrose

  47. Ben Bernanke says: Nov 4, 2009 2:57 PM

    Put Florio in the SNF announcer’s booth.
    And for the record, who did the Packers loose between 2007 and 2008? hmm..I can’t think of anyone of importance. Kept everyone on defense..yet they went from 13-3 to 6-10…hmm wonder what that could have been a product of?

  48. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 4, 2009 3:32 PM

    @gopher: My apologies. I misread your post.

  49. VikingsFan23 says: Nov 4, 2009 3:33 PM

    Adam-Chris Shefterton:
    3 out of 7,
    or, 6 out of 10 if you want to go back and draw the line again. That 6 includes, of course, the playoff shellacking.

  50. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 4, 2009 3:41 PM

    PerryMason says:
    November 4, 2009 1:00 PM
    How is it a mistake to give another team a 6 and 10 quarterback?
    —————————–
    Oh, that’s right.. Wins and losses are the fault of the QB alone. I forgot about that ironclad truth.
    Wait a minute. Are you suggesting Lord Favre was to blame for 12 losses in 2005?

  51. Supersuckers says: Nov 4, 2009 3:57 PM

    Sando Freeman ‘s catch happened in 2000! Geez! I am embarrased for you. typical Packer lucky fasion? A heave and a missed FG from 5-3 and in a battle for the division still. Luckily fashion…pfffft.

  52. Supersuckers says: Nov 4, 2009 3:59 PM

    Sando,
    You are telling someone else to know their history?? Minnesota was 8-8 in 2004!!! I am embarrased for you again!

  53. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 4, 2009 4:07 PM

    Chickenfoot says:
    November 4, 2009 1:38 PM
    If Favre went back, Rodgers wasn’t going anywhere. He had time left on his contract, Favre plays 1 more year and leaves, If Rodgers contract is up….FRANCHISE HIM!!!!
    —————————-
    Riiiiight. Because players have no say in what happens to them or where they play. Could you please tell John Elway, Eli Manning, Terrell Owens and Brett Favre about that? I’ll wait.
    —————————-
    Chickenfoot says:
    November 4, 2009 1:38 PM
    Jolly’s penalty was so stupid….guess Mumble was teaching technique there?
    —————————-
    I agree with that. But after the game had played out, I thought the penalty should not have been called on Jolly. Not because he didn’t deserve it, mind you. Because of the way the rest of the game was officiated. It was a chippy game from beginning to end, and if you’re going to make that call against Jolly you also need to call that clothesline tackle against Benny Sapp.
    But it probably didn’t have a bit of impact on the outcome of the game, so there’s no sense in getting bent out of shape over it. It was a 4-7 point swing for Green Bay, but Jolly’s to blame. It would’ve meant that the game would’ve been tied at 20 (or they would’ve led 20-17 had Longwell missed) late in the 3rd quarter after the second Havner TD. But no one can say it really made a difference in the outcome of the game.
    Either way, the penalties need to stop and McCarthy gives lip service every week to it, but they show up again the next week like clockwork.

  54. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 4, 2009 4:09 PM

    VikingsFan23 says:
    November 4, 2009 3:33 PM
    Adam-Chris Shefterton:
    3 out of 7,
    or, 6 out of 10 if you want to go back and draw the line again. That 6 includes, of course, the playoff shellacking.
    —————————–
    I misunderstood gopher’s post. I thought he was saying the Vikings have won 6 out of the last 7 against the Packers. That’s where the line was drawn–I wasn’t trying to creatively interpret historical results.

  55. Bob Loblaw says: Nov 4, 2009 4:11 PM

    The Packers will not make the playoffs. To do so they would have to sweep the Bears (i.e. win in Chicago when the Bears will be motivated to defend their home field in for a revenge win in a conference game), and lose only one or two more games with the more talented Steelers, Ravens, Cowboys, 49ers and Cardinals left to play.
    Right now the Packers would have to surpass all but two of the following teams to make the playoffs — 2nd and 3rd place NFC East teams (Giants, Eagles, or Cowboys), 2nd place NFC South (Falcons), and 2nd place NFC West (49ers or Cardinals), plus the Bears. And that’s with the easy part of the schedule behind them, and many of the other NFC team have much easier schedules remaining.
    Face it. The Packers have an up-and-coming QB, two very good WRs, a Pro Bowl level safety, and two of the best — albeit aging –CBs. You could also add in one of the best DEs in the NFL, except he has been moved out of position and made into an average LB. The rest of their team is very mediocre. They just have too many weak spots and/or positions of below average talent to compete for the playoffs.

