Packer487

I looked for a few minutes as well and couldn't find anything, but I did see a shot of one of the BC players using a Nike stick, even though they wear Reebok jerseys. I would imagine the players can wear whatever skates they want. You might look through the Michigan photo galleries to see if any of our players had been wearing CCM skates before (adidas/Rbk owns CCM).

Harvick's my favorite. He's not really on the bubble right now, but all it would take is a bad race at California to put him there heading to Richmond. They've been running great for the last 2 months though. I've been really happy to see it. I want Gordon to get in. I always have liked him, and he's the gf's favorite driver so her interest over the last 10 races will increase if he makes it. I also really like Bowyer. I'd love to see Kahne and Bowyer in and either Kenseth or Hamlin out. I think Kasey is in trouble though. The Roush cars will run well at Cali, which should put Kenseth solidly in and will help Regan's chances. Kahne is up against it, being down by 56 points... Shrub is such a whiny *****.

Tate Forcier, come on down! It's nice to have options If Newsome decides he wants back in, fine, and if not, either Forcier or Smith will do just fine to be paired with The Beav.

Yup! I think it says "Michigan" through the block M too. I like the blue one with the yellow M, but I've always thought that they look much better on the ice. I'm not sure why. I'm very happy they resisted the urge to put "pit stains" on them. Really wasn't a fan of that, Nike. The gold one with the diagonal Michigan has really grown on me (they wore that style last year too). Hated it at first, but now I think it looks pretty good. I'll pick up one of those, but I'm getting the white one first.

Last year they used the Chicago Bears-style numbers with the Red Wings lettering. Not sure if that's going to change or not. I'd also imagine they'll put the players' numbers on the front of the white jersey below the word "Michigan", which should be pretty cool looking. I don't have a problem with it there, I just think it looks stupid to have numbers on the front of the jersey by the shoulder.

A photo of Michigan's new jerseys was released. That white one is absolutely amazing. I love the retro-look of it. They even left the shoulder patches off to stick with the theme. My only complaint is that the blue and maize jerseys don't have the ties on the front. Minor problem though. I think they hit on all 3 (and Adidas got the lettering on the maize jersey correct, unlikely Nike who had it way too small on the replica). I also like the addition of the CCHA logo to the replicas. That white one though...I think that's the best Michigan hockey jersey since the script Michigan gold one we won 2 nat'l titles with. It looks fantastic.

I wish there was a way that I could delete that game from my DVR twice! -The plusses for Rodgers: His numbers (and the offense as a whole) look much better if DD helps him out on that bomb and if Lee doesn't drop that touchdown pass. Both passes were right on the money. Those guys usually catch 'em and if they do, we're up 14-0 instead of 3-0 when the starters came out. The minuses: He holds onto the ball way too long and at times he was pulling it down a little too fast. The should-have-been-a-pick pass was a really bad throw. -It was against scrubs, but Jordy Nelson on returns is really nice. It's awesome to have some depth in the return game. Blackmon, Williams and Nelson are all really solid back there. He should have to do some pushups for getting knocked out by the kicker twice. -What a hit by Pat Lee! Methinks Foster had some words for O'Sullivan after that throw. -We have no backup QB and no backup OTs. Brohm doesn't look like he's anywhere near ready to be an NFL backup. And it's nice to see (not really) that Colledge is as bad at tackle as he is at guard. He about got Matt Flynn killed by whiffing. If Rodgers, Tauscher, or Clifton go down, this season is gonna get ugly in a hurry. -Jarrett Bush should be cut tomorrow. At least 2 long pass plays, a 15 yarder on special teams for blocking someone out of bounds, a block in the back that negated a nice return (and a great lateral that even fooled the ref), and a pass interference penalty in the endzone on third down when he rode the WR the entire way. It's pretty pathetic that the 49ers scrubs were looking to pick on him. Get Pat Lee some more reps. -The starting defense looked strong. I wish we would get to the QB a little bit more, but until most of the starters came out, they were really good. -Supertoe is awesome. That kid is just nails. -Nothing has changed with McCarthy. Just didn't show any inclination to attempt to run the football. That ain't gonna work this year. Our quarterbacks combined have as many NFL starts as me. I wanted to see BJack run a few times. -Woodson was strong. Great pass breakup and an easy INT. He'll be getting crap from his teammates about that fumble though. -Great screen pass on a third down to Morency. I'm a firm believer that there's no prettier play in football than a well-executed screen pass. We used to be so good at it but it hasn't made as many appearances in the past couple of years. I'd love to see it come back. -Nice to see McCarthy is in mid-season form at failing on challenges! It was so weird seeing Brett in another jersey tonight. I'm behind Aaron 100%--every eye roll will be directed at Ted Thompson, not the young QB who is learning every time he's out there--but I think this is going to end up being considered one of the worst personnel moves in history. Then again, by all accounts he was pretty great last week and I didn't see that game....maybe I'd be feeling better about things.

