MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Friday, January 30, 2015 |  Madison, WI: 20.0° F  Mostly Cloudy
Collapse Photo Bar

Barry gone, Calhoun gone.

Badgers, Packers, Mallards. Paddling, running, golfing. And bikes!

Which Wisconsin teams will be winners next year?

UW football
7
50%
Packers
0
No votes
Both
2
14%
Neither
5
36%
 
Total votes : 14

Postby buckyor » Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:12 pm

[Stocco's] become the best Badger quarterback since Bevell . . . .


Well, that's high praise. . . . why not Bud Keyes? Or Neil Graff?

The Packers scenario is a little more precarious, but hear me out - they either make Bates the head coach or keep him on as defensive coordinator.


If the Packers don't make Bates the head coach, I don't see him staying. The new HC will probably want his own guy, and Bates will pursue another position.

I'd much rather have [the Packers] take defensive studs with their first three picks.


Agreed completely. I think there's still talent on the O side of the ball, with or without Brett. The D could still be upgraded, particularly along the line.

One other thing a lot of people forget is that the Pack's first rounder from last year didn't contribute at all to the play on the field. Not many teams can say that - 20/20 hindsight says that was dumb, but at the time, they thought they could get away with it.


Don't agree that it was dumb. Not all draft picks should focus on the short term. If Rodgers turns out to be a good quarterback after #4 leaves (something that I think we have no reliable information about one way or another), then I think it was a good pick, regardless of what he did or didn't do this year. If he turns out to be a stiff, I'll say it was a bad pick, but not necessarily dumb. You have to remember- until a day or two before the draft, Rodgers was projected to be a very high draft pick, perhaps the first overall selection. If the Packers truly believed that he was one of the best players in the draft, it's hard to fault them for using the #25 (or whatever) on him. That's a real value pick. If he turns out to suck, then we can say that their analysis and judgment of Rodgers' abilities was flawed (ie, he wasn't as good as they thought he was), but it's hard to fault them for going after that perceived value, particularly with Favre approaching the twilight of his career. In fact, in light of Favre's awful performance this past season, it could well turn out to be a brilliant pick. It just depends on what Rodgers can do.
buckyor
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2328
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 1:09 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

As was written in the Book of Lombardi

Postby Marvell » Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:47 pm

buckyor wrote: In fact, in light of Favre's awful performance this past season, it could well turn out to be a brilliant pick.


I disagree that Favre's performance last season was simply 'awful;' as a matter of fact, it didn't start out bad at all. After six games he had had three 300-yard passing games and his quarterback rating was in the low 90's; projected out over a 16-game season he was on a pace to toss 4,000 yards and his usual 30+ touchdowns. With all the injuries it was inevitable that his numbers would have slipped somewhat, but the nose dive that his stats took was a simple matter of Favre giving up on the team. There was a slight return there with the Seattle game, but I think what happened to Favre at the end of last season was basically psychological in nature, a public manifestation of his private ambivalence over whether playing pro football on a losing team was worth the effort.

If he comes back next year it will be because Favre thought long and hard about it and decided that yes, even losing football is better than no football than all. And if he really did believe that - and committed himself 100% to that belief - he might truly become, at last, The Master.

And lo - the rest of the NFC North would fall as wheat before the scythe.
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6995
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Postby tibor » Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:52 am

Dumb was the wrong word - I was rushing to get to a meeting.

What I meant to say was that it was a pick that probably cost Sherman his job. And with 20/20 hindsight, if he's the kind of guy who puts himself over the organization, it would be easy to say to himself, "Self, you should have picked someone who could have helped the team immediately, and maybe you wouldn't be sending out resumes right now."
tibor
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:55 am

Postby Luckypants » Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:25 pm

Smartypants wrote: No self-respecting Bears fan is sad to see Favre go, unless you meant you're sad to see him go because of foregone opportunities for the Bears D-backs.


I have to say that, as a Bears fan, I've been wanting Favre to retire for years. But this year? I found myself hoping that he'd stay in. He was just that bad. I have many friends who are Packer fans - hell, I married one. But I agree with Smartypants - I just cannot, in good conscience, root for them. Ever.

My fear is that the Pack - who seemed before this year to have a permanent horseshoe stuck up their asses - will find yet another franchise quaterback and not feel the pain of the quarterback search that has eluded the Bears during his tenure. Maybe it's just my lot in life to be a long suffering Chicago sports fan in Packer country.
Luckypants
Senior Member
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:10 pm

Re: As was written in the Book of Lombardi

Postby buckyor » Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:54 pm

Marvell wrote:
buckyor wrote: In fact, in light of Favre's awful performance this past season, it could well turn out to be a brilliant pick.


I disagree that Favre's performance last season was simply 'awful;' as a matter of fact, it didn't start out bad at all. After six games he had had three 300-yard passing games and his quarterback rating was in the low 90's; projected out over a 16-game season he was on a pace to toss 4,000 yards and his usual 30+ touchdowns. With all the injuries it was inevitable that his numbers would have slipped somewhat, but the nose dive that his stats took was a simple matter of Favre giving up on the team. There was a slight return there with the Seattle game, but I think what happened to Favre at the end of last season was basically psychological in nature, a public manifestation of his private ambivalence over whether playing pro football on a losing team was worth the effort.