  56. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 4, 2009 4:15 PM

    Ben Bernanke says:
    November 4, 2009 2:57 PM
    Put Florio in the SNF announcer’s booth.
    And for the record, who did the Packers loose between 2007 and 2008? hmm..I can’t think of anyone of importance. Kept everyone on defense..yet they went from 13-3 to 6-10…hmm wonder what that could have been a product of?
    —————————–
    Look at the defense, dummy. If you want to compare the two QBs, compare Rodgers’ 2008 performance to Favre’s 2007 “MVP-type” performance and draw your own conclusions.
    And as I’ve pointed out multiple times before, the last time Favre played with a defense which gave up as many points as the Packers’ 2008 defense, the Packers went 4-12 and he threw 29 interceptions.

  57. Ambrose says: Nov 4, 2009 4:16 PM

    Sando…I lived in Atlanta from 1988 to 2004 and went to six home games per year, all eight during the 1998 season. Atlanta was good but not great. They had one of those sun-moon-and-stars are all aligned type of seasons that year, kind of like Chicago had a couple of years ago. Their record was much better than their team. And the Vikings were favored by 11 points….huge for a game of that caliber. So put away your purple colored goggles and don’t get me started on flukey lucky outcomes…unless you admit the San Francisco catch was a flukey lucky play and the Baltimore kick was a flukey lucky (indoor) miss.
    I didn’t think so.

  58. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 4, 2009 4:19 PM

    Supersuckers says:
    November 4, 2009 3:57 PM
    Sando Freeman ‘s catch happened in 2000! Geez! I am embarrased for you. typical Packer lucky fasion? A heave and a missed FG from 5-3 and in a battle for the division still. Luckily fashion…pfffft.
    —————————-
    You know what I always love about Vikings fans recounting that catch? It highlights how hypocritical fans can be. Yes, it was fluky. Yes, it was lucky. No doubt.
    But if Cris Carter made that catch, it’s not fluky. In fact, if Cris Carter had made the catch it would’ve been due to skill and concentration.

  59. Chickenfoot says: Nov 4, 2009 4:36 PM

    Adam:
    Elway and Manning came out before the draft and said they didn’t want to play for their respective teams. Huge difference, especially Elway, who could have played baseball for the yankees.
    TO is TO, I’m not going there.
    Favre, well i think we’ve been round an round on that subject ad infinitum and won’t agree.
    Rodgers wouldn’t play for the top 5 contract that he would have recieved? In hindsight, having a Matt Cassel deal dumped in his lap would have been huge for him.
    All I was trying to say is they had options with Favre, I do understand the descision to a point, but it’s not like they HAD to draft 2 qb’s, in hindsight Brohm was a huge mistake( I didn’t think so then) buy did he fall fast and hard.
    As for the penalties, you are correct about Mumbles. Discipline flows from the top, and it sure doesn’t seem like there is much this year in GB.

  60. stetai says: Nov 4, 2009 4:59 PM

    One of you Packer knuckleheads actually had the nerve to boast Rodgers’ 2008 stats vs. Favre’s 2007 stats with the same roster. You asked for it and you got it u dopey Packer fans.
    2007 w/Favre (13-3)
    4155 yds 28 tds 15 int 95.7 rating 66.5% comp.
    Offense:
    5931 yds 435 pts
    2008 w/Rodgers (6-10)
    4038 yds 28 tds 13 int 93.8 ratings 63.6% comp.
    Offense:
    5618 yds 419 pts
    As for other dopes who think if AR was in Minny they’d be 16-0, what do you base this off of? His 10-23 record? His Matt Schaub-like stats? Do u honestly think he’d be better with Berrian/Rice is better than Jennings/Driver? The Rodgers, like the Packers, are as good as they’re going to get, so stop thinking any different.
    It is Brett Favre’s time, not the Packers …

  61. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 4, 2009 5:23 PM

    stetai says:
    November 4, 2009 4:59 PM
    One of you Packer knuckleheads actually had the nerve to boast Rodgers’ 2008 stats vs. Favre’s 2007 stats with the same roster. You asked for it and you got it u dopey Packer fans.
    2007 w/Favre (13-3)
    4155 yds 28 tds 15 int 95.7 rating 66.5% comp.
    Offense:
    5931 yds 435 pts
    2008 w/Rodgers (6-10)
    4038 yds 28 tds 13 int 93.8 ratings 63.6% comp.
    Offense:
    5618 yds 419 pts
    —————————
    Wow. Gee, you really proved us wrong there. Yeah, 4155 yards and a 95.7 rating is soooo much better than 4038 yards and a 93.8 rating.
    No wonder they went from 13-3 to 6-10. With that crappy 6th best QB rating last year Aaron Rodgers should’ve been cut.
    Now look at the real difference between 2007 and 2008.
    2007 Packers: allowed 291 points, 6th best scoring defense in the league.
    2008 Packers: allowed 380 points, 22nd best scoring defense in the league.
    Nimrod.