Pretty much. Or like I always tell my friends: Q: What was the best game in Michigan State history? A: Appalachian State/Michigan That's why they'll always and forever be little brother.

NFM attending MNF! I'm really excited to see Josh Sitton play. If he really can hold down the right guard position, then they can move Spitz to left guard and our line will be a LOT better off. It'd be nice for the LG position to finally be sured up. There have been reports that Ruvell Martin has had a great camp as well. Not shocking since he's had so much work with Rodgers in the past. I still wish he caught that ball in the first half against the NYG....Jordy Nelson has been pretty quiet. I'd like to see something out of him as well. And most importantly, NO INJURIES! Especially to the defensive line or our china doll at QB. Just ordered my J-E-T-S! Brett Brett Brett! jersey. I gotta say, this worked out pretty nicely from a fan-bigamy perspective. The Jets doing well only helps Green Bay (draft pick), their success doesn't affect our playoff chances, and there's no shot they could meet up until the Super Bowl. Plus I get to root for Dave Harris and Kerry Rhodes, which is fun too.

We know Kitna, Jackson, Orton and Grossman suck. We don't know if Rodgers sucks

When I wrote for my high school's newspaper, we had a fund raiser one night that most of the staff's families came to. The next day, our adviser (a woman) was commenting to one of the reporters that his younger sister (who was probably like 15 or 16) was "SO cute!" One of the other writers yelled out, "Yeah, she'd be worth going to jail for!" Our teacher flipped. It was hilarious.

