Rodgers didn't stand a chance on Favre's night

Thompson has had 4 seasons to fix the line. It seems to be getting worse.

Yes, Aaron Rodgers is a special talent. As is Jared Allen. Unfortunately, the members of the Green Bay offensive line are not. All things considered, Aaron had a great game.

Still, that takes nothing off the shine of Brett Favre's performance last night. The man's amazing, and he deserves his accolades.

Yes, Aaron Rodgers is a special talent. As is Jared Allen. Unfortunately, the members of the Green Bay offensive line are not. All things considered, Aaron had a great game.

Still, that takes nothing off the shine of Brett Favre's performance last night. The man's amazing, and he deserves his accolades.

Don't you actually have to accomplish something before you can be considered the best? An 8-12 record is not much of an accomplishment.

Favre threw 3 td's, 0 int's and had a superior passer rating. He was the best last night! Come on--it was an excellent performance--you have to give the devil his do!

Rogers looked excellent given the O-line he plays behind and he'll be scary good if the Packer's brain trust ever decides to hire a real GM who understands the need for a mix of young and true veteran players. Rogers may have tried to do too much tonight and as a result hung on to the ball too long a few times which ended up hurting him. However to not give Favre his full due because of your personal feelings towards him is incredibly petty and makes you look small. Favre is 40 years old and his body is older given the hits he has taken over the years and that performance last night by Favre was nothing short of awesome. Matt, though you and others at NFP might not like Favre personally, which is pretty obvious in your collective posts, every football player and fan has to respect what he did on that field last night.

THANK YOU MATT. If the Packer offensive line would have played better the Pack would have won. I've been a Packer fan for over twenty years and I've never seen their offensive line play as bad as it did, not only last night, but all this season. Overall I think the Packers have a better team than the Vikngs but when your line is that horrible it makes your whole team look bad.

One thing not many people are considering, the Pack gave up 8 sacks and still only lost by a touchdown. You look at any other game where a team's QB gets sacked 8 times and you'll see that team getting blown out. The Vikings won the game, but they came nowhere near closing it out.

But Matt, it was never about Brett versus Rodgers. It was about Brett's anger at the Packers' FO failures which made them uncompetitive. Didn't last night pretty much validate that criticism? One injury to their line and their entire season falls apart? Is that the way NE operates? The Giants?

Rodgers is a nice QB, but Brett had one of his best games in a first ballot HOF career.

heidi bender...when you have perfect protection and a lifetime to throw the ball, even I could put up those sort of stats. Rodgers did a far better job considering the pressure he was under (sacked on 20% of his dropbacks) and especially the fact that he was chasing the game and the Vikings knew the pass was coming.

Rodgers showed a lot of heart by hanging in there and playing well considering the pounding he took. It shows how good he can be with all the receiving weapons the Packers have, if the Packers offensive line could just get their act together. But Favre definitely was the better QB last night; he controlled the game with a masterful and vintage performance that Packers fans have seen countless times over the years. Favre didn't turn the ball over, and Rodgers did twice, both times in Viking territory. The Vikings simply were the better team last night.

The Packers need to regroup over the bye week and somehow fix the mess that is the offensive line. I still think they can beat the Vikings in the rematch at Lambeau, but the O-line will need to be vastly better, and they'll need to put more pressure on Favre as well.

Aaron would trade the career high in yards for a win there. They moved him around very well. The Vikings just had too much motivating them, they played this like a playoff game to the last man on the roster.

I'm a Skins fan and remember your days with team, so I have no bias here, but I think you are totally discounting what Favre did. It even came across like you have some sort of axe to grind with Brett. Maybe you do. I don't know. Just because one guy throws for more yards doesn't mean he played a better game. GB decided to stop Peterson and gamble that Favre couldn’t beat them. They lost. Badly.

And what crap did Favre pull? The indecision about retiring? Ted Thompson did that to him by drafting him when they had a HOF QB who still has enough game to win. This all came about because Ted Thompson wanted to play Rodgers because he drafted him and kicked Brett to the curb to do it. Thompson knew Brett could still play. THAT'S why he wouldn't release him and THAT'S why he tried to BRIBE HIM with $20M to stay retired. If he really thought Brett was done and Rodgers was "The Man" why did he do that? He wanted to put his personal stamp on the franchise with Aaron Rodgers. Well how does 8-12 look? Not as good as 4-0.

