Slow Black Running Backs Play Forever

We have more civil disagreements here than any board I've ever seen, which is the way I like it and want it to stay. It wouldbe pretty dull if all of us agreed on everything. Of course when someone comes on here who opposes what we believe (a "bombthrower" to use Aragorn's term) it can be a little different.
smiley2.gif



I understand where Bart and Aragorn are coming from on Favre. I'm not a huge fan so I can see the good and bad of his play, though there's no question he's going to be recognized as an all-time great, already is. I agree about his deficiencies, but I know it'll be sad when he's not in the NFL. He's fun to watch and other than Manning and maybe Brady, there just aren't any white superstars in the NFL anymore, at least ones treated as such by the media.
 
I'm done with my defence of bret favre postings for now and nothing said on this site or any other will change the fact that he is a first ballot hall of famer as i am sure his worst of detractors will agree. bart your comparisons of favre to nolan ryan and mickey mantle were good points as far as them being great players who could have been even greater, but that kind of comment could apply to us all in whatever we are doing. still it was a insightful point you made. i need to chill out for now. bye
 
Your right Don, it would get boring if we didn't have some differences of opinion.
 
If I remember right, Favre was one of the least sacked QB that year.
The announcers said that his linemen vowed that Strahan wasn't going to
set the record on their QB.



Do you think Favre had the decency to ask those guys, who protected his
ass all game long against the league's No 1. sack leader, what they
thought about giving up the record setting sack?



If he didn't, its UNCONSCIONABLE on his part to do that to his
teammates, particularly to his lineman who spend the entire game
protecting his behind. IMO, that is on par with walking off
the field with time left on the clock, just like Randy Moss.
 
Good point white shogun. Or just like Dan Rather walking off the set while still on the air! Couldn't help myself on that one.
smiley36.gif
 
Shogun, the lineman played fabulously well all year long receiving few accolades. Brett was well protected and Green was the toast of the town, running through gaping holes created by the likes of Tauscher, Clifton, Wahle, Flanagan and co. Laboring in obscurity the beasts of burdenrarely get star treatment but if protection breaks down they are the first ones led to the slaughterhouse. I cheered for them throughout the game, was sure their collective iron will would prevail.Victory was within reach until... until ! It is a bitter pill, let me just say they were not vanquished but betrayed. Mel Gibson could write a pretty good screen play for that game, don't you think? All right I'm being way too melodramatic, but seriously, those boys deserved better.
 
I am appalled. I don't think many of you have stopped to consider just what a remarkable accomlishment it is to take a team which has seen all of two winning seasons in twenty years to playoff contention every single year for damn near a decade and a half.

Find me another guy who did anything approaching that. The Packers have not had a losing season since Brett Favre became our starting Quarterback, that's thirteen straight years, find me another quarterback who managed that, anytime, anywhere--NFL-wise at least. Stop looking, it's never been done. If you look further why don't you try to find simply one guy in the entirity of the NFL who has ever played 14 years in the league and never on a losing team. Maybe you might find one, I cannot.

Why do you suppose that might be? Why is he always winning? Maybe because he actually understands how to win, and perhaps that might explain that record as well as those four and six interception games. He'll do whatever it takes--including looking like a fool-- in order to try to win. Bears fans, and their sychophants, delight in reminding us of Favre's failures, but you go back and find me a list of teams that won playoff games when they were down 17-0 halfway through the first quarter. No one's ever done that--not even Frank Reich--it's an impossible task. Like Reich in that magical '92 playoff game: he let it all hang out, and he got us back within a TD, which was pretty remarkable.


Four or six interceptions, I don't care. I just want a guy who fights, and with Brett Favre I know I have that. Peyton Manning laid down scoring all of three pathetic points in his game, no one's ever won a playoff game with such a gutless display. To the likes of some he looked 'cautious' to the likes of me he looked castrated. I guess I'm lucky to have Brett Favre as my quarterback, I know that no matter how bad the score, or how bad the day he's having he'll be doing everything in his power to try to win, no matter how bad it turns out. He won't ever give up and stumble home with 3 points like Peyton manning did this last year, or how Joe Montanta did from '85-'86---at least Favre puts up a fight and will not kneel.


The Strahan thing...well, look at it again and realize all that mattered that game was the Packers getting homefield advantage. That wasn't Brett's finest moment before the camera, nor afterwards when he tried to pretend he didn't do it. However his job is not to safegard the records of juiced-up steriods freaks, it's to do his damndest to get the Pack in the Superbowl.

You go back and look at the circumstances and you tell me what happened. Before the game he mischieviously suggested that Strahan could have the sack if he could have the win. Early in the game he could have given Strahan the sack but ran out of bounds instead--a half second hesitation and Strahan could have pushed him out of bounds for the sack. He didn't let that happen.

He did let it happen later--but let's look at the circumstances. Late in the game we had to punt to the Giants and give them an off chance of winning. The week before the Bengals had won a game under similar circumstances, so this wasn't a slam dunk--and we really needed that win to ensure a home game in Lambeau for the first time in four years.

Before you condemn overmuch, look at the result of that lay-down play. After eluding Strahan the whole game--including one where it woulda been easy to give it up were that his sole goal--Brett lets Strahan have it. Afterwhich the defending NFC champion Giants don't even try to block the punt, they're all on the field congratulating Strahan on his 'sack.' When they put their offense on the field they just run the clock out with worthless plays. After the game a NY sportswriter asks Fassel why he didn't even bother to try to win in the last minutes after the sack, and Fassel smiles and says "no comment."

So, if your only dog in that fight was that juiced-up steroid freak's 'record', perhaps you mighta been nonplussed. However if you were the QB whose job it was to try to put the Packers in the best position to win the Super Bowl, you wouldn't have given a damn and woulda clapped for his cleverness in forcing their early capitulation.

BTW, any sack 'record' that doesn't have Carl Eller's or Deacon Jones' name on it was an entirely transitory and worthless thing anyway. All that amounted to was Favre let Strahan have a sack that gave him the highest total from '82-'01, and in return the Giants let us win without trying for a last minute comeback.

I count that a fair deal, and while I can understand Favre not trying to explain this to the media, I do agree it wasn't his best moment--but I'm glad he did it. He's a winner, and thank God he plays for us.

Whyt don't you go out there and get one of those running QBs whose never won a damn thing and don't understand how football is played? They wouldn't have given up that 'sack'--but they also wouldn't have made the your team the best team in football since '92, like Favre has for the Packers?

Last note:
If you think 30 and 32 TDs the last two years means he 'done', you're really not a very astute observer of NFL football, are you?
 
Good point about Deacon Jones and Carl Ellers, and that's the exact reason I wouldn't give the record away to someone, whether it be Strahan or anyone. If guys like Favre did that on purpose back in the 60's, they would have been tongue-lashed by the coach at the least.
 
Thank you highway man for taking over where i left off. I got a little upset last night over all this bret isn't all that great malarkey. you made some excellent points and i can't improve on any of them. the strahan thing was a mistake and i'll grant a stupid one, But come on guys, this is BRET FAVRE we are talking about and this is caste football too. Why are we tearing down one of our own? Who's next, lance armstrong? i stand by all the other postings i made yesterday but i shouldn't have got upset about it.
 
Highwayman, what's with this Bear fan stuff? In the past I've cheered and ballyhooed Favre's accomplishments as much as anybody. In fact my posts here have contained a generous amount of praise for elements of his game. A common trait of a Farvophiliac is the inability to be objective. Criticism is not taken lightly and every effort will be made to vindicate or absolve Brett of blame. .


You wrote: Four or six interceptions, I don't care. I just want a guy who fights, and with Brett Favre I know I have that


Four or six interceptions and you don't care as long as he fights? Where did you come up with that one, thought I'd heard every excuse imaginable... I applaud you.


Another: The Strahan thing...well, look at it again and realize all that mattered that game was the Packers getting homefield advantage. That wasn't Brett's finest moment before the camera, nor afterwards when he tried to pretend he didn't do it. However his job is not to safegard the records of juiced-up steriods freaks, it's to do his damndest to get the Pack in the Superbowl.
So, if your only dog in that fight was that juiced-up steroid freak's 'record', perhaps you mighta been nonplussed


All that mattered in that game to YOU was homefield advantage and the Super Bowl. The integrity of the game is far more important than a playoff advantage. No, Brett's job is not to maintain records of Steroid freaksbut it was wrong to let his friend Strahan break it. You don't know if Jones had more sacks in one year, since as you say no records were kept. Gastineau did however HOLD the record since they were tracked and no one including Favre had the right to WEASEL it away from him. Gimme a break about the steroid freak line! How many football players don't take them? You think the packers are juice free?


Your explanation of why Favre did what he did is amazing. I can understand trying to minimize damage but you've created afanciful scenario which commends and praises him for his deception.
 
Colonel_Reb said:
Good point about Deacon Jones and Carl Ellers, and that's the exact reason I wouldn't give the record away to someone, whether it be Strahan or anyone. If guys like Favre did that on purpose back in the 60's, they would have been tongue-lashed by the coach at the least.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're right, Colonel. Maybe back in those days they cared more about individual 'records' and personal accomplishments than winning football games.

Considering how it turned out, the worst thing about the incident in my mind was Brett afterwards trying to pretend he didn't do it. That was ridiculous, he looked foolish lying about it, though he'd kinda painted himself into a corner by making it so obvious.

Well, if you dislike Strahan you can rest assured the final result took all the pleasure out of it for him. Whenever his fantastic seasson comes up, no one remembers the other twenty-some sacks, they only remember the last one. He's said he's sorry it ever happened, and it's not like he really had anything to do with it.
 
That's what happened, Bart. Go watch it again, that 'sack' sealed it for the Packers. Brett charmed the Giants into quitting.

Frankly I don't think the integrity of the game is threatened in the slightest by who holds a record like that. If they cared at all about the meaningfulness of the 'record' they'd go back and see who really holds it by looking at the tapes. The NFL tried to pretend this was like breaking the home run record 'cause it was good for ratings, but that was just silly.

Yes, I'd rather have a QB who, when he fails, at least fails greatly--giving all he's got--than a guy who just gives up and minces around afraid to do anything that might make him look like the goat. If you're getting smoked by seventeen points before your QB throws his third pass you're not gonna win unless he airs it out and tries desperately to come back. That's when they're waiting on it and know he's got to as well, making it very likely he's going to throw inteception after interception.
 
Dudes! Brett Favre has to be one of our GODS! If we can't find some love for that guy we are way too picky!
 
Okay jaxvid , since you have written so eloquently on so many subjects I will honor your sentiments.An emotional heart felt belief, true or false, will triumph overreason every time.Such is the nature ofhumankind.Besides, I don't relish putting out candles in the sanctuaries of the gods.
 
Lest this be any further misconstrued, here it is again, hopefully more succintly put, without subtlety, humor, or sarcasm:



1) Brett Favre is a first ballot hall of famer.



2) Comparisons made in my posts were related to Favre today v Favre of
old. Comparisons to Chris Chandler were tongue in cheek, such a
shocking one at least that I was certain there could be no
misconstruing of what was meant (although even Chandler doesn't get the
credit he deserved for taking the Falcons to the SB.)



3) Yes, he is still better than most of the QB's on the field today.



4) He himself has acknowledged he is considering retirement.
There is no shame in seeing you would like to see him retire at the
top, e.g. John Elway, best case scenario, as opposed to Tony Dorsett,
Emmitt Smith, et al at the bottom of their game, washed up and used up.




5) It IS possible that he let his linemen know what he was about to
give up the sack; in that case it is still offensive but less
egregious. However, its not necessary to bash his 'roided up line in
order to defend Favre himself, particularly since he himself has his
own issues with controlled substances.



6) Regardless of past records or lack thereof, Deacon Jones and others,
Favre's linemen I'm sure didn't want to be a part of any sack record,
asterisked or not.



7) Favre IS an ironman and a gamer.



8) Just because he is an ironman, a gamer, and first ballot hall of
famer, it doesn't excuse substance abuse or giving away an NFL record
at the expense of his teammates.



9) Call em straight, regardless. You can't go wrong that way, black or white.
 
I have never been that high on Brett Favre, especially since his
despicable falling down for Strahan so he could break the sack record.
That was unforgivable, and just supports my contention that these games
are fixed. No real competitor would do such a thing. Favre has always
been a gambling, high risk/high reward type of QB. He threw a ton of
interceptions early in his career, but was never criticized by the
media, unlike almost every other white QB who has anywhere near as bad
an interception ratio. Favre was given plenty of time to develop,
unlike many other young white QBs who were benched for good because of
the exact same kind of mistakes. Favre benefited enormously from the
Packer coaching staff, which also developed Mark Brunell and Matt
Hasselbeck during that time. There's no denying Favre's ability, or the
fact he has been very durable and led the Packers to a lot of wins.
During the past few seasons, he has faded badly and is making tons of
mistakes that other QBs would unquestionably be benched for. Favre is
hardly a white role model, IMHO. He had substance abuse and alcohol
problems, and his sister was involved in a drive-by shooting (she
was riding in the car that shots were fired from- not a place any
respectable human being would find themselves in). Of course,
that's not Brett's fault, but it says something about his family.



Finally, Brett Favre is the only white athlete today that has never
been criticized by anyone in the media, to my knowledge. Watching Favre
on Monday Night Football, with John Madden positively drooling over his
every move, is almost as unbearable as watching any game with Michael
Vick playing.
 
Bart-



I agree with you completely. Even if Favre never did anything else
wrong, the Strahan incident is unforgivable in and ot itself. If Favre
had laid down for some white player (assuming they could find one who
is allowed to play that much) to break Bruce Smith's career sack record
or something, then every lame, wanna-be comedian on ESPN would be going
nuts. Stephen A. Smith would bring his illiterate non-eloquence into
the football arena. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would organize
protests. Gastineau was no more a "freak" than the scores of black
thugs who regularly commit violent crimes and are never punished (for
instance, "Klller" Ray Lewis). I think that it's obvious
that white athletes are being discriminated against at all levels of
organized sports these days, and that is clearly wrong. I think Caste
Football is providing an admirable service in pointing all this out.
However, I feel no obligation to support any and every one of the few
white athletes who are allowed to play professional football and
basketball. Thus, when a Brett Favre does something wrong, I wil alway
condemn that.


Edited by: bigunreal
 
Regarding Farve I say ditto to Bart and bigunreal. Does John Madden nauseate any of you fellows the way he does me? He's a slovenly,huffing and puffing windbag full of fatuous comments that almost always toe the line. "the ground can't cause a fumble, the ground can't cause a fumble" ugh....
 
I am too impulsive for my own good sometimes and so i join this fray one more time against my better judgement. Maybe that's why i like bret so much, like me he does alot of things on impulse and instinct. that's why most people love him and is largely why a few people don't.Bart you said to jaxvid that a emotional heartfelt responce will triumph over reason every time. That's funny because that is something i have said to other people on different subject matters. You are right about that, however; jaxvid usually makes very coherent and astute comments in all his postings and is certainly capable(as you said)of posting a reasonable arguement for bret favre and his greatness.But that had already been done in many other postings and i suspect he was frustrated( like me) at the vitriolic criticism of the man that at times has been taken too far. what he did with strahan is again i say a stupid mistake on his part, i thought it was wrong at the time and after reading bart's and don's postings(among others) i think it was even more wrong. But should it mar his whole career. or even be one of the first things we remember when we look back on his tenure with the pack.I think not.He's one of the greatest 4th qtr. qb's in history and he leads his team into the playoffs every year and what other qb can say that? He is immensely entertaining to watch and his record for the most part speaks for itself.As don wassall said earlier, both sides have their points on this, i acknowlege that. To a frustrated packers fan bret will always be a glasS half-full with a lot of coulda woulda should have's.To those of us who are not so frustrated, we are sure happy with what we got and there may be never another like him.It will be interesting when the season starts up how many people repost and restart this thread whenever bret has a good or bad game. I hope i resist the temptation.But like bret i am impulsive, probably won't.
 
*sigh*

It's really odd that this seems to be the only subject that generates a great deal of interest and discussion out of all the things I've posted on.
smiley5.gif

Yes, I realize not everyone is going to like my favorite player. Indeed I also am aware that all the acclaim Brett's been getting lately just makes people's teeth ache. Obviously I can see he's not quite the player he used to be.

However he still threw 30 TDs last year which is one of the most valuable things a QB can do, and the grand majority of the QBs in the league would be delighted to boast they did that--or ever did at any point in their careers. He did take a team with no defense into the playoffs with a 10-6 record after starting 1-4, and that's got to count for something too. I wonder if the Packers had lost Favre after the Giant's game just how many games they'd have lost with that horrific excuse for a defense last season.

I've seen a lot more of this lately, the idea that he gets no criticism sure doesn't seem to be true to me. They had a series of ESPN specials about some of the best players in the league and everyone else's I saw was glowing and positive showing the highlights of their careers, Brett's was all about his Vicodin addiction and his drinking in his younger days. No montage of brilliant and outstanding plays for him, just how he had to come back from that like it defined his career or something. Very dissappointing and sad to watch.

He got raked over the coals pretty good for that Strahan thing, if you don't believe me just do a search of it and you'll see howls of condemnation. It appears many here will never forgive him for that, I guess I didn't see it as a capital crime. It's not like he cheated to outperform others and perhaps even hurt them with illegal substances or anything like that...

It doesn't make any sense to me that someone could look at Brett Favre and Bill Schroeder and come to the conclusion Brett's the guy who doesn't know what's going on and is being overly critical. I believe someone early tried to pretend Brett always tries to shift the blame on the recievers when it's really his fault, and I can't believe they were watching the same Packer games I was. If you want to see the pics Brett with his hands to his head, over his face, or downcast and defeated after an interception he knew he shouldn't have thrown, go to just about any Bears or Vikings site and if they're not already prominantly displayed post a message on the boards and the denizens there would be delighted to share them with you.

I also can't see how anyone could look at Brett Favre and Mark Gastineau and come to the conclusion Brett's the bad guy and a disgrace to the game. Funny thing is Mark sure didn't mind much at the time, after all following the game he went and got Brett's autograph so it must not have caused him all that much consternation. Seeing as though it happened basically in front of him he sure must have observed what occured.

Oh, well, some things I'm just not destined to be able to figure out. All those who hate him, don't worry, the diabolical Brett Favre will be gone soon, and never again will you see the likes of him to your relief. I don't quite get why people could come to the conclusions they have about him and yet I'm the guy whose biased because I'm a Packer fan. That dissonance doesn't make any sense to me at all.

But I guess that's OK too.
 
Oh, and do keep in mind that despite how much it appeared Schroeder irritated him at times, it was Brett and no one else anywhere who threw to him and considering how long he did play here he must not have tried to run him off. Schroeder left as a free agent when he contract was up, he wasn't cut or traded.

Also, when they allowed recievers to use the single digit numbers both Bill Schroeder and Antonio Freeman chose number four with the Bucs and Dolphins. One of those guys, and I can't remember which off the top of my head, said it was in recognition of what Brett had done for his career, and both did say publically they meant it as a tribute.

I wonder what Schroeder would say about all this, if you look at that you'd seem to think he was delighted he got a chance here and didn't think Brett hurt him any.

We wouldn't want that taken into consideration, would we?
smiley5.gif
 
Highwayman, without touching other issues I will enter into thethread only to clarify a point you made concerning Schroeder.


You said:Oh, and do keep in mind that despite how much it appeared Schroeder irritated him at times, it was Brett and no one else anywhere who threw to him and considering how long he did play here he must not have tried to run him off. Schroeder left as a free agent when he contract was up, he wasn't cut or traded.


To say he wasn't CUT or TRADED and then say he LEFT as a free agent is very misleading. He only LEFT the team because he was NOT OFFERED a contract. He made it known repeatedly, he wanted stay with the team.


I found an old story in a fileabout the situation. .



<TABLE cellSpacing=0 width=467><T>
<T>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top width="72%" bgColor=#ffffff height=534>
The Packers have not contacted wide receiver Bill Schroeder's agent to talk about a new contract


By Doug Ritchay
News-Chronicle
Almost two weeks into the Green Bay Packers' off-season, there has been no contact between the team and wide receiver Bill Schroeder concerning a new contract.


