quote:

Originally posted by derps:
Hypothetically, if Green Bay comes out of the shute 1-4 and Rodgers has struggled in each game contributing largely to the losses, when does Brohm get a shot, escpecially if Brohm looked good in preseason.

I think the fact that they took Brohm and Flynn says they want Rodgers to be pushed or pushed out if thats what happens. I think Brohm will develop nicely.

been trolling at the Kfan boards too long?

quote:

Originally posted by Ghost of Lambeau:
Favre's first couple of seasons in GB showed promise at times, but also showed why you have to play in order to really get good. And in the process turns into this 3 time MVP, HOF QB.

Hasselback's first season in Seattle was less than stellar. He turned out ok.

Payton Mannings first season as starter in Indy was so, so. But you might say it worked out well for him.

His brother Eli finally gets it together and his team wins the SB. But it took longer than expected.

Even Bart Starr - remember him? - was around for a few seasons before a guy named Vince showed up, and gradually turned him into the QB who I believe still holds the record for yards per pass attempt - not to mention 5 NFL championships.

Moral of the story is, you got to pick a GOOD guy and show some faith in him. That would eliminate that guy in Chicago. I think AR is a good guy.

Good post.

quote:

Originally posted by BobC1:

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:

quote:

Originally posted by Bad Moon Rison:
Aliens colonized planet earth millions of years ago.

How do you figure? The Earth is only about 4,000 years old.

Actually dinasours appeared on earth about 230 million years ago and went extinct about 65 million years ago. They inhabited our earth for about 160 million years.

Bob, just laugh. It's a joke from one of the many wise arses that inhabit this board. This might help.

Church of FSM

Wish I had thought of it first.

Unless AR gets hurt, I think any hang wringing over a QB change is a moot point. They appear to have enough talent surrounding AR so that even a modest seaonanal performance on his part should keep his job safe. It is exciting to have a highly regarded potential starter in the back up role though. The downside is that that can also retard AR's development if it becomes a distraction.

Favre showed tremendous ability in 1992-1994. His main issue was throwing too many interceptions.

Rodgers will get a sufficient opportunity to show what he can do. Brohm will only get a chance if Rodgers misses time due to injury. I think the only chance of Brohm supplanting Rodgers as a starter in '08 is if Brohm plays significantly better over the course of several games after replacing an injured Rodgers.

We should also prepare to see Brohm at some point this year, assuming he winds up as the top backup. For me, this offseason has required a change in my internal approach to the GB QB position. I found myself thinking, "who cares who the number two guy is" when news came out about meeting with Fumblepepper, etc. That obviously was a pre-conditioned notion brought about by our last guy starting 273 games in a row.

I eventually realized that at this point, we need to care who the backup is. Folks are already on the "Rodgers is soft" hating bandwagon, and while I think that's pretty extreme and largely unfounded, the point remains that last season, a total of 11 of the 32 opening day starting QB's in the NFL started all 16 games. I don't know how many were simply yanked for stinking, but regardless, 2/3 of the league had to start more than one guy.

Looking purely at the odds, that means GB will more likely than not have to face the same situation at some point soon. There's a reason many, including me, think that of all the records Favre has, the most impressive is his consecutive starting streak. There's a reason no other QB in the history of the game has ever done that, and I guess after awhile what is in reality an anomaly starts to seem like the norm.

As far as AR getting yanked, I agree with most - he'll get at least a full season, unless he's simply horrible to the point where the rest of the team has no belief in him or he gets seriously hurt. I'm also confident that MM can get him moving in the right developmental direction. The reigning in he did with Favre was one of his best coaching achievements IMHO, and we all know Favre was a tough horse to corral. I can't think that AR, being as young and unproven as he is, will be anything but an open book with MM as he learns the game. MM got Aaron Brooks to perform at a PB level, and after he left NO we all saw Brooks throwing passes in the wrong direction, etc. MM's coaching legacy, and TT's GM legacy, both to a large extent, will be defined on how the post-Favre QB position plays out over time.

Since it's May 9 and we're speculating when Rodgers get's yanked? I say right now twice a week.

quote:

Originally posted by JJSD:


Looking purely at the odds, that means GB will more likely than not have to face the same situation at some point soon. There's a reason many, including me, think that of all the records Favre has, the most impressive is his consecutive starting streak. There's a reason no other QB in the history of the game has ever done that, and I guess after awhile what is in reality an anomaly starts to seem like the norm.

.

Absolutely. It's might take a while to sink in, but GB is once again, just as vulnerable at QB as every other team again. Not that BF was bullet proof, but he sure made you feel like he was.

quote:

Originally posted by BobC1:

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:

quote:

Originally posted by Bad Moon Rison:
Aliens colonized planet earth millions of years ago.

How do you figure? The Earth is only about 4,000 years old.

Actually dinasours appeared on earth about 230 million years ago and went extinct about 65 million years ago. They inhabited our earth for about 160 million years.

Way to blow it, Mr. Scientist. But at least we agree on when aliens MIGHT HAVE colonized the planet...

Oh, yeah, we're talking about QB changes.

I think Favre colonized the planet millions of years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by JJSD:
...I eventually realized that at this point, we need to care who the backup is. Folks are already on the "Rodgers is soft" hating bandwagon, and while I think that's pretty extreme and largely unfounded, the point remains that last season, a total of 11 of the 32 opening day starting QB's in the NFL started all 16 games. I don't know how many were simply yanked for stinking, but regardless, 2/3 of the league had to start more than one guy. ...

