The Rizzent Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I don't post here much and yes it probably shows. But in reading the "Favre" threads I can't but help of how history repeats itself. Many people here push that subject a lot. History usually shows that say the redskins do pull the trigger on Favre , that its going to go down hill and quick. The following article supports this : "People say the numbers were outstanding last year, when you reached 38. Rating points, passes vs. picks, all that textbook stuff -- looked pretty good, didn't it? But not so good in the fourth quarter against the Giants, right? Or in overtime. It all started falling apart then, didn't it? And at age 38 going on 39, it's not going to get any better. God has a strange way of letting the years pile up on you. They don't get easier. But someone will bite for the win-it-now, quick fix. Gosh, we're right on the brink, only one veteran quarterback away from the Super Bowl. The future? We'll worry about it later. History has a few sad lessons on this score. " Full Article : http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dr_z/07/14/qbs/index.html I really hope that someone is not Dan Snyder. I really hope he doesn't get the itch to "win-it-now". To me Favre has the potential to disrupt not only the packers but any team he is going to go to. Lets hope its not the skins. I just don't understand why the few fans here want Mr. Snyder to go through with this. The pure damage it would cause would set us back further. The skins are starting to get ahead of things... I know this may be beating a dead horse; so if the mods so choose to merge that is fine. This was just to show the history of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangSteve Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 And here's the part that gets me, all these fans crying for Favre, if he did happen to come here on a multi-million dollar contract, because your not getting him for 5 bucks, and didnt get us to the playoffs, they would be blaming Dan Snyder again for making more stupid decisions like back in 2000. I was really hoping we would of had another shot at GreenBay in the playoffs last year, we were playing better football in December then anyone in the NFC including the Giants, Cowboys and Brett Favre and the Packers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2006Skins Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 The skins will not pick up Favre. They don't have the cap room for his ridiculous salary, plus you have to figure they didn't hire a former qb coach to develop a 38 year old qb. They did it to develop a franchise qb who the only way can develop at this point is to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpskins10 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Favre = Brunell on steroids. He'll come in, ruin Campbell as Brunell ruined Ramsey, and in two years we'll be back where we started. *edit* Back where we started, WITHOUT A LOMBARDI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangSteve Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Favre = Brunell on steroids. :laugh: That was great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark The Homer Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Not to argue, but there are exceptions. For example, Sonny led the NFC in passing in 1974, his last of eighteen years in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I am willing to bet my sig for an entire year that the skins do NOT go after Farve. My reasoning is that vinny has said that they wanted to get the best coach FOR Jason Campbell and build things around him. That's why they drafted 2 WRs and a TE with their first 3 picks - to surroud him with weapons. Just don't see this happening. Farve would be a great QB here but there is no way... but after looking at the details more closely I would say that it Could happen.. Can I renig on my statment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBass1724 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Our offense has a lot more weapons than GB's. If Favre came here I would expect even better numbers out of him this year. He knows the offense. Look, the area we live in is considered a "win now" type of city. If Favre comes here for 2 seasons, we will be no worse off after he leaves than we are now. We all want Campbell to do well but let's face it, he is one huge question mark at this point in time. You know what you get with Favre on the football field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Look, the area we live in is considered a "win now" type of city. If Favre comes here for 2 seasons, we will be no worse off after he leaves than we are now. We all want Campbell to do well but let's face it, he is one huge question mark at this point in time. You know what you get with Favre on the football field. Campbell's not getting any younger. If Favre is here for two seasons, Campbell will be 28 when he leaves, and he'll still have some kinks to work out. Let Campbell develop and build chemistry with his new young receivers (as well as Moss, Randle El and Cooley of course.) Acquiring Favre might lead us to a better record this year, but it won't give us anything more than another playoff burnout. Pop Quiz: Where did Favre's division opponents rank in passing defense last year? Answer: Chicago: 27th Detroit: 31st Minnesota: 32nd Pop Quiz: What was Favre's average passing yardage per game by month? Answer: September: 301 October: 280 November: 273 December: 186 January: 205 The steady decline is obvious, and he's not going to help our team win a championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Campbell's not getting any younger. If Favre is here for two seasons, Campbell will be 28 when he leaves, and he'll still have some kinks to work out. Let Campbell develop and build chemistry with his new young receivers (as well as Moss, Randle El and Cooley of course.) Acquiring Favre might lead us to a better record this year, but it won't give us anything more than another playoff burnout.Pop Quiz: Where did Favre's division opponents rank in passing defense last year? Answer: Chicago: 27th Detroit: 31st Minnesota: 32nd Pop Quiz: What was Favre's average passing yardage per game by month? Answer: September: 301 October: 280 November: 273 December: 186 January: 205 The steady decline is obvious, and he's not going to help our team win a championship. Nice analysis, sir. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePreciating Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Nice analysis, sir. :applause: It is absolutely not a nice analysis. Green Bay's game changes in the cold months, everyone knows that. You've proved nothing. We'd have a better chance at a Super Bowl with Brett Favre than with Jason Campbell in 2008. I think it would hinder JC's development, so I hope we don't do it, but stop lying to yourself! Favre is a better quarterback than Jason Campbell right now, and probably next year too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rd421 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Just look what John Madden and ESPN have done to us all. We are starting to buy into this Favre will lead the way crap! Seriously this would DESTROY everything we have tried to accomplish this off season. Even though this may and I stress MAY help us right now....it will destroy our future.