Are you for real? Just because it might be an easier road to a title doesn't make it count any less. If a team doesn't play anyone good the whole time (like say, MSU basketball in 2000) it still counts just the same as any other. Just as the "old" titles still count the same even if they didn't have to win as many games. The fact remains, though, that the Packers won 1 playoff game to win two titles, 2 playoff games to win two of the titles, and then finally three playoff games to win one of them. More games = more chances to get beat. You see it all the time. The Giants, Steelers, and one of those Broncos teams all came from the wild card round to win the Super Bowl. They wouldn't have sniffed the playoffs back in the day, but they were able to upset some of the teams that would have been in the postseason. And I don't think it's fair to say that the any sports league is more watered down than it was back with less teams. Athletes have gotten better. People have gotten faster and stronger. Offenses have evolved. I think it would be very fair to say there are many more high-quality football players now than there were 30 years ago, so I don't agree that things are more watered down. Not to mention there's free agency and a salary cap now. It's a lot harder to keep a quality team together than it was back in the day. Hence why dynasties have been so rare in the cap era but they weren't all that uncommon previously. Wait, so does playoff performance count or not? Marino was the better quarterback because...well...you don't present any evidence as to why. But Favre is a choker and can't get it done in the clutch, despite evidence to the contrary. I'm one of those people that doesn't think championships mean everything, especially in a sport like football. You're correct that Dilfer having a title doesn't mean he's better than Marino. But it's stupid to say Marino is better and cite Favre's "choking" as part of the reason he's overrated. Yes, the Packers defense was great in 1996. But the offense was also rated #1 in the league, despite a slew of injuries that forced them to start Terry Mickens at WR for a time and then grab Andre Rison off waivers. Actually, I believe they were statistically the most dominant of all the Super Bowl championship teams. At least they were as of a few years ago. But Favre didn't play a part in that. Nosir. They scored 30+ points 11 times in 19 games. 20+ points 17 out of 19 games (Brooks, Freeman and Chmura missed one of the games, Brooks and Freeman missed the other). And I've already debunked the whole black free agent thing. The Packers picked up a few free agents (Howard, Wilkerson, Dotson, Jones, Cox) but Jones was the only one who signed prior to 1996. It's just as likely that the quality of the Packers team had something to do with guys wanting to come to Green Bay. I think Reggie did lend some credibility to the team as a legitimate destination, but wait....why did Reggie White come to Green Bay? Oh yeah, it was because of their stellar young QB named Brett Favre. Wow, go figure.... So what? Favre had long TD passes (both on audibles) as well as a TD run. Since he didn't get MVP, does that mean he didn't play well? Favre was the best player on the field in that game, no matter what the MVP voting showed. Yeah Favre was just horrible in that game. 25/42 for 256 yards, 3 TDs, 1 INT. He SOUNDLY outplayed John Elway. The Packers lost that game because Mike Holmgren deactivated the only backup defensive end on the roster, and when Gabe Wilkens begged out of the game after he got dinged up, due to fear that he'd make things worse and lose out on a chance to cash in, they had to go with a DT on the edge. Denver ran to that side the entire game. The Packers lost because of 30/157/3 (in three quarters). Plain and simple. The fact that you'd call Favre "absent" in that game means that you either didn't watch it, don't know anything about it, or are incapable of seeing anything Brett Favre has done in a positive light. I've blocked that game out almost entirely and I still remember that Favre was amazing. He would've been the MVP of SB XXXII if the defense had come close to doing its job. Yup, we've been through that one already. At first it was 4 or 5. You've been corrected on it and you still "can't remember". It was six. Bill Schroeder cost him at least three by setting the football like it was a volleyball. But it didn't matter, the Packers were completely over-matched. They weren't winning that game anyway. Except that Super Bowl title, the upset of the defending champs on the road in 95, the near-perfect performance against Denver that wasn't quite good enough thanks to the defense, etc. Yeah, he had no reason to celebrate breaking one of the most storied records in football. I think records meant more to him than he let on, but I don't think that's the reason he came back. I think he was set to retire until the team came on late in that season and ripped off four wins in a row heading into the offseason. Now I suppose you'll say that he's coming back because Manning is within striking distance of his records and he wants to put them another season out of reach.

He didn't find a reason to delay his decision last year. He announced he was coming back by the Super Bowl. If he was in such a hurry to get attention, he could've let it play out until at least the draft/start of free agency with no detriment to the team. So if we're counting, you give him the benefit of the doubt 3 years ago, no benefit of the doubt two years ago (even though he announced he was coming back in a time-frame that was right in line with when all the old greats tend to announce a return), and last year there was no "waffle" since he announced he was coming back about a month after the season ended. Hardly enough to make the flip-flop this year "tiresome". People don't remember the reasons for it, just that there was drama the past few years. It's amazing that he's the only high-profile athlete who has ever had trouble walking away from the game he loves.....oh wait. Staubach and Bradshaw were pre-ESPN. Montana retired pre-internet. Young and Elway retired before the internet was as big as it is now. Young pretty much had to retire due to concussions (and even then he waited until (OMG) mid-June to announce he was hanging it up). Elway waffled himself on at least one occasion--after they won the Super Bowl, he didn't announce his return until early June (and the next year he didn't hang it up until late April/early May). Of course the Favre stuff has been played out in the media more. Pretty much every high-profile story is, in the internet-era and the age of ESPNews. Elway is the only one of the examples you mentioned that could remotely be compared to Favre (at least the internet was around and his retirement wasn't due to injury) and it appears he had trouble making up his mind as well, though I have to imagine that winning back to back Super Bowls helped him into retirement.