If he comes back next year it will be because Favre thought long and hard about it and decided that yes, even losing football is better than no football than all. And if he really did believe that - and committed himself 100% to that belief - he might truly become, at last, The Master.

And lo - the rest of the NFC North would fall as wheat before the scythe.


Sorry, but Favre was awful all year. I could count on one hand the number of good games he had. They were outnumbered by games in whiuch his poor perfomance had a direct impact on the result.

Game 1 loss to the Lions- 3 turnovers. Cost at least 10 points. He sucked.

Game 2 loss to the Browns. 2 more turnovers, including a pick in the end zone. Cost another 10 points.

Game 3 loss to the Bucs- 3 more turnovers. Cost was more than the one point margin of victory, that's for damn sure.

Game 4 loss to Panthers- Favre had a good game. Led a spirited comeback that came up short. But 2 more turnovers, including a fumble on the opening drive that gave the Panthers the ball inside the 10 started Carolina on a roll.

Game 5 (hey a win!) over the Saints. Good game. No turnovers, Pack wins in a rout.

Game 6 loss to Vikes- Another good game.

Game 7 loss to Cincinnati- Five picks. Throwing the ball past the line of scrimmage. Looked like a junior college QB.

Game 8 loss to Stillers- another killer fumble that cost at leat10 points and maybe 14.

Game 9 win over Falcons- Pretty good game.

Game 10 loss to Vikes- 2 more picks, including another one returned for a TD.

Game 11 loss to Iggles- 2 more picks (plus another overturned by penalty), including that high school play where he just winged it into the end zone.

Game 12 loss to Bears- 2 more picks, one returned for a TD and another retuend 95 yards to give the Bears a FG right before half. Cost at least 17 points.

Game 13 win (given to us by the refs- thanks guys!) over Lions - a pick and a fumble. By this yea'rs standards, this was a pretty good game.

Game 14 loss to Ravens- 2 ints, 14-29, outplayed by Kyle Boller(!).

Game 15 loss to Bears- 4 more picks, including another run back for a TD.

Game 16 win against Seahawks JV squad- pretty good by this years' lowered standards. Only one pick and one lost fumble.

I'll say Favre had good games against the Saints, the first Vikes game, the Falcons, the second Lions game, and the Seahawks. I can only give him a half for the Panthers. That's 5 and a half (ok, I need an extra half finger), and I think I'm being pretty generous. The rest of the games were either poor or or downright awful.
buckyor
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2328
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 1:09 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: As was written in the Book of Lombardi

Postby Marvell » Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:35 pm

buckyor wrote:I'll say Favre had good games against the Saints, the first Vikes game, the Falcons, the second Lions game, and the Seahawks. I can only give him a half for the Panthers. That's 5 and a half (ok, I need an extra half finger), and I think I'm being pretty generous. The rest of the games were either poor or or downright awful.


Right. And how many good games did Kyle Orton have? Or Duante Culpepper? Or Joey Harrington? Maybe 5 and a half between them? And yet all of their teams finished ahead of the Pack in the NFC North.

I think Favre showed us a lot of things this year. He proved without a doubt that he still has the physical tools to play quarterback in the NFL. The question is if he is psychologically and emotionally stable enough to play. And that's the decision Favre should be making - can he screw his head together for another year, especially with all the uncertainty surrounding the team.

I'd still take an insane Favre over any of the other quarterbacks in the division.
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6995
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Re: As was written in the Book of Lombardi

Postby buckyor » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:15 pm

Marvell wrote:Right. And how many good games did Kyle Orton have? Or Duante Culpepper? Or Joey Harrington? Maybe 5 and a half between them? And yet all of their teams finished ahead of the Pack in the NFC North.

I think Favre showed us a lot of things this year. He proved without a doubt that he still has the physical tools to play quarterback in the NFL. The question is if he is psychologically and emotionally stable enough to play. And that's the decision Favre should be making - can he screw his head together for another year, especially with all the uncertainty surrounding the team.

I'd still take an insane Favre over any of the other quarterbacks in the division.


So you want to compare Favre to a rookie, a third year bust and a guy who was injured for half the year? Hey, if that's your standard, you're entitled to it, but I think my guys ought to be held to a somewhat higher standard.
buckyor
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2328
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 1:09 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: As was written in the Book of Lombardi

Postby Marvell » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:57 pm

marvell wrote:
buckyor wrote:I'd still take an insane Favre over any of the other quarterbacks in the division.


So you want to compare Favre to a rookie, a third year bust and a guy who was injured for half the year? Hey, if that's your standard, you're entitled to it, but I think my guys ought to be held to a somewhat higher standard.


Don't you mean lower standard?

And yes, that is my standard - which team in the NFC North has the best quarterback. Which doesn't seem like such an unreasonable standard, in that any more grandiose ambition would necessarily have winning the NFC North as a precursor to higher things.

Besides, Culpepper was sucking worse than Favre when he got injured - something you conveniently excluded from your precis.

