Tuesday, October 20, 2009

*SIGH* I Guess I'll Have to Talk Down to the Low IQs in the Room, Then

It's come to my attention that an anonymous poster in the comments section believes all analyses to be equal. While it is true that you can compare anything you want, the closer you whittle down the comparisons, the more thoughtful and relevant the analysis. Thoughtful and relevant being the operative words, words not often in the vernacular of Favre fans. They fall back on simple comparisons and cliches, because that's all that's left of their Legend.

Case in point: comparing Favre and Rodgers' careers. Oh, sure you can do it. It's just not relevant or thoughtful. It doesn't give us much to chew on in an intelligent debate. So the comment yesterday about how you enjoy my comparisons between Favre and Rodgers is great. I'm glad you like it. Although it's no secret I hope Favre fails, it in no way impedes my rational thought to consider his performance thus far excellent. I've said so. Read the historical posts on the blog. Rodgers has been as good, surrounded by lesser talent and a failing offensive line. But those things, while relevant also seem like cop-outs, considering he's held onto the ball too long at times and caused some of his own problems. I'd absolutely LOVE one of you Favre lovers to jilt your Legend by saying something similar. But I know you're too bullheaded to do it, because your obvious blindness is evident in your inane comments.

My comparisons, as it were, are week-to-week comparisons or historical when they fit (as in last year). The analyses always have some factual basis. You'll see a lot of stats below, embedded video, quotes, etc., etc. What do Favre fans come with? Comments like: "Without Favre, the Vikings would be 3-3 at best." It's kind of the age-old adage about talking to a wall. Since you Favre fans love cliches, there's one you should understand.

I dare you to admit that Aaron Rodgers is as good a prospect at quarterback as Favre was back in his early years. Furthermore, surrounded with the kind of talent that Favre was surrounded with in the years of the Super Bowl runs, Rodgers just might be as good or better. He's shown accuracy, a very good arm, the ability to make plays in trouble and *GASP* the poise not to throw the ball all over the place. Yes, he's not been able to close the deal in many of the close games. Chalk it up to him, chalk it up to the defense not holding leads he's put on the board, whatever. I believe those wins will come with better talent around him, especially on defense. You saw it in the first game this year and I know that made you lovers stew.

Of course you won't admit it, but deep down you know it's accurate. The most ironic thing of all was when Favre struggled early on in his career, when he couldn't close the deal in the playoffs in Dallas, when he threw too many interceptions, the armchair QBs in this town of "the smartest football fans in the world" were calling for Mark Brunnell to replace Favre. "They should at least give him a shot to see if he can play. His contract's almost up, he'll leave and go play better for someone else." But that same sentiment carried out in actuality years later is met with ... the same reaction?

Perhaps Rodgers won't pan out to be the quarterback Favre was over the length of his career. You just can't seriously compare their careers at present and call it relevant analysis, and then turn around and act outraged when someone else says the comparison is silly by using my comparisons as proof.


  1. You use excessive words to try and cover up the fact that you contadict yourself by comparing the two quarterbacks in one post and then acting like it is wrong to compare them in the next.
    Try and remember English 101 in college- remember the concept of "paraphrase". Babling on does not generally result in successful writing. You tend to bable on.
    While you are not successful, you are entertaining, so please keep doing what you are doing.

  2. And, again, you miss the point of the entire post. When did I say it was wrong to compare them? I said comparisons can be categorized to be as unitelligible as you want them to be or add to an intelligent debate.

    You obfuscate, and then pretend like you're above arguing because your arguments are negligible or inferior.

    Please continue. You make the rest of us smarter.

    P.S. You went to college? If you did, don't pretend to understand writing when you misspell "babling."

  3. The only thing entertaining here is the fact that whether a comment is short, long, factual, objective or concise....and it degrades your messiah in any way, you and those like you, debunk anything negative about your Lord Favre as garbage or make comments like "he just loves to play the game."

    Fact is, anyone OTHER than your hero, throwing the ball for GB will NEVER be as good, or have the potential to be, as good as you think Favre was. You will also continue to propogate the notion that the winning that went on in GB from 1992 to 2007 was because of, and ONLY because of Favre. And the losing....well that was Sherman, Rhodes, McCarthy, Thompson, and everyone else BUT Favre on those teams....receivers running the wrong routes, the cold weather, no Randy Moss, no running game are just common examples of your myopia. That my friend in the true definition of blinded hero worship.

  4. I am guilty of typos from time to time I will give you that.

    I like your use of the Thesaurus. "obfuscate"..lol You sound like Bill O'Reilly on The Factor.

    J-Dub, I really think Rodgers is a very good quarterback for somebody in his second year as a starter and if he doesn't get killed back there he might just turn out to be a great quarterback for a below par team...kind of like Archie Manning was for the Saints.

    The Packers had many great players during 2002-2007 like White, Butler, Freeman, etc.. All of those guys were awesome and greatly recoginized and appreciated by me. I agree with you.

    The only coaches I have ever "blamed" are Rhodes who was in over his head and McCarthy because he stinks. McCarthy, I'm sure you know was the "leader" of the greatly feared San Fransico offense before Thompson hired him. That San Fran team was terrible. I believe they went 3-13. He is a bad coach. Thompson makes bad Personel dedicions. The Favre botching is just the one that is fun to debate.

    No matter what you and Vader say, there is no way you can't be impressed by a 40 year old guy that can still play at Favre's level. That guy rocks, plain and simple.

    You guys like to say he has a much better team to play with than Rodgers has with the Packers. Last year, on paper, the Packers were a much better team than the Jets, yet look at the results. If not for the biceps injury the Jets would have won that division. Even with the late season fade the Jets had a much , much better year than the Packers.

    The Jets got what they wanted. They sold a lot of tickets and jerseys, built their new stadium, and continue their upward movement. Favre was just part of their long range plan. It was a good business move and even though they didn't make the playoffs they had a hugely successful year due largely(not entirely) on Favre. This is a business. Remember that and remember Favre is good for business and Thompson doesn't get that.

  5. On Paper?????? If by "on paper" you mean the Jets defense ranked 10th in the league and the Packers ranked 27th...then you are right. If by "on paper" the Jets rushing offense ranked 3rd in the league and the Packers was 23rd...then you are right. If by "on paper" you mean the Jets played the 29th toughest schedule in the league and the Packers played the 5th...then you are right. Anything else besided yesterdays digested lunch you want to put "on paper?"

    And stop already with the biceps excuse...he is the iron man, the Legend, he should have been able to play through that. Rodgers played with a torn shoulder ligament and none of the Favre lovers would ever let him use that as an excuse....yet another double standard. But I know, Legend...heart on sleeve, would play for free (or $12 million guaranteed) every passing record known...I know, I know....blah, blah, blah.

  6. The Jets got what they wanted? I suppose if the Vikings don't win the Super Bowl, they'll have gotten what they wanted, too, right Pat? I mean, whatever the outcome, it's always good when it involves Brett Favre.

    Revisionist. History.

    And AGAIN with the "well, Favre woulda [insert nonsense opinion unsupported by any factual data here]".

    "Favre would have won at least four of the six games Rodgers couldn't win last year." "Favre would have won the division if not for his injury." And on and on and on and on.

    We've heard it all before, yet we see nothing to back it up. Perhaps, as J asserted, the facts DON'T back up your nonsense. Perhaps they tell a complete opposite story.

    Cross arms. Shake head. Close eyes. Yep, a true Favre fan.

  7. I don't know what stats you are looking at for your "on paper" references, but try these on for size. Heading into the 2008 season(and based on 2007 final stats):

    Jets Overall Defense: 18th
    Packers Overall Defense: 11th

    Jets Overall Offense: 26th
    Packers Overall Offense: 2nd

    Yes, I would say heading into the 2008 season, the Packers, with virtually everyone back had quite an "on paper" advantage. Don't pull out a couple of segments like "rush defense" and hide behind that. The Overall stats hold the real weight.

    Add to the fact that you Kool Aid drinkers "upgraded" to Rodgers at quarterback in 2008 the Pack should have been even better than the 13-3 record Favre led them to the year before. By the way, 13-3 is better "on paper" than 4-12 which the Jets had in 2007.

    You can't compare 2008 "on paper" team stats in the context of this post. We are talking about what the teams were like before Favre joined the Jets and measuring the impact of the change.

    The most important thing, moving forward, is Thompson screwed up the Favre thing and his bad decisions on personel continue to haunt the Packers this season. Its great to see all you sheep evolve over time to agreeing Thompson has to go. You all thought he was the strong "Executive of the Year" , making the tough calls and now you are all agreeing his decsions are flawed. At least you are right on that.
    Present day: Vikings, led by Favre, will have great season. Packers, Thompson's decisions(won't blame Rodgers), will continue to falter.
    The people on our side just look smarter and smarter as time goes on and your side looks...

    Whatever happened to "YAC", "great young draft choices" , "new 3-4 will change things", and all the talk of new glory to come for the Pack?...lol

  8. Twist...spin...twist...spin.

    You talked about hypotheticals like "on paper." Don't now "hide" behind what you think was your original intent in discussing "on paper" so that it now means "before the season started." Once again, you live in a "crystal ball" scneario backed up by nothing.

    I provided you with the facts on how things ACTUALLY happened. Bottom line, us cool aid drinkers can be objective enough to look at what TT has done and question it and propose changes...you Favreopians on the other hand cannot:
    1. Admit that the Packers problems are not all Rodgers.
    2. Admit Rodgers is a good QB with one heck of a future.
    3. Admit last years 6-10 record was due in large part to injuries, poor backup play, horrible defensive scheme and two missed last second field goals. Of course some of the blame goes on Rodgers....
    4. The Packers did their due diligence in finding out if Favre wanted to come back after he retired, moved on when he said no, twice, and held thier ground when he tried to swoop back in.
    5. Admit that Favre's success over his career was due in large part to the players and coaches that surrounded him.

    Us "kool aid drinkers" will be fine no matter what happens....what will you be saying, "in hindsight" and what type of bogus comments and hypothetical statements will you be making if and when Favre once again craps all over himself and loses in the playoffs. Let me guess.....receiver ran the wrong route, poor play calling, poor blocking, defense can't stop anyone...etc..etc..etc. All the same excuses that mean nothing in GB now that he is gone....and NOTHING that he himself did.

  9. First, no "hiding" at all. Your use of 2008 stats just shows you did not understand my point.

    I was and am clearly attempting to show the impact Favre leaving had on the Pack and the impact Favre had on going to the Jets. This can not be accomplished without first establishing a baseline. 2007 is the baseline. 2008 is the "effect". How hard is to understand??!!

    I have repeatedly stated Rodgers is a good quarterback. What are you talking about there?
    He is not better than Favre, but he is good.

    Keep eating crow, and throw on a scoop of humble pie as this Thompson version of the Pack continues to stumble, fall, and maybe even implode.