That was the first time I can remember it happening. It was the first time the Packers felt the need to put out a press release that he had decided to return (the archives on packers.com confirm that), so I imagine that was the first time he seriously considered retirement. And it'd be hard to argue it wasn't reasonable. But most people don't even remember that as being a reason for the debate in his head. It was just ole Brett Favre waffling away. Again, when was he not justified for thinking it over. You admit that there's always going to be a reason to think about it, and then you rip him for it. He's a very high-profile player. His biggest problem is that he was willing to talk to the media about it. If you want to call him an attention *****, that's fine, but it's always going to be a story when a player of his caliber is considering retirement. I didn't say he was belly-aching over it. I said it was natural to take some time to consider your future after the only sub-.500 season of your career. Was that year the beginning of the end? Did the Packers want him to be a part of their future? Were they ready to rebuild with Aaron Rodgers? Did he feel he could get back to an elite level? Would the new coach run a similar offense? All legit questions, and waiting until March or April to make a decision is not at all unusual. As I pointed out before, John Elway didn't announce he was returning until June after they beat GB in the Super Bowl (and he didn't announce his retirement the next year until late April/early May). Steve Young didn't announce his retirement from the 49ers until mid-June. Michael Strahan didn't announce he was coming back to the Giants until after the preseason last year. It is too bad, but he didn't know 100% that he could commit to returning to play, so he did the responsible thing and hung it up. If he announced he was coming back and then realized his heart wasn't in it, suddenly he's Barry Sanders. That would've been a whole lot worse than this disaster. FTR, I didn't direct the high-horse comment at you. It was at GMR. They didn't need to give him indefinite time to make up his mind. They could have said, "Brett, we'd love to have an answer before the Draft, but if you need more time to come to a decision you can live with, by all means, take it. Just let us know by the start of camp." That's the proper way to deal with a legendary QB (see Elway, John). If you push someone who is genuinely conflicted, there's a pretty darn good chance they're going to make the wrong call. The offseason could have proceeded like normal, with Rodgers QBing at the OTAs, and assuming the team drafts BPA like they claim to, it wouldn't have changed their philosophy there. The only difference would be that Rodgers wouldn't have felt like he had the starting job all offseason, so there'd be no chance of hurt feelings/resentment now. I'd be all for moving on if GB went 3-13 last year. But they were one play from the Super Bowl and Favre was probably the second-best player in the league last year. It's stupid to not want him back. Because the Packers wanted a decision and at that point in time he couldn't commit 100% to returning. So he did the responsible thing. He said it at his press conference, "I know I can still play. I'm just not sure I want to." Well, a few months go by and he changed his mind. Even from the time he retired, the Packers knew there was a pretty good chance it would happen.

I love that the title of this thread involves the word "kerfuffle". I didn't even know that was a word, but it's seriously awesome.

I guess I would ask exactly when Favre was unjustified in thinking about his future? Three years ago, his wife had freaking cancer and he announced he was coming back right after it became apparent that she was going to be ok. The year after that, he had a terrible year, the Packers had a terrible year, they were bringing in a new coach, presumably with his own philosophies. Would it not be natural to want to take some time to figure out if you wanted to go through the transition (and to find out if the team wanted you to be a part of the transition or if they were ready to rebuild)? Then last year, for all everyone says he was playing the "Will I or won't I" game again, he let the team know by the Super Bowl that he'd be returning. It doesn't seem like he dragged that one out. It's a good thing you've never changed your mind about anything important, so you can stay up on your high horse about matters like this!

Great post. I've actually thought that the 49ers should be a darkhorse in the Favre sweepstakes. No one has even mentioned them, but they've got a pretty solid team. I know they've put a lot of money into Alex Smith but he really isn't good. With Favre, that's a playoff team for sure. I do love how the Favre-bashers tend to blame him individually for every big loss, but bring up the Super Bowl and it's "Oh! But they had the best defense in the league!" A couple of other things I meant to mention last night in my last reply: -If we're adding to Starr's lore by mentioning that he didn't "have the benefit" of wild card games and a watered-down league, then I suppose it would also be fair to mention that for the 1961 title, he had to win 1 playoff game (and OMG THE DEFENSE PITCHED A SHUTOUT!). For the 1962 title, he had to win 1 playoff game (and the defense gave up 7 points). For the 1965 title, he had to win 2 playoff games (and the defense gave up a combined 22 points). For the 1966 title, he had to win 2 playoff games. It was only in 1967 that he ended up having to win three. For three of his titles, winning the NFC Championship was the equivalent of winning the Super Bowl. I definitely don't take anything away from those titles, but don't try to pretend that it was as hard to win a title back in those days as it is now. -I'm also not sure that it's fair to call today's league "watered down". The players today are bigger, faster, stronger and the game is completely different. Come playoff time, you're playing against good football teams. Upsets really aren't that uncommon anymore. We've seen how many teams come out of the wild card round to end up winning the Super Bowl (Denver, NYG and Pittsburgh have all done it, I believe). Before a decade ago, I don't think that had ever occurred. I don't think it's watered down, I think the teams are more competitive. Hard to argue that's a "benefit" to Favre. -Also, Favre has played in an era where it's very difficult to keep a successful team together long-term. There's only been 1 dynasty since the salary cap was implemented, New England.

No matter how many times you post it, it doesn't give Sal Paolantonio any credibility. The guy is a complete and utter douchenozzle. Five times. And all of those teams were the pure definition of mediocre save for last year's team. The team that lost to Atlanta was decent (12-4 maybe) but by playoff time they were so beat up they weren't going anywhere. That team had nobody left. The team that lost to Philly needed an absolute miracle to even make the playoffs. They had to have Josh McCown and the Arizona Cardinals score a TD on a 4th and 24 on the last play of the game. And as much as you want to blame that loss on Favre for a stupid pick, the game should've been won 8 times over by that point. Green was stopped short on a 4th and 1 for the first time the entire season, which would've given GB a 2 TD lead. Sherman went pucker pucker pucker on a 4th and 1 later in the game, which would've all but ended the game if they had converted. True to form, Bidwell blasted the punt into the endzone even though the Packers took a delay of game to give him more room to work. Then the defense gave up a 4TH AND 26, which would've ended the game. Then they proceeded to let the Eagles march right down and score. Also, after the Favre pick, the Eagles still moved the ball 20 or 30 yards before kicking that FG. That team didn't really have a defense. The Minnesota loss (Randy Moss's mooning game) was a bad one and Favre played like hell, but that team wasn't going anywhere. Ditto the team that lost to the Rams. Last year's team was the only truly good one in the bunch, and even if you want to blame the loss on another Favre pick, again, there were another 13 things that could've swung the game in Green Bay's favor. Al Harris could've not gotten abused. Ryan Grant could've rushed for more than 28 yards. The offensive line could've made a hole or two. Brandon Jackson could've not run into his blocker when he had a sure TD (on a pass from Favre). Ruvell Martin could've not dropped a sure TD pass (from Favre). Jarrett Bush could've FALLEN ON THE ******* BALL instead of trying to run with it. The ref could have not kept a Giants' TD drive alive by negating Harris's pick for no reason whatsoever. Nick Collins could have not kept a Giants' TD drive alive by taking a dips*** late hit penalty when the Packers had stopped them on third down.....Shall I go on? 3 times. Not a good thing, but at the same time, the Packers were always GREAT under Lombardi and they didn't exactly play a ton of playoff games at home b/w Lombardi's era and Favre's era. I believe it was six, and you can blame Billy Schroeder for 3 of them, for popping the ball up in the air like it was a volleyball. Then once they were down by a good 15-20 points, it was pretty obvious GB was throwing. Actually, he does want to come back to a 13-3 team. Uncle Teddy doesn't want him to. Where the deuce did this rant come from? Who said anything about not counting Starr's championships? His teams were also amazing his entire career. Do me a favor and look up how many hall of famers he played with on offense and then do the same for Favre. Actually, I'll save you some time. Favre's number is ZERO. Also, Vince Lombardi....Mike Sherman? No difference there. Not that I ever saw him, but Starr was amazing. I don't get how that is a negative about Brett Favre though. He threw into single coverage and it wasn't a bad decision, it was a bad throw. Driver was open, and he was the first read. I'm sure you've seen the endzone shot that has all those guys running wide open. The only problem is that picture was taken well after he released the ball. Go back and watch the clip. Grant hasn't even cleared the OL when Favre throws the ball. The other two guys were kind of open (though not as much as it appeared) but Driver was open as well. When your first read is open, you don't check down to see if anyone else is MORE open. He made the right decision, but the ball was just underthrown. It happens. And when it's 30 below and the wind is going crazy, not having a shred of a running game isn't very helpful... Very convienently counting the Super Bowl loss to Denver but none of the other games that year. Bad teams tend to not win very many playoff games. Also, I'd point out that aside from his Super Bowl season (where he had 3 TDs and 7 INTs in the playoffs), Peyton Manning is 3-7 in playoff games. No QB's playoff record is going to look very good if you cherry pick the worst teams he's played on. And the Packers haven't been very good since Holmgren left, save for this year. Good records once in awhile (largely thanks to their legendary QB) but not good teams. What's your point? That Super Bowl win shouldn't count because the Packers had a good defense? Well you can get rid of Brady's wins, Manning's win, Dilfer's win, Johnson's win, Roethlisberger's win...let's keep going. The Packers also had the #1 offense in the league, don't forget. And a big part of that was Favre throwing 39 TDs despite losing all his receiving threats midway through the season. He was on pace to break Marino's record until Brooks went down for the year and then Freeman and Chmura got hurt the next two weeks. When Terry Mickens is a starting WR......... Also, they traded for Eugene Robinson. They gave up some white defensive end. Matt LaBounty or something like that? Seth Joyner wasn't on the Super Bowl Championship team. Andre Rison was claimed on waivers. As for Desmond, his career was basically over. I don't think he came to the Packers because of the credibility Reggie White brought to them. It was more because the Packers offered a job and he was looking for one.