This is a good thought to ponder. Is having two rookies behind Rodgers a good idea? I like the idea of having Rodgers, Brohm, and Flynn on the roster. Granted, it has been only a couple of weeks, but I would rather hang on to both Brohm and Flynn than pick up a veteren and release either one of them. I am not sure what the practice squad rules are, but I am pretty sure that keeping one of them on via the practice squad and picking up a vet is also an option. I just see all three of these guys as having pretty good potential overall and would not want to give up on them unless any of them give ample reason to cut them.

Starting 1-4 is not a reason to bench Rodgers. Kneejerk reactions to hypothetical questions will always get you in trouble... unless you are auditioning for an analyst gig at ESPN...

Brett Favre and Peyton Manning are not the norms when it comes to health of QB's in the league.

Very rarely do guys make it through a regular season without being dinged much less missing time. To that extent the #2 QB position is pretty important and I agree with most of the comments about the backup QB.

As for Rodgers, barring TERRIBLE QB play I doubt he'll be pulled at any point nor should he. He's their QB until someone tells him otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by Limburger:

This is a good thought to ponder. Is having two rookies behind Rodgers a good idea?

We had Detmer and Brunell backing up Favre in 94. Neither one of them had any starting experience.

Both Rodgers and Brohm were toward the top of their class in college, and should expect to be starters in the NFL. Brohm should expect to be the starter, based on his talents, if not now, in the next couple of years, if not Green Bay, elsewhere. Rodgers has shown he is very solid, with a few seasons in the NFL. Who the better quarterback ultimately is, I don't know.

quote:

At what point does McCarthy make a change at QB?

Tuesday!

quote:

Originally posted by BackThePack:

quote:

Originally posted by Limburger:

This is a good thought to ponder. Is having two rookies behind Rodgers a good idea?

We had Detmer and Brunell backing up Favre in 94. Neither one of them had any starting experience.

Was just posing the question and was not making an argument one way or the other. I did say in my post that I would rather hold on to both rookies than pick up a veteren if given the choice between the two.

quote:

Originally posted by Pakrz:

Ahem!



Rodgers should be given full reign of this team in 2008. The only way he should be yanked is if he cannot play due to injury.

Speculating that Rodgers will get injured is not an educated guess.

Wishing he gets injured so you can be declared "right" with your "educated guess" will get you banned from this forum

quote:

Originally posted by Bad Moon Rison:

quote:

Originally posted by BobC1:

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:

quote:

Originally posted by Bad Moon Rison:
Aliens colonized planet earth millions of years ago.

How do you figure? The Earth is only about 4,000 years old.

Actually dinasours appeared on earth about 230 million years ago and went extinct about 65 million years ago. They inhabited our earth for about 160 million years.

Way to blow it, Mr. Scientist. But at least we agree on when aliens MIGHT HAVE colonized the planet...

http://www.amazon.com/History-mathematical-statistics-E...id=1210727593&sr=1-1
History: Fiction or Science? Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics. Eclipses and zodiacs. Chronology Vol.I (Paperback)
by Anatoly Fomenko

Review
Earth was flat. Humans saw that it was flat, books were telling scholars that it was flat, teachers were teaching students it was flat; scientists knew it was flat. There was some disagreement about the way it was kept afloat, most common versions were elephants, whales and turtles, but that was subject for scientific discussion. Until Magellan sailed around the globe and proved all this science wrong. This book is precisely about same situation. Although it is written for casual reader, it still bears all the traits of scientific research. Anyway, history as a science is based on books written by previous generation of historians, who based their works on works of previous generation of historians, supplemented by archeological digs (great deal of assumptions was made there too, as people didn't usually mark their belongings with dates), so it definitely needs some mathematical treatment. It is very difficult to digest the new version of history from Fomenko without getting allergic shock. Official timeline is accepted in the same way as gravity, and movement of the sun; many nations have developed their identity based on official history. Literally speaking chronology is in our culture, in our roots, personal identity. Someone said here that this book was written by Russian nationalist to reassure Russian national identity. May be so, but I think for Russians will be very difficult to swallow that they were actually Mongols and Tatars too. This book will turn your world upside down. Literally. --New Book Review, 03-03-2007 (CA, USA)

Review
History: Fiction Or Science? is a quite scholarly expose of the extreme limitations of our understanding of human history. So few physical records have survived hundreds, let alone thousands of years that it casts even the most conventional understanding of what really happened into doubt. Chapters address the problems of historical chronology in general, astronomical datings, astronomy in the Old Testament, methods of dating ancient events via mathematical statistics, the construction of a global chronological map, the Dark Ages, and much more. Black-and-white illustrations add a vivid touch to this scholarly work that may appear controversial yet deals with a very serious issue directly affecting humanity's comprehension of its own past. --Midwest Book Review (Oregon, WI USA)

Please tell me you believe this.

McCarthy doesn't have the stones to give Favre the hook in favor of Rodgers.

Please tell me what that was. Being shallow sometimes affects my comprehension.

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
McCarthy doesn't have the stones to give Favre the hook in favor of Rodgers.

Channeling Oshbaul tonight?

nah, I think we had this thread last year... that was the point.