Speaking as a Vikings fan.

Rodgers is a creature, and is able to exploit our linebackers with Donald and the freaks, that has been the case for years, and until the Vikings safeties mature, or they switch to a faster group of LBs to run the cover 2 this will continue to happen.

That being said, Ted's real failure was not with Farve it was neglecting the offensive line after Tauscher and Whale left.

Lastly, if the Vikings had bled another 30 seconds off the clock and running a shaky prevent D the game would not have felt as close.

Thankfully by the time the Packers can keep Rodgers upright through the draft Haris and Woodson will have retired.

I think Rodgers could have at least 2 less sacks if he just didn't hold the ball too long... Also as a QB, he needs to have that iron will mentality from Peyton Manning and Tom Brady to win the game no matter the odds. Rodgers had a few chances last year in which he could've had won or tied the game but didn't. So not quite a special talent yet.

Enough with the Packer apologists... I love this sight and Bowen's column is my favorite - but the Green & Gold slant gets a little old.

Aaron Rodgers is a great passer. But a great QB? I think wins matter in that regard. He reminds me of Romo - solid fantasy numbers but too many losses. What changed between Brett's last season in GB where they went 10-6 and Aaron's first season where they finished 6-10? QB. You can't seriously consider Rodgers to be a top 10 NFL QB. On your fantasy team - sure! But, where it really counts on the field? No way.

The Vikings are clearly a better team. Better running attack, better control of the clock. Sustained drives. Stronger in the trenches on both sides of the ball. No turnovers. The game wasn't nearly as close as the score. Most of the yards and points for the Packers were earned during soft zone / prevent time. (I hate when teams in the lead do this - why change up the defense when you have shut them down for most of the game with it? But that is another topic!)

Bowen - the NFC North is a two-horse race. I expect your Bears to pummel the Pack in their second game and push the Vikes for the top spot. Barring injury though, the Vikings should win it again.

I'll be surprised if the Packers finish better than 8-8. No offensive line. No pass rush. Learning a new defense (which should pay dividends in future years) that isn't suited for their best players (Kampman - I hope you are wearing Purple in the near future! You'll get to play with your hand on the ground where it belongs!)...

One last thought: It is obvious that, in addition to not being able to pass protect, the Packers coaching staff decided that they had no chance establishing a ground game against the Vikings. The didn't even try. Forcing Rodgers to pass on every down was cruel to their QB. The Vikings D-Line had a field day - never even had to process run/pass - could just push hard to the QB every down. Fun! Lucky for the Pack that Aaron wasn't injured.

Renhoekk, Favre's prima donna act and "me first" attitude are what soured the relationship. Packer fans can surely blame Ted Thompson and poor coaching for the awful line play, but enough of this nonsense that the Packers/Favre divorce is on Ted's shoulders. It's on #4.

As much as I enjoy this site, the "axe to grind" against certain clubs is really apparent in some of the writing. It's really a shame too, because the game insite is often much better than what you get on the larger sites. But Matt, I didn't even need to read the article to realize your intentions- your Twitter comment was enough to tell me how slanted the article would be.

Opinion or not (and I'm no Favre apologist), this article, the title, the Twitter link, etc. all seem very petty. I think this and Mike Lombardi's beating the dead horse of Oakland's ineptitude (we get it Mike, the Raiders are a joke) are getting old and just make the site seem petty at least one day a week. The writers here are better than that.

I can go and read someone like Charlie Casserly (who is a terrible writer) and never see any bias/axe to grind with Houston or other NFL establishments he's been linked to.

We love this site for the inside access the different voices can give us, and the variety of backgrounds those voices share. But it should never turn into (or sound like its turning into) something petty or an axe to grind.

It's a shame.

Offensive Line when Brett went 13-3 in 2007:

Wells had taken over from Winters when he was not signed....not sure what year.

Wahle and ? (veteran guards) were not signed....moving onto players they had drafted in april to fill those spots....same guys on roster now. Gee and we all thought Brett was whining when he wanted these guys resigned.