Barring developments in the draft and free agency, Green Bay with Favre would still have a leg up on the other teams in the division in the quarterback department. I eagerly await the artful articulation of your delusions to the contrary.
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6995
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Re: As was written in the Book of Lombardi

Postby Smartypants » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:46 pm

Marvell wrote:Barring developments in the draft and free agency, Green Bay with Favre would still have a leg up on the other teams in the division in the quarterback department.


Well you'd hope that would give them an "arm" up but given the way he used it last season, I can see why you'd avoid using that word. And, despite your assertion, they still managed to finish last in said division. Get used to it.
Smartypants
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 9:45 am
Location: In an office somewhere....

Postby buckyor » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:59 pm

I'm not sure how articulate this is, and since I won't be quoting obscure 18th century French poets, I'm not sure you're gonna understand it, but here it is:

I don't think Favre is a shitty QB.

I do think Favre had a shitty season.

I think the primary (but not only) reason he had a shitty season is because he was surrounded by enablers who basically endorsed whatever he did, and simply shrugged off his increasingly boneheaded decision making by saying, "Hey, that's Brett, you get the good with the bad." Well, we've gotten a lot more good out of him in the past, but this year it was mostly bad.

Now, if you want to know which of the four QBs named I'd want to start for me next fall- assuming everyone is healthy, but also assuming they are at their current level of development (ie, Orton is now a second yearpro, Favre has 14 years under his belt), I think it's a tossup between Favre and Culpepper. Orton has yet to show that he can play consistently at this level, so he's out. Same thing for Harrington, who has more experience but no more success. At least Orton was able to win games, even if they were ugly.

Favre has the history, but is approaching the end of his career. He makes bad decisions, throws a lot of balls up for grabs and (for the first time in my memory) missed a lot of guys who were running wide open. He's not broken down physically yet, but he's beginning to show a good amount of wear and tear. (On the other hand, he did win two games for the Bears this year- how many QBs can say that?).

Culpepper has had some significant success (not yet as great as what Favre has had in the past), is still young and strong, and has a great deal of talent but he still needs to learn how to play the game and stay out of trouble. Both Favre and Culpepper need a coach who can get their best games out of them; neither had that this year.

Finally, I don't think it's enough at the end of the year to be able to say "Yeah, we might have sucked, but our QB is better than the Bears' or the Lions'." I want to be able to say that we were really good - not just in the Norris, but compared to the NFL as a whole. I'd rather have an average QB and go to the Super Bowl than a great QB and finish in last place.
buckyor
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2328
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 1:09 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

U can't see me the Dee-Oh-Double-Gee

Postby Marvell » Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:31 pm

Marvell wrote:
massimo wrote: Will anybody out there predict winning seasons for either team next year?


Yeah, sure - I'll do it.

Stocco is the real deal - he's definitely become the best Badger quarterback since Bevell - maybe since VanderKellen. I think he's progressed to the point where, even with a green receiving corps, he'll still be effective enough to win a majority of home Big Ten games. With a road win and no stumbles in the pre-conference schedule you're looking at a winning season and some kind of bowl action as the proverbial slam dunk.

The Packers scenario is a little more precarious, but hear me out - they either make Bates the head coach or keep him on as defensive coordinator. They bring in free agents on defense - experienced players, especially in the defensive backfield, and use the draft picks on playmakers. Offense, defense - whoever is available and has the greatest potential to pull of spectacular shit, that's who you draft.

Favre is gone - if not this year, the next. It's time to find the new Favre, or Favre's - the kind of player that gets the whole country talking about Green Bay. Unlike some, I don't think it has to be a quarterback - as has been pointed out, Chicago won with Jim McMahon - a good but certainly not great quarterback. But they did have Walter Payton, and Mike Singletary - two players who dominated their positions in the same kind of way that Favre has dominated his.

The Packer didn't win the SuperBowl on the strength of Brett Favre's arm, after all - they won it on Desmond Howard's kick returning, and on Reggie's hump move. Favre put them in the position to win, but it was the quality of the surrounding cast that made the Pack champions.

Javon Walker has the potential to be that kind of player, if his injuries don't set him back, but he's really it among the current Packers. Still, there's enough returning talent to form the nucleus of a good team - but Thompson needs to be ruthless in his cuts. I say out of Fisher, Green and Davenport you maybe keep one (Davenport). Bubba Franks should be gone; so should Ferguson.

If Thompson is good at his job and all the chips fall right I think the Packers can bounce back and go 9-7, maybe even 10-6. They'll be playing the NFC West and AFC East, divisions bottom heavy with chum. Hopefully the Vikings and Detroit disarray will continue, giving the Pack a plethora of potential patsies.


I'd just like to bump this up one time, for all the haters.

While I whiffed on the Bates hire and on keeping Davenport over Green, I was dead on about Bubba Franks and Ferguson, free agents in the secondary, and only one game over-optimistic on overall won-loss record.

Otherwise I'm clean, baby.

P.S. - Smartypants can (in the immortal words of Snoop Dogg) 'eat a dick.'
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6995
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Previous

Return to Sports, Recreation & Biking

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar