Brett Favre Decision

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by That Guy

except he did hold out while getting his contract worked out and most people here understood that without the contract he couldn't risk an injury. It got taken care of, he came in and everything was fine. Such situations happen all the time; players need to protect their incomes. I don't think javon was being greedy at the time.

I agree that players need to get what they can, while they can, but I also agree that a player shouldn't get the farm because they had one good season(i.e. Albert Connell).

Anyway, my point was if Brunell, as the leader of the team, made a comment about a star player holding out, 90% of this forum would be all over his jock and talking about how he's right, and the other player needs to show up to camp.

[#56fanatic]

I read all these posts wishing Brunell was more of risk taker, wait and throw the ball down the field. Well, we had a guy the last couple of years that would sit in the pocket too long, and take the risks. Sometimes they were picks, sometimes they were great passes. Any we just traded him to the Jets. If that is what Gibbs wanted, Ramsey would still be here. Gibbs wants a guy that is NOT going to take a lot of risks, that is going to manage the game, and NOT LOSE THE GAME. You are the same people that probably call for Brunells head when he throws a pick or two, or when Ramsey was throwing 2 or 3 a game. You cant have it both ways. Risk taker leads to costly picks. I personally will take the guy that manages the game, if its not there throw it away or make a few yard scramble. Our Defense is too good to be giving field position away.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

I read all these posts wishing Brunell was more of risk taker, wait and throw the ball down the field. Well, we had a guy the last couple of years that would sit in the pocket too long, and take the risks. Sometimes they were picks, sometimes they were great passes. Any we just traded him to the Jets. If that is what Gibbs wanted, Ramsey would still be here. Gibbs wants a guy that is NOT going to take a lot of risks, that is going to manage the game, and NOT LOSE THE GAME. You are the same people that probably call for Brunells head when he throws a pick or two, or when Ramsey was throwing 2 or 3 a game. You cant have it both ways. Risk taker leads to costly picks. I personally will take the guy that manages the game, if its not there throw it away or make a few yard scramble. Our Defense is too good to be giving field position away.

Clearly you're talking to me and you should definitely read my posts before you call me a hypocrite because I've been very vocal about how Brunell should take more risks. I was all for Ramsey the last few seasons. I think we might have been better off with him under center, but that's beside the point. I never said I wanted it both ways. I want it one way...the gunslinging Brett Favre way. He's only had 1 losing season in his career, so tell me about how bad it is. He has a ring, how many does Brunell have? Tell me about how bad it is.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

I read all these posts wishing Brunell was more of risk taker, wait and throw the ball down the field. Well, we had a guy the last couple of years that would sit in the pocket too long, and take the risks. Sometimes they were picks, sometimes they were great passes. Any we just traded him to the Jets. If that is what Gibbs wanted, Ramsey would still be here. Gibbs wants a guy that is NOT going to take a lot of risks, that is going to manage the game, and NOT LOSE THE GAME. You are the same people that probably call for Brunells head when he throws a pick or two, or when Ramsey was throwing 2 or 3 a game. You cant have it both ways. Risk taker leads to costly picks. I personally will take the guy that manages the game, if its not there throw it away or make a few yard scramble. Our Defense is too good to be giving field position away.

Exactly. The problem is if Mark Brunell took more "risks" while throwing what, 11 or 12 ints?, Jackonsville would have never let him go to begin with. I'm not trying to turn this into Brette v. Brunell thread. Both have strengths and both have weaknesses. It's just that Brunell's are better suited for Gibbs' type of football.

[MTK]

I'm not sure I'd want a QB that is as much of a risk taker as Favre, but somewhere in between Brunell and Favre would be nice.

Brunell is definitely overly cautious at times, but I'm not sure how much of that is him, or how much of that is what Gibbs wants. I guess we'll see this year when Saunders is calling the offense.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

I agree that players need to get what they can, while they can, but I also agree that a player shouldn't get the farm because they had one good season(i.e. Albert Connell).

Anyway, my point was if Brunell, as the leader of the team, made a comment about a star player holding out, 90% of this forum would be all over his jock and talking about how he's right, and the other player needs to show up to camp.

maybe they should be all up in brunell's jock for being selfish and not looking out for his teammates.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I tell you what....stats aside, God forbid Huddle see this, Brunell was a better decision maker last year and cost his team less mistakes.

Has Huddle even been on since he told us we're losing the battle with ES?

Anyhow, is Favre's stalling really holding the team back right now? I mean either way they have truckloads of money, they're going about their free agent business signing guys like Marquand Manuel and Ryan Pickett. And they have already have their QB of the future (at least they believe they do) in Aaron Rodgers. So right now at least it doesn't seem to me like Favre's decision, or lack thereof, is really affecting any of the Packers plans. If this is still going on in August, that's a different story.

[PhxRedSkin]

[quote=freddyg12]lot of good points in this thread. Sure hope brunell doesn't try this next year!


Brunell won't try this next year for two reasons.
1. Brunell isn't a franchised QB and (we) Redskins fan can live without him.

2. We've got Campbell and we'll cut him if he does try anything like this.

Hail from AZ

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Clearly you're talking to me and you should definitely read my posts before you call me a hypocrite because I've been very vocal about how Brunell should take more risks. I was all for Ramsey the last few seasons. I think we might have been better off with him under center, but that's beside the point. I never said I wanted it both ways. I want it one way...the gunslinging Brett Favre way. He's only had 1 losing season in his career, so tell me about how bad it is. He has a ring, how many does Brunell have? Tell me about how bad it is.

Not specificly you , there were a few people this was aimed at. Like someone said, Gibbs does not want turnovers..PERIOD. Favre has a ring, that is right, but that makes him part of a better team than Brunell has been a part of. Brunell, earlier in his career, led Jacksonville deep in the playoffs, so he can play in big games. I would like to have a QB that throws 19 less interceptions than Favre. Favre has done this his whole career. He has been benefited by the fact he has had some pretty damn good receivers and TEs during his tenure. See what happens when he isn't surrounded with good targets.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

See what happens when he isn't surrounded with good targets.

Ummm yeah, pretty much what happens to any QB when you take away his targets (and offensive line).

Does anyone think Peyton Manning would have had a great year if he was playing on Green Bay last year??

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Favre has a ring, that is right, but that makes him part of a better team than Brunell has been a part of.

It sounds like you're claiming that the only reason Favre has a ring, and Brunell doesn't is because Favre had a better team. For many years in Jacksonville, Brunell had Jimmy Smith and Keenan McCardell in their respective primes, and a young Fred Taylor, so I think it's fair to say he's had a very talented team around him at least a few times in his career(next year will be one of those years).

Favre has never had a receiver as consistently good as Jimmy Smith, and for Brunells last few years in Jacksonville, their defense was far better than Green Bays.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

It sounds like you're claiming that the only reason Favre has a ring, and Brunell doesn't is because Favre had a better team. For many years in Jacksonville, Brunell had Jimmy Smith and Keenan McCardell in their respective primes, and a young Fred Taylor, so I think it's fair to say he's had a very talented team around him at least a few times in his career(next year will be one of those years).

Favre has never had a receiver as consistently good as Jimmy Smith, and for Brunells last few years in Jacksonville, their defense was far better than Green Bays.

Favre, I think, did have a better all around team. Defense, offense and special teams. That is what I think. I dont remember Jacksonvilles D being all that good those few years when they were in the playoffs, I could be wrong. I am not putting Favre and Brunell on the same level, Favre will probably go down as a very good QB in the NFL, I just feel that he been a bit over rated. He slings the ball around, throws a high number of picks every year, loses close games with stupid decisions, but sometimes wins games with great plays. I just dont think he is as GREAT as the media makes him out to be. Thats my opinion, so dont go blasting me with facts about this and that. I am not saying its a fact, its my opinion.