Tauscher and Clifton remained as tackles but were hurt during year and replaced with draft picks.

The packer 0-line has been in the league (not including clifton) and average of 3.8 years. Vikings....5 Not much difference. Either it is coaching or TT can't pick talent.

Someone has to tell me why they went to 3-4 defense and took a force at DE and turned him into a LB.......he is missed at putting pressure on the qb.

So why did Brett have such a good year then and Rodgers getting sacked now ....could it be he holds onto the ball too long, waits too long to leave the pocket or is it the play calling looking for 30-40 yard passes all the time instead of going with the true West Coast Offense.

The vikings have a RT as a rookie and a undersized 2 year veteran at center....the others 6-9 years experience. Brett was sacked 9 times in the first 3 games but one touch and no sacks.

Brett Favre didn't beat the Packers last night. Green Bay was beaten - and badly beaten - by the Vikings offensive and defensive lines. The defensive line was all over Rodgers, who never had a chance. Especially Jared Allen who was far and away the MVP of the game. On the other side of the ball, Farve was never pressured as his offensive line never allowed Green Bay to hurry him. He had plenty of time - 7 seconds on one play - to find open receivers and then throw short, crisp passes to move the ball. Green Bay's defense did a goo job stopping Peterson, but were totally unable to put any pressure at all on Farve.

How Ironic that Farve always complained he never had enough off weapons, (remember the lobby for Moss?), but Matt most of the Packers o line were 2nd and 3rd rounders has Ted drafted losers or is it time to pay attention to OL coach James Campen???

CJ,

Brett's waffling didn't help the relationship I agree. I will even admit Rodgers is a good QB. But let's be honest here. No one really knew what kind of player he would really turn out to be. He was pretty much an unproven QB at the time. What playoff team would hand over the reigns to an unproven QB when they have a HOF QB who can still play on the roster? You're saying they did that because Favre is a Prima Donna? Really? Because if you are then that puts their reasoning on the level of the Oakland Raiders.

More likely is that Ted Thompson drafted Rodgers and was going to see him leave in a year without him ever getting on the field. He didn't plan on Favre wanting or being able to play until he's 40. So he pushed Brett out the door.

Matt- You didn't stand a chance on this one...

In one case, the Favre loyalists (who seem to be coming out of the wood work) are all over his bandwagon yet again,

On the other side, the Pack fans are going to blame Ted Thompson and the O-Line.

And, from Matt's previous writings , he is a fan of Favre--and the packers.

Bottom line, Both QBs looked like studs last night.

Matt -- What are the options for FA O-linemen right now? Is there any possibility that the Pack could use these next two weeks to grab some warm bodies to put on the cold lifeless body that is our O-Line?

Wow. What are you talking about?!? I used to think you knew what you were talking about but obviously I'm going to not bother wasting my time reading your articles anymore. How can you say Rodgers is a better QB than Favre?!? What has Rodgers done? NOTHING. I'm sure you haven't watched all 20 of the games he's started so far. I have. He holds onto the ball too long(note:watch the safety play for example...who pump-fakes in the end zone when you have a terrible O-line?!?), he doesn't go through all his reads. He runs when he should checkdown and he miss-fires on a lot of open receivers. He also hasn't showed he can pull a game off at the end other than the Chicago game this year. I don't know what you have against Favre or if you're just letting the over-saturation of Favre in the media to affect your brain but I think you're way off base. The best QB did win last night. I will agree with you on this though, the best team sure did win.

To the Viking fans, a serious question - your team manhandled the Packers and played a great game all-around. Arguably, they played the best game they could. They kept the crowd in it, they didn't make the stupid mistakes, they had a good gameplan and they stuck with it to keep their offense balanced. Two players had what could accurately be described as "Career Games" (Allen and Leber, who I might add is not getting anywhere NEAR the credit he deserves from his performance last nite) while two others had truely exceptional performances, Favre and Winfield.

That having been said, you won by a single TD in a game where your opponent dropped an easy TD pass and basically gave you a freebie by not covering Berrian on his TD. You still needed Rice to make exceptional plays on not one but two onside kicks in order to seal the deal. You had four 3-and-outs and even managed to have an 11-play drive that never made it across midfield. In four fourth quarter possessions, you managed to get one first down.