  62. purpleguy says: Nov 4, 2009 5:44 PM

    For cripes sake please let this issue die. The Vikes could beat the cheesers the next 10 years in a row, win 5 Superbowls and have Favre or Childress elected the next presidents of the United States, and they’d still say the Pack and their QB were better. Of course, after adding the fact that they won Superbowls before microwaves were invented.

  63. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 4, 2009 5:53 PM

    Chickenfoot says:
    November 4, 2009 4:36 PM
    Rodgers wouldn’t play for the top 5 contract that he would have recieved? In hindsight, having a Matt Cassel deal dumped in his lap would have been huge for him.
    —————————–
    They would’ve offered Rodgers a top 5 contract sight unseen? No idea how he’ll perform in real games, but willing to pay huge money to find out? Not sure I agree with that.
    Yeah, Elway and Manning were different situations. But the fact remains, Rodgers would’ve been slighted by the move to bring Favre back and put Rodgers back on the bench. I would not have been surprised at all if he would’ve then refused to sign any contract with Green Bay.
    Can’t remember who said it, but I think they hit the nail on the head. Favre leaving was a better situation for both Favre and the Packers.

  64. PackFaninPackLand says: Nov 4, 2009 6:05 PM

    To: Adam-Chris Scheftersen at 5:23 PM
    Gee, I didn’t realize Brett Favre played defense.
    So you are admitting that there’s no difference between Favre and Rodgers, right ??? Good.
    Thus we didn’t have to make Golden Child Rodgers (now 10-13 lifetime in ’08 and ’09 vs. Favre’s 16-8) one of the highest paid QB’s after just 7 games.
    Maybe, just maybe Uncle Ted could have used a little of that $800 billion he gave Rodgers, to a defensive player, or a great O-Lineman in free agency (see Alan Faneca in ’08), etc. Oh wait, it’s Ted Thompson and we have Daryn Colledge so, no, Faneca (and his 8 Pro Bowls) can’t compare to the mediocrity that IS Daryn Colledge !!!
    Plus, Ted likely wont spend any free agency money ever again, because we are just “set” at every position !!!
    BTW nimrod Adam-Chris Scheftersen take a look at T.O.P. from ’07 to ’08 too while you’re at it. Longer offensive drives, mean less time on the field for the defense. That means the “D” has less drives against them each game, and that means less points put on the board, and that means they have fresher legs to better stop opposing offenses on the drives when that they ARE out there. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Good grief, have you no knowledge of how NFL football works ??? T.O.P. and field position are HUGE keys !
    Get your head out of Ted Thompson’s butthole, just once at look at how our Packers REALLY are.
    Playoffs ??? Look at our schedule. After the gimme this Sunday – we have maybe 2 easy games (Detroit and Seattle) and 6 tough ones.
    Of course that’s assuming The Golden Child doesn’t get killed from all the sacks that our awesome Ted Thompson built offense line gives up !

  65. Beer Cheese Soup says: Nov 4, 2009 6:38 PM

    Fan_Of_ Four says:
    Things in Green Bay will never be the same until Thompson is gone.
    Waffle says:
    Whether the Vikings with the Super Bowl or not, look for Ted Thompson and company to be seeking new employment.
    PackFaninPackLand says:
    The person who should never step foot into Wisconsin ever again if that happens, is Satan, I mean Ted Thompson. He’s run this team into the ground, and ruined a once proud franchise, and if he had any self-respect would just resign in shame right now.
    Of course teams that win the Super Bowl (see Patriots and Steelers) actually go out and get wiley ole vets to shore up their team and provide leadership to their younger players, but nope, not Ted the genius ! Oh and being $16 Million under the cap. Brilliant move Ted .. BRILLIANT !!!!
    stetai says:
    [We] would feel even more justified in our hatred for Ted and Mike, and all of the regular Packer fans would be forced to acknowledge that no matter how it played out, Ted and Mike gave the Vikings a Super Bowl.
    mw says:
    Favre had/has something to prove. Not that TT and MM were wrong to get rid of him, but that their entire approach to football is wrong-headed and bad for the game.
    MN FAVRE says: We watch EVERY PACKER game (plus ALL FAVRE GAMES FOR 2 YEARS on SUNDAY TICKET) but, will NOT BE BACK AS 100% Packer Backers until FAVRE RETIRES and TT is FIRED!
    ___________________________________
    Loving the comments on here today people.. Very levelheaded, insightful analysis about a very serious problem within the Packer organization. It’s this kind of forward thinking, and willingness to accept facts, that should be enough to finally fix the problem and free Green Bay of the cancer that has plagued the team for five years.
    I realize some are not fully on board yet, and at least one person on this site is so blinded by his devotion to Ted that he’ll support him no matter what happens to the team. However, this is a huge step in the right direction. The more we come together as fans and send the message that this incompetence will no longer be tolerated, the greater the chance we have of getting our team back.

  66. stetai says: Nov 4, 2009 6:47 PM

    “Wow. Gee, you really proved us wrong there. Yeah, 4155 yards and a 95.7 rating is soooo much better than 4038 yards and a 93.8 rating.”
    Hey retard, you and your cronies argument was that Rodgers stats are better than Favre’s in 2007, and you were proven wrong once again. So sit down, shut up, stop being so jealous of Brett’s success, and enjoy the mediocrity of your team.

  67. Supersuckers says: Nov 4, 2009 7:02 PM

    Beer Cheese,
    every team is under the cap these days. For the third time, cap money isn’t real. Why can’t you grasp that?

  68. Beer Cheese Soup says: Nov 4, 2009 7:35 PM

    Supersuckers says:
    Beer Cheese,
    every team is under the cap these days. For the third time, cap money isn’t real. Why can’t you grasp that?
    _____________________________________
    I didn’t say anything about the cap. That was me quoting an earlier post. All *I* said was how happy I was that people were finally seeing the truth. Except you, of course.

  69. Supersuckers says: Nov 4, 2009 9:10 PM

    Beer Cheese,
    The truth is with a win Sunday they are 5-3 tied for a playoff spot. But that isn’t what a great fan like you wants is it? You want Thompson gone (not happening unless they have a losing season…then maybe) at any cost. Yet you claim you want your team to win. Strange. But since none of us can see the future (though many here think they can) I will remain optomistic about this season until the time comes they are eliminated. I apologize if I misread something from someone else that you didn’t write. i am glad you are catching on about “cap money”

  70. PackFaninPackLand says: Nov 4, 2009 10:38 PM

    Hey Supersuckers, a win on Sunday over 0-7 Tampa means almost nothing. Look at our wins this year – 4 terrible teams (assuming a win on Sunday) over Bucs, Lions, Browns and Rams and a win over Chicago that we wouldn’t have gotten had it not been for 4 int’s by Cutler.
    We’ve been beaten pretty soundly in the 3 games against good teams.
    After the gimme this Sunday – we have maybe 2 easy games left (Detroit and Seattle) and 6 tough ones. 8-8 seems possible, 9-7 may be optimistic. But that wont get us a wildcard game. Look at the NFC East.
    As to cap dollars, if you think being $16 MILLION below the cap is good, when there were good players out there and available (but Ted the idiot wouldn’t sign them) then you’re probably not a very smart.
    Case in point – what is optomistic ???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    And how did you come to the conclusion that if we won this week that we’d be tied for a playoff spot ??? There are already 6 teams ahead of us in the playoff hunt, and we’re tied with 2 more. Are you assuming that ALL the other teams at 4-3 and 5-2 will lose ??? Good grief.

  71. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 4, 2009 10:51 PM

    stetai says:
    November 4, 2009 6:47 PM
    Hey retard, you and your cronies argument was that Rodgers stats are better than Favre’s in 2007, and you were proven wrong once again. So sit down, shut up, stop being so jealous of Brett’s success, and enjoy the mediocrity of your team.
    ——————————
    No, you idiot, that’s not what I said. Go back and read it. I was arguing with some dufus who said the only change between the 2007 and 2008 Packers was Favre to Rodgers and a decrease of 7 wins.
    I pointed out that the defense went from good to suck. And I said, “If you want to compare the two QBs, compare Rodgers’ 2008 performance to Favre’s 2007 ‘MVP-type’ performance and draw your own conclusions.”
    I DID NOT argue that Rodgers’ 2008 stats were better than Favre’s 2007. I said to compare them, and they’re nearly identical. Also, as we’ve seen in the past (2005), when Favre has a crappy defense supporting him he thinks he needs to do everything himself and he chucks the ball up for grabs. So all of you idiots who think Favre would’ve led the Packers to 12 or 13 wins last year, take a look at history. And if you want to compare Favre to Rodgers, then compare them based on WHAT THEY DO, not based on what their defense does or doesn’t do.
    Is that clear enough for you?

  72. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 4, 2009 11:01 PM

    @PackFaninPackLand:
    Go give yourself a swirly, please.
    No shit, Favre doesn’t play defense. Neither does Rodgers. THAT’S MY POINT! You can’t compare Rodgers to Favre based at all on what the defense did, because the 2008 defense was nowhere near as good as the 2007 defense. So look at what each man did.
    OK, you don’t think they should’ve drafted Rodgers. Fine. You think they should’ve allowed Favre to waffle every year, decide whether to play or not at some point in the spring or summer and DO NOTHING to address the situation in the draft or free agency? That sounds… Well, stupid.
    And time of possession? Really, that’s your golden bullet? Guess what? Time of possession relies on defense just as much as it does on offense. Again, I’ll reference the numbers from 2007 and 2008:
    2007:
    Points scored – 435
    Points allowed – 291
    2008:
    Points scored – 419
    Points allowed – 380
    So the offense scored nearly as many points in 2008 as it did with your boyfriend in 2007. But the defense gave up an additional 89 points. Hmmm.. And you’re saying the offense is to blame for the swing in time of possession?
    Hi, I’m facts. Nice to meet you.

  73. MasterShake says: Nov 4, 2009 11:39 PM

    I know division rivals (and fans) are supposed to rip each other to pieces but at some point aren’t we suppose to show love for our division? I can’t stand the Packers but I don’t want them to turn into the Lions. Stuff happens. Favre wanted to play for the Vikes from day one and the Packers didn’t want that to happen. Why piss on each other over that? I understand why the Pack went in the direction they did, but try not to throw away all that Favre did for that team while there just because he wears purple. It’s only week 8 or is it 9 with this bye week b.s. and there’s plenty of time for things to change. Unfortunately for some, they don’t realize that the Vikes have this division wrapped up and Favre may spend more time starting and not finishing games so he can stay fresh (whatever that is for a 40 year old) for the playoffs. Green Bay may make the playoffs but with the line problems it will be a one and out. F the AFC!

  74. rollerball says: Nov 5, 2009 1:34 AM

    I really liked comments made by mw. I always thought Favre was,in a way, bigger than the game type of guy but I didn’t really know why. Mw did hit the nail on the head saying Favre wouldn’t lay down to the idea of mediocrity bowing to coaching rather than great players making the difference on the field and fans do respond to that.

  75. PackFaninPackLand says: Nov 5, 2009 3:02 AM

    To: Adam-Chris Scheftersen at 11:01 PM
    “And time of possession? Really, that’s your golden bullet? Guess what? Time of possession relies on defense just as much as it does on offense. Again, I’ll reference the numbers from 2007 and 2008″
    ————————————–
    Good grief, what a moron. You were making excuses for The Golden Child Rodgers that it was all the defense’s fault (and not his) for the 6-10 record in ’08 – even though, “magically” he played with virtually the same 21 other starters as Favre did back in ’07.
    Of course T.O.P. is a golden bullet, and it starts with the offense under Favre is ’07 having longer sustained drives eating up more of the clock. THAT, in turn, equals the defense spends LESS time on the field (DUHHHHHHHHHH), which equals less drives by the opposing offense, which equals less points given up, which equals fresher legs for the “D” when they ARE on the field, which equaled more wins in ’07.
    Anyone with even an ounce of football sense knows this. Oh wait, that leaves you out. Never mind. Since Rodgers uses up less clock when he is on the field, THAT in turn equals the defense to spend MORE time on the field (DUHHHHHHHHH), which equals MORE drives by the opposing offense, which equals MORE points given up, which equals more tired legs for the”D”, which equals more losses in ’08 and ’09.
    Sometimes you have to eat some clock on offense … to save your defense. DUHHHHHHHHHH !
    Are you the only football fan in America that DOESN’T know that ???? Apparently !

  76. Supersuckers says: Nov 5, 2009 9:10 AM

    packfaninfinland,
    Just because you have cap space(every team does today) doesnt mean it is real money. Team’s net operating income (profit) was 4 million last year. What would their profit/loss have been had they spent 16 million on outcasts? This shouldn’t be that difficult to figure out. Its a business. Not a video game.
    They would be tied in the loss column and that is what everybody goes by until the byes are completed. I am embarrased for you that you didn’t know that.

  77. Supersuckers says: Nov 5, 2009 9:12 AM

    Pacj fanin finland.,
    I am embarrased for you for the “you think all the 4-3 teams are going to lose” comment. Obviously if a win in Tampa puts Green Bay at 5-3 none of them would have to lose as I stated they would be in a tie for a playoff spot.

  78. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 5, 2009 9:52 AM

    @PackFaninPackLand:
    Oh, you’re right.. The fact that the defense in 2008 allowed 30% more points than they did in 2007 has absolutely nothing to do with time of possession.
    Because Aaron Rodgers can just demand the ball when he’s standing on the sideline, and the opposing team has to give it to him. And because he can demand that the Packers run the ball more effectively, thereby eating up more clock.
    You’re right. What was I thinking? Why didn’t he do those things?
    Give me a break. I don’t care if the defensive personnel were the same. And to a large degree, they weren’t, by the way. Ever heard of Cullen Jenkins, Atari Bigby, Nick Barnett and Ryan Grant? Yeah, those guys were injured for a large part of 2008 and that definitely played a part in the decline of the defense.
    But even if they’d been healthy all year, it doesn’t matter. It’s not the defensive personnel that matter. It’s HOW THEY PLAY. And in 2008, the defense gave up more points in their first 12 games than they gave up in the entire 2007 regular season. Those are facts, and no matter how much you hate Aaron Rodgers, no matter how much you want to give birth to Brett Favre’s baby, it won’t change those facts.
    You think maybe that’s why they overhauled the entire defensive coaching staff and brought in a completely new system after last year? Or did they do that to cover up for Rodgers’ obvious inability to run the ball and play defense? Conspiracy theorists, unite! Aaron Rodgers sucks donkey balls, so let’s fire the defensive staff to cover for him!

  79. Chickenfoot says: Nov 5, 2009 11:44 AM

    When did Ryan Grant start playing defense?
    I knew something was up, because he doesn’t resemble a running back anymore.

  80. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 5, 2009 11:49 AM

    One other thing.. Favre passed for 4,155 yards in 2007. Rodgers passed for 4,038 in 2008. What’s the difference? Less than 7.5 yards per game.
    Are you saying that those 7.5 yards per game would’ve made all the difference in time of possession? If that’s your point, then you’re a moron. If it’s not your point, then you’re going to have to point the finger at either the running game or the defense, neither of which Favre or Rodgers have any effect on.

  81. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 5, 2009 3:10 PM

    Chickenfoot says:
    November 5, 2009 11:44 AM
    When did Ryan Grant start playing defense?
    ——————————
    Whoops. Caught me with that one.

  82. Nel Bobson says: Nov 5, 2009 5:16 PM

    Come out, come out from where ever you are Bob Nelson….. Time for your Meds. Makes you head feel better!!! Why do you keep acting up? You know you have been a Viking’s fan your whole life. I just hate it when you stop taking your medicine….

  83. footballrulz says: Nov 5, 2009 5:48 PM

    @ Mike
    If I’m a Packers fan, I don’t blame Brett. I blame the coach and GM for letting this icon go. It’s a damn shame what’s happened
    Here’s the real take you should have
    If I’m a Packers fan, I don’t blame Brett. I blame the coach and GM for being too freakin stupid to get some real players to protect Rodgers and for calling a game that virtually guaranteed a loss. Pack is better off with Rodgers. Favre would be dead if he were behind this O-line.
    nice to see ya back Chickenfoot

  84. Chickenfoot says: Nov 6, 2009 8:31 AM

    Thanks footballrulz!
    Took a few days off to watch some Packer fans fight amongst themselves. More entertaining then anything i’d have typed at the time.
    Feel bad for you and Beer, but glad those 2 games are done!

  85. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Nov 6, 2009 6:02 PM

    You don’t blame Favre for waiting until July (July!) to decide to come back? Yeah, it’s probably Thompson’s fault that Favre’s a flip-flopping attention whore.

  86. Supersuckers says: Nov 7, 2009 5:00 PM

    Beer is just frustrated by losing to the Vikings twice. Calling for the entire staff to be fired at 4-3 with 9 games to go is just..well…I won’t sat it but you know Adam.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!