Schroeder becomes an unrestricted free agent March 1, if he isn't re-signed. So far, there is no indication one way or another the Packers have an interest in re-signing Schroeder, who over the past three seasons leads the team with 192 receptions and 2,968 yards.


"There's nothing going on at this time," said John Perla, Schroeder's agent. "Both sides are evaluating right now, and I haven't heard from them. They told me after the season we'd talk. They have until March 1. I don't know if that's good or bad."


Since becoming a starter in 1999, Schroeder's reception totals have gone down from 74 to 65 to 53 this past season. His yards have decreased from 1,051 to 999 to 918. He played in just 14 games this season because of an ankle injury, but he did score a career-high nine touchdowns, which tied him for fifth among NFL wide receivers.


."When you look at his stats, he matches up very well with everybody," an NFL source concurred.


</TD>
<TD vAlign=top width="28%" bgColor=#ffffff height=534>

</TD></TR></T></T></TABLE>Edited by: Bart
 
Highwayman,

I'm not sure if there is something in particular in one of my posts
that caught your attention in my criticism AND praise of Brett Favre,
but I'd encourage you to re-read the last post I wrote regading Brett's
career.



A person can't announce their opinion that Brett is a first ballot hall
of famer and be denounced for overly criticising the man at the same
time.



You may be focusing too much on some of the negative things that have
been said about him here than taking the messages in their complete
context. I see a lot of agreement among almost everyone here that Favre
is one of the great Qb's of all time, but perhaps his halcyon days are
past. Not to say that he isn't STILL a good Qb, just not what he once
was.
 
My point exactly Bart. He wasn't run off or anything, we just didn't resign him. There's like a salary cap these days, and Darren Sharper said the exact same things but we let him go too. Why would a player or agent say nasty things about his former emoployer when he's hoping they and other future employers will sign them assuming he'll be an asset to their team?

Why didn't the Packers resign Shroeder? My point was he just didn't devolop into a player worthy of resigning. What did he get from Detroit? More than what he was worth in my view--and I'm damn happy he got it and that the Packers didn't have to pay for statistics he could never produce once out of the range of the diabolical Mr Favre. He never did, nor did Antonio Freeman, it's not like Schroeder was unique.

He had a few good years for the Packers and wanted to cash in, I can't blame him and being a local boy I'm sure he might have given us a Packer discount--but the sad reality is any #1 reciever shoulda damn well been able to get 1k-1.5k yrds recieving in our offense in those days and Billy was a bottom tier guy we gave a chance to and who never developed much beyond that.

I dunno how Brett gets blamed for the front office not resigning Schroeder after like three years as a starter, but I'm sure you'll think of something. I'm sure it's all Brett's fault he couldn't hold a starting job in Detroit too, it couldn't be the fact he was a marginal route-runner who was constantly short-arming balls.

Hey, I'm just a newbie here, I couldn't possibly know anything and obviously my observations must be some part of a vague and bizarre conspiracy.
smiley2.gif
 
Hiya, WS. I didn't meant to single you out in particular, I kinda scanned through it all and responded to what I saw. I wouldn't want to give the impression I thought it was mostly your comments I objected to.

Look dude, the poor guy is almost gone, that's why they've been so positive about him the last couple years. They know he's about to exit stage left and want to give some kudos to the guy who gets 30 TDs every other year and has seen to the Packers haven't had a losing season during his tenure.

Yes, I realize if you root for another team you are damn bloody sick of listening about the greatness of Brett Favre. Since he gets us on national TV all the time these last few years I do realize some fans of other teams have about had it with the Packers and especially the diabolical Brett Favre.

Frankly I just think it's simply his just due for being the best player of our time who was denied the massive endorsements and acclaim he might have gotten if he didn't play in the smallest market in the league, but who cares what I think as I'm a Packer fan and not overly critical so I must be biased.

Yes, it was Brett Favre who stole your lunch money when you were a little kid, it wasn't the neighborhoood bully trying to disguise himself as him--it was all part of his sinister plot...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
American Freedom News
Back
Top