Your defensive line dominated and yet you still allowed Grant to average 4.6ypc - your offensive line dominated as well and yet Peterson only managed 2.2ypc on 25 carries, sure wasn't for lack of trying! And spare the world the cracks about prevent defenses and garbage time - it was 21-14 at the half, both teams only managed 9pts the entire second half and you barely managed any advantage in TOP. And don't bother with the "running out the clock" line either - Favre was throwing it all the way to the final kneel downs.

What are you going to do against a real team? Because frankly, in all my years, I've never seen a team play so well and yet accomplish so little in a game as what I saw last nite. Absolutely dominant in the trenches, won the turnover battle, good playcalling, good execution, barely any penalties and still damn near found a way to lose.

Who's the genius in KC who made the Allen trade?

Thank you "renhoekk" for saying what I've been saying is the root of the Favre hatred for Thompson. Besides Thompson being Thompson which no one seems to like, he drafted a QB in the 1st round while Favre was 34. How many people really thought Favre wouldn't play until he was at least 38-39?!? No team drafts a QB in the 1st round without the INTENT of starting him within a year maybe 2 at the most. (How do you think Peyton Manning would feel about the Colts drafting a QB in the 1st round in the next draft?) Thompson should have addressed many of the other needs the Packers had then. But instead he used a 1st round pick on a guy who sat the bench for 3 years. We all know that rookies QB's can come in and start and play well. There is also this thing called FREE AGENCY that Thompson could have used to get a veteran QB after Favre was done. Yeah yeah, I'll hear back that Favre shouldn't have retired in the first place. Well I'd like to know how many of you have ever had a job where you didn't feel like you were wanted anymore. Favre's just a guy. And he felt it.

Renhoekk,

Favre wasn't on the roster- wasn't it already the second season he had retired from the Packers, teary-eyed press conference and all? And didnt McCarthy even go as far as visiting him that summer to offer him the position even after he had retired?

"What playoff team would hand over the reigns to an unproven QB when they have a HOF QB who can still play on the roster?"

He wasn't on the roster- he retired- you certainly didn't forget that right?

"You're saying they did that because Favre is a Prima Donna? Really? Because if you are then that puts their reasoning on the level of the Oakland Raiders."

He retired. Even a visit from the coach didn't prompt a change late in the summer. At that point, I'd imagine any sane coaching staff and front office would prepare their new starting QB for the job, and stick to it. In Rogers case, wouldn't you want the coaching staff, front office, fanbase, etc. behind you and know that you are the man? How is it that MM and TT "kicked" Favre out or that the blame is on them?

Regardless of whatever he "accomplished" for the organization, and I put that in quotes because 1 super bowl does not deserve the level of reverence he receives, he had waffled in the past, already retired, declined the opportunity to come back to the team because it wasn't on his terms, etc. Let's face it, besides the 13-3 season annomaly, his numbers had been declining for several years. Yes, the 8-3 Brett of the Jets was good, but hidden behind a solid line, running game, and decent defense (haven't we seen Sanchez hidden behind that same line and running game? granted the D is certainly better but the parallel holds). He faded as defenses stacked to stop the run, realizing his arm was jello.

The Packers, TT, MM, etc. didn't push Favre out the door. He closed that door himself several times, but didn't get the message that he shut and locked it himself.

I do think Rodgers is a better QB currently than #4, but to say that he had a better game last night simply because he threw for more yards is a little short sighted. Rodgers had 2 turnovers, and allowed himself to be sacked in the end zone.

Favre did not have turnovers- You go ask a coach which he would rather have, more yards or fewer turnovers... Rodgers is the better QB, but there should be no doubt who played the better game last night.

CJ, you should really know what you're talking about before you post on an NFL site. Favre retired from the Packers once. that was in March of 2008. His "teary eyed press conference" as you referred to it. And I still don't understand how he closed the door himself. How many teams sign free agents or make trades in june and july? It was not too late to bring him back. They just didn't want to. I'm sure we'll never agree on that though CJ. Which is fine. You can continue to drink the Thompson/McCarthy/Rodgers koolaid and I'll continue to try to state my case that the Packers need to make some changes.

powers3004, why question another poster's NFL knowledge? Really, its petty- so he "officially" only retired once from the Packers- haven't we played the Favre Retirement dance for 3-4 seasons now? And to be completely technical, he's retired twice from two different teams- so yes, you are "factually correct" (thank you matthew berry), congrats.

I don't drink the Koolaid, I'm not a fan of either team. It's fairly simple: in March 2008 (thank you for clarifying) he retired. Now I'm missing the date (which I'm surprised you didn't clarify for me) that McCarthy made a visit to him to see if he wanted the job post-retirement, but that had to occur during the free agent summer period that you referenced, right? And if I'm not mistaken, he told him flatly, thanks but no thanks. Yes many teams make trades/sign FAs throughout this summer period. Isn't that what McCarthy and Thompson tried to do by visiting him and offering him the gig yet again? And he turned it down, right?

What am I missing here? At that point, why wouldn't the coach and front office staff move forward with the #1 QB they still have on their roster? Why should they have to wait until the middle of training camp for an answer?

The Packers definitely need changes- its often difficult to take many things from the preseason, but their first team offense was nearly perfect during the 3 preseason games they played meaningful series in. Where the heck did that continuity go? You can't lose it on one left tackle injury, can you?

My point in the original post was to point out Matt's entire article because it seemed petty and anti-Favre. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion on either side of the Favre camp, I just thought the article itself seemed spiteful. When you saw the original article title, as well as his Twitter post, it seemed childish (much like Lombardi's continual bashing of his former employer).

It's amazing to me what I am reading here. Matt is right on. Rodgers was running for his life almost every play. Favre got touched once, I think. Once in the whole game. He had almost 8 seconds to throw on one play. He had 4-5 on most others. Give any legitimate NFL QB 4 or 5 seconds, and he will take your pass defense apart. Yes, Rodgers held the ball for too long a few times. But that happens when one has to keep in 7 to block and can only send 3 on routes. and then the 4 rushers still manage to get through seven blockers in no time. Unbelieveable. Just take off the team colored glasses, and ask yourself one question, unbiased: Swap the QBs last night. Put Rodgers on the Vikings and Favre on the Packers. Now play the game. I can tell you two things: 1) Favre would not have finished the game. 2) The score would have been something line 45-10 for the Vikings. I agree with almost all Matt writes. This is certainly THE WORST OL I have ever seen as a Packers fan, and I have seen quite a few, including the ones where Will Whittiker was starting. 20 sacks after 4 games? Are you kidding me. giving up 5 to Odom in a single game? Who is Odom ??? And it is not just the number of sacks. Rodgers had 2 seconds for a play. colledge couldn't even get his hands on Allen. Even rookie TJ Lang played better. And despite all that, Rodgers kept the Packers in the game, and there was a chance to tie and win the game at the end, no matter how small the percentage seemed to be. So please don't tell me the best QB won last night. Right now, Rodgers is clearly a better QB than Favre. Anybody who doesn't see that is either blind or doesn't want to see.

Peter - Seriously, what game were you watching last night? Too many beverages before and during? When Rogers, who is showing tremendous potential, starts winning winable games, and the queens gave us a chance at the end last night, then we can give it up for Rogers but until then stop giving praise for moral victories - they don't count in the win loss column. Favre kicked our ass last night - own it already.

I didn't realize that the best quarterback (Aaron Rodgers according to Matt Bowen) on the field last night couldn't seem to go through his progressions and pulled the ball down soon as he realized his first option wasn't open, as was the case when he gave up the safety as well as at least 2 other sacks.

Sure, he had 380+ yards passing, but a lot of that came in the final 5 minutes when the Packers were down by two scores and the Vikings went to the prevent D (because Brad Childress is a terrible coach).

I love that Rodgers is already being considered a "great" quarterback when he has a losing record and one good statistical season under his belt. No doubt he is one of the top QBs in the league right now and could use more help, but let's save anointing him the next savior of Green Bay until he wins a couple of playoff games (oops, gotta make the playoffs first) with some MVP hardware.

Ok, so I just read through all of the comments on here and its pretty easy to realize that just about everyone on here who posted needs a refresher course on how everything played out with the Favre situation back in 2008.

After the loss to the Giants in the NFC Championship Game, Thompson and McCarthy tell Favre they would like him to make a decision by the NFL Draft in late April (which I believe is more than enough time). Rather than take up the entire time the team asked for he chose to retire some time in March, we all remember the emotional press conference.

Sometime in May, Favre began to regret his decision and wondered if he wanted to still play again. Thompson and McCarthy were open to the prospect and said he could have his starting job back should he decide to come back. This coming after the Packers drafted 2 QB's and annointed Rodgers as their starter. After mulling it over for a few days, Favre again decides its best for him to remain retired as he doesn't feel he could compete at a high level.

Now, we move onto July, I believe the 20th or 21st, and stories start to surface that Favre "has the itch to play again." After going through this twice already, just this off-season, the Packers tell Favre that they have moved on with Rodgers who has just gone through the entire training camp, has looked great in the offense, and they were going to stick with him. Favre immediately feels slighted and offended and demands his release because he doesn't feel wanted any longer. We all know the rest, he is traded to the Jets, starts off 8-3, and then tails off towards the end of the season due to an tricep injury, I believe.

The Packers also had to decide how they wanted to approach the long term viability of their organization. Rodgers contract was up after the end of the 2009 season so they ran the risk of losing him after what would be this season. This raised red flags because they knew he had a tremendous amount of talent from seeing him in training camps and practices for 3 season...not including the near come back victory in Dallas in 2007. After Favre's I don't want to play, I do want to play, I don't want to play, I do want to play, Thompson and McCarthy decided for the future of the organization, its best that we move on. Personally, I do not blame them at all for their decision and I believe it was the right one...this coming from a huge Favre fan (on the field, not really off the field). I'm first a Packers fan and then a Favre fan.

In relation to renhoekk's comments about drafting a qb in the first round with Favre on the roster; I still believe it was the right move based on the chances that Favre is actually still playing at this age (let alone never missing a game). The odd's of that happening are basically zero since its never been before. Clearly Favre is a freak of nature, but you cannot predict, in 2005, after he had already played 13 years in the league, that in his 19th year in the league he still would never have missed a start. The percentages don't add up.

In regards to the topic at hand and that is Matt's article, I still think its hard to compare the two qb's. From a talent and upside view, you must go with Rodgers. But when you add in all the intangibles, the experience, the great o-line and RB, its very hard to go against Favre. Someone made a comment earlier that hypothetically, if you switched the qbs and put Rodgers on the Vikings, the score would have been more like 45-10 with Rodgers being the winner. I don't know if the score would have been that lopsided, but I think its accurate. Rodgers was sacked 8 times last night, some of them being his fault for holding onto the ball for too long, but how many times would Favre have been sacked due to the fact that he isn't mobile enough anymore? Rodgers' feet probably helped him avoid another 2 or 3 sacks last night.

There was also some talk on here about Rodgers not being able to win clutch games last season. I remember at least 3 or 4 games last season where the Packers had the lead in the 4th Quarter and the defense allowed the other team to score late in the game (Carolina, Chicago, Atlanta come to mind). I also remember at least one game where we had a chance to win at the end but missed a late FG (at Minnesota). So while Rodgers may not have led them to the game winning score with less than a minute left, he may have put them ahead with 5 minutes to go. At some point, you have to put some responsibility on your defense and trust your defense to come through and win a game for you. You cannot put all the blame for each of those games on Rodgers shoulders.
All in all, this is a topic that will never die and we'll all never agree on. We all have our loyalties. I don't agree with the way Favre handled the situation and I don't think organization was left with much of a choice because then they would have lost Rodgers the following year and when Favre did in fact retire, lose all the work they had done with Rodgers and basically start over. But the organization didn't handle it very well either. Favre got what he wanted all along, to go to the team that he felt gave him the best chance to beat the Packers twice a season and get back to the Super Bowl. I think if the Packers can get their o-line situation figured out, you're looking at a completely different game at Lambeau in a few weeks, if not, probably looking at more of the same.

Enough for now, look forward to others comments.

Hey Heidi -

Lets go dangle Aaron Rodgers out in front of every other NFL team , good ones and poor ones. You don't think that there are teams that would take Rodgers now? Aaron Rodgers is at this moment is developing into a top QB. Not quite there yet - but on his way.

Matt
you are a little two enamored with A-Rod's performance last night. Yeah, he was sacked but it's his responsibility not to put the ball on the ground. His interception was a bad read, and should never have been thrown to Jennings. Finally, the o-line was horrid however, i counted 3 sacks where he held the ball far too long and it's just not leaving his hand quick enough.

Before you say he had a better game than favre, please note that brett made had zero turnovers & got the ball out of his hands on time.

Don't be so enamored with the yardage statistics, most of them came during desperation time at the end of the game.

Harry, I think you are the one with the many beverages... Once you pull down your favre glasses and stop kissing his butt, maybe you can focus on watching football games. if you look back at the previews and watch my comments, you will see that I exactly predicted how this game would play out, and it did. You have never played football at any level and I don't think you even have watched many games. Favre didn't win that game. His OLine and DLine did. But then again, who am I talking to?

Nubbers 1, agree with you 100%. One thing I don't understand is the criticism of Thompson for drafting Rodgers. There was talk of Rodgers going #1 to SF that year (2005), so when he inexplicably slid to #24 it was a no-brainer for the Packers to take him. They got a talented young QB that they could develop for a couple years until Brett retired, which is what happened. Say Favre retired after the 2005or 2006 season and Thompson hadn't drafted a QB; he would have been criticized by Packers fans for not having planned for the future at that position. And contrary to what renhoek would have us believe, it's not that easy to go out and find a good starting QB in free agency or a trade. Look at teams like the Browns, Chiefs, Redskins, Bills, 49ers and Lions: these teams have been searching for a quality QB for years (I think Stafford will be a good one for Detroit, still not sure how good Shaun Hill is in SF).

Sorry Matt, but it seems to me like everyone is missing the big picture here. Yes, Rodgers had a good game, but both GB turnovers were directly on him and had nothing to do with his poor Oline play. That out route should've never been thrown and the fumble was a result of Aaron holding the ball for almost 5 seconds against one of the best D-lines in the league. Inexcusable. Both of those turnovers came in or near field goal range and when the Packers were driving. If the team gets points out of those drives, it's a completely different ball game. So, you go ahead and take the QB who threw for a career high in passing yards for the better game and ignore that a large portion of his stats came when Minnesota had backed off into a soft zone, but excuse me while I take the one who didn't commit two game changing turnovers along with having a very nice stat line.

@ Scott M

The final score wasn't indicative of how lopsided this game was for two reasons...the fumble for 7 quick points and our propensity to give up the big play in the passing game. Aside from Winfield, our secondary was struggling to tackle, but it seems to me (albeit from a homer's perspective) more like a bad game vs. a problem that can't be fixed. While Griffin and M. Williams aren't superstars, they usually tackle a bit better than they did (However Finley did look very big and talented, that may have had something to do with it)

I'd say from a Packers defense standpoint, you acomplished the game plan, stop Peterson and make Favre beat you, which is exactly what happened. The Pack would've won this game last year because Jackson isn't capable of reading a defense.

I'm calling a 12-4 season for the Vikes, but that being said, I think this team matches up poorly to Indy, NE, Atl, Chi...I can't wait to play the Bears, it's gonna be good.

If you have to ask "what kind of crap did Brett Farve pull," you must of been hiding under a very large rock for a very long time. I can't recall a single instance where anyone in the Packer organization said Farve could not play. Yet, that was the theme. It's pointless to go chapter and verse again on that because it's irrelevant.
If you try to be fair, because the Farve-Rodgers comparison won't go away, there Is no question who was the better QB Monday night. I watched every game BF ever played. There is NO doubt in my mind that had he been under the same pressure Rodgers was, that it would have been at least a three interception game. In other words, had Farve still been the Packer QB, the drubbing would have been SUBSTANTIALLY worse.
The irony is that booting Farve out of GB was one of the few good decisions Thompson has made. One very bad decision, was forgetting how important the trenches are.