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 It is absolutely not a nice analysis. Green Bay's game changes in the cold months, everyone knows that. I disagree. Let's look at the same thing from 2006. September: 283 October: 203 November: 243 December: 250 That trend of a steady dropoff isn't apparent in 2006, nor is it in 2005. September: 246 October: 278 November: 216 December/January: 233 (January is included because Jan. 1 was the last game of the season in 2005.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Not to argue, but there are exceptions. For example, Sonny led the NFC in passing in 1974, his last of eighteen years in the league. Brett Favre is no Sonny Jurgensen. Sorry.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBass1724 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I haven't looked at the teams he played against in those analysis', however I will assume that he didn't pass for huge yardage at home in those games during the cold/late months. I could be way off but when the weather gets frigid like it is up there, you gotta run the ball. Also about the Campbell thing and him being 28 in a couple years...if we get Favre, what is the point of keeping Campbell? He wouldn't want to stay. It's either Favre or JC and right now I am picking Brett. Yeah I am impatient like a lot of others but I am not sold on JC becoming the next coming of...well JC! I think he is a nice player but Brett Favre he is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooley4President Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I disagree. Let's look at the same thing from 2006.September: 283 October: 203 November: 243 December: 250 That trend of a steady dropoff isn't apparent in 2006, nor is it in 2005. September: 246 October: 278 November: 216 December/January: 233 (January is included because Jan. 1 was the last game of the season in 2005.) Yeah, but the big difference between previous years and 2007 is how the running attack changed throughout the year. In the first half of 2007 Green Bay had no running game to speak of, and people trumpeted that as a reason they wouldn't keep winning and why Favre was throwing for so many yards. In the second half of the year they established Ryan Grant and their running game and Favre had to throw less, hence the decrease in passing yards. Check out this link to see the stark differences in rushing yards in the first 7 games and the last 9: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2007.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Also about the Campbell thing and him being 28 in a couple years...if we get Favre, what is the point of keeping Campbell? He wouldn't want to stay. It's either Favre or JC and right now I am picking Brett. Yeah I am impatient like a lot of others but I am not sold on JC becoming the next coming of...well JC! I think he is a nice player but Brett Favre he is not. Overpaying for an old quarterback whose team is ready to move on? I have to say, that sounds familiar. As I recall it didn't end in a championship last time. Nobody knows Brett better than the Packers, and if he had a championship in him they wouldn't be shopping him around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Yeah, but the big difference between previous years and 2007 is how the running attack changed throughout the year. In the first half of 2007 Green Bay had no running game to speak of, and people trumpeted that as a reason they wouldn't keep winning and why Favre was throwing for so many yards. In the second half of the year they established Ryan Grant and their running game and Favre had to throw less, hence the decrease in passing yards.Check out this link to see the stark differences in rushing yards in the first 7 games and the last 9: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2007.htm Fair enough, and looking again at it Favre was rested in the second half of the last game. However, I still don't see it as a good idea to bring Favre in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooley4President Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Fair enough, and looking again at it Favre was rested in the second half of the last game.However, I still don't see it as a good idea to bring Favre in. Totally agree. I guess in making my point I lost sight of the bigger issue, that is that I absolutely DO NOT want them to sign Favre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorrellsskin Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I couldn't have said it better my self....:dallasuck Favre = Brunell on steroids. He'll come in, ruin Campbell as Brunell ruined Ramsey, and in two years we'll be back where we started. *edit* Back where we started, WITHOUT A LOMBARDI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Favre = Brunell on steroids. He'll come in, ruin Campbell as Brunell ruined Ramsey, and in two years we'll be back where we started. *edit* Back where we started, WITHOUT A LOMBARDI. I agree with that, except that Ramsey sucked ass without Brunell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I agree with that, except that Ramsey sucked ass without Brunell. As much as I was pulling for Ramsey, I think time has told that Ramsey really wasn't the answer. He seemed so good at times, and he was certainly tough as nails, but something wasn't clicking, and I doubt it was ever going to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePreciating Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Yeah let me state again that I do not want Favre here. I think it could disrupt chemistry. But PLEASE, Favre is no Jurgenson?!? Favre will be remembered just as highly as Jurgenson is. We've had Sonny, Sammy, Theismann, Williams, and Rypien. All these quarterbacks are legendary in their own right. IMO Sammy is the only one whose legendary status will compete with that of Favre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flycoach Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 The skins will not pick up Favre. They don't have the cap room for his ridiculous salary, plus you have to figure they didn't hire a former qb coach to develop a 38 year old qb. They did it to develop a franchise qb who the only way can develop at this point is to play. I agree completely. Snyder tried the "Buy a Superbowl" trick when he picked up Deon, Bruce Smith, Mark Carrier, etc. It didn't work then, and I don't think that it'd work now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbws Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Not to argue, but there are exceptions. For example, Sonny led the NFC in passing in 1974, his last of eighteen years in the league. The difference there is he was with the same cast of supporting players for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.