You're agenda-driven attempt to convince readers that Rogers was a better QB last night is ridiculous. Rodgers threw for more yards. Big deal. He also held the ball too long, fumbled, was intercepted and then got caught for a safety -- all three mistakes cost his team scoring opportunities.

If that had been Favre, you and every other anlayst would be proclaiming that Favre had finally lost it; that he was too slow to escape the rush; too indecisive to make hot reads or too quick to pull the trigger to his 'favorite WR' - leading to an easy INT.

Favre dared to go up against the team he loved but was forced to leave and won. Handily. There can be no question who's the better QB. NONE. NADA. ZIP. And probably will be until the day he, um, actually does retire.

The only question left for GB fans to ponder is whether Rodgers' benefactor deserves the opportunity to stick around and try to surround him with the help he'll need to be a winning QB. Or if he can.

Phooy...is Green Bay paying you on the side with the money they are not using for talent?

Rogers is NOT... a special talent. He may be "special" all right however...not all that as a QB.
Poor choices, mental erors like holding onto the ball too long, etc....no...he's not a better qb.

Brett Favre showed he can play & enjoyes it. Perhaps writers when they realize their short careers are over & didn't make much impact when they player might feel a little jealous & root for the underdog. I watched the game...Brett Fave was the better QB on the field. The better team won &... I'm acyually a Packer fan. Love Brett though. I'm not one of those wishy washy fans who forgets what he has done for football in a place many don't want to play.

From the management staff which makes poor choices on drafts & talent to the coaching staff which does not have their head in the game....they have disgraced the organization.
The QB Rogers....he's average...nothing special & not a future hall of fame qb.

It's not going to be a Packer year. I know it's early however that sure looks to be the fact.
They are rebuiling & don;t seem to know what they are building in Green Bay.
It's going to take someone with some brains & guts in Green Bay to fire the management & set things straight. Then, more rebuilding.

The Packers are where they were last seasons end. Perhaps they should thank Detroit.

Isn't it finally time that the Milwaukee media quits making excuses for MM and TT. They sound Like they would like to see Bart Starr come back or Tom Bratz and Lindy Infante. I HOLD MARK MURHY responsible for holding on to these clowns a year too long.

We all blame the offensive line......Wells, Sitton, Cooledge, Spitz, Clifton were on the 0-line when Brett was QB during their 13-3 season. The difference...Brett was running the real West Coast Offense....screens, short passes, dumps to backs....until the NFC Championship game where the play calling was run 2, throw deep route. Rodgers has to get rid of the ball sooner, MM needs to get away from 20-30+ routes. We have a smaller 0-line because of the Zone Blocking Scheme....never did run the ball well even in 2007...so this change has never worked. In my thoughts...the packer will continue to be average not because of the 0-line but the play calling.

What a lame article....


Rodgers has done what? It's hard to win games in the NFL, how many games has Rodgers won? Wake me up, when Rodgers leads the Packers to 2 Super Bowls. Let me know, when Rodgers wins 3 league MVPs. Let me know, when Rodgers can suit up week in and out for years and years, without missing a start.

Rodgers is talented, but his winning percentage is pretty similar to Russell in Oakland, case closed.

I guess the fact that Aaron Rodgers will never, ever, ever come close to putting up the numbers that Brett Favre has, that makes Rodgers the better QB? I'm not saying Rodgers is a bad QB, but in 50 or 100 years, Favre will be the one who is still a recognized name, and NOT Aaron Rodgers. People remember things that make it to the record books. Brett Favre has every career record Aaron Rodgers could want. Time will take it's toll, as good as Rodgers is, Favre is already immortal in the sports world.

TY Matt! My bird is gonna love this new cage lining you've provided! pffftttt

Matt -
What were you smokin' when you watched that game? Just because you don't like Favre that means you can't be objective? I though you were a "reporter" now. Favre was getting rid of the ball in most cases under 2 seconds or so and Rogers kept hanging on to it trying to make the big play which wasn't there except for the excellent play Michael Finley made on the 62 yard td. Rogers might be good but he ain't even half way there yet so stop annointing the guy until he actually does something. It's like giving President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize and he's only been in office for a few months. Oh.. right they did that didn't they.....