DET @ ATL--Win GB @ DET--Loss DET @ SF--Loss CHI @ DET--Win DET @ MIN--Loss DET @ HOU--Loss WAS @ DET--Win DET @ CHI--Win JAC @ DET--Loss DET @ CAR--Win TB @ DET--Loss TEN @ DET--Win MIN @ DET--Loss DET @ IND--Loss NO @ DET--Win DET @ GB--Loss Not the worst schedule in the world. Three of the losses (GB, at SF, at Hou) and three of the wins (Was, at Car, NO) are closer to toss ups. 9-7/10-6 would be at the high end, but I think 7-9 sounds about right unless they prove to have a solid running game that they're willing to make a genuine commitment to.

The Dolphins also released Marino when they didn't want him anymore and he was free to sign with whatever team he wanted. Plus he sucked at the end of his Dolphins career. Favre was the 2nd best player in the league last year. So they doubled the offer once it became evident that he wanted to play football again. And this isn't a form of a bribe how? I appreciate they're trying to have a longterm relationship after football, but the timing is really suspect. Very mature. Orrrr just the GM. Has he said anything negative about Murphy, McCarthy or the Board of Directors? Which the Packers have created by telling him he can't come back. Favre changed his mind. It happens quite often when high-profile athletes retired. This is a non-issue if the Packers welcome him back like they should have. And he stayed away from training camp at the Packers' request so that he WOULDN'T cause a circus up there. That dildo. Whatever. The Vikings are the best fit for a QB who wants to start for a contender. And if my team didn't want me anymore, you're damn right I'd be looking to show them what they were missing out on. That's a natural reaction. Yeah that's proven to be a really accurate statement. They're welcoming him back with open-arms. Orrrr they sent the team president down to MS to talk him into staying away and remaining retired. #1) He's not eligible for the practice squad. #2) If he could be placed on the practice squad, they'd have to release him first. #3) If he made it to the practice squad, any team could sign him to their active roster at any time. So yeah, that's a bang-up idea. He requested a trade and then admitted that wasn't actually what he wanted. He was pissed. Someone, Lombardi I believe, used to fire people when they pissed him off. They'd get their job back when he cooled down. Bo kicked Brandstatter off the team when he was pissed at him one time. Clearly that didn't stick. People say things they don't mean when they're pissed off. Yeah, requesting a trade for all of five minutes a year ago clearly = wanting out for a long time. Did any Packer fan actually like the move of letting the guards go and replacing them with O'Dwyer and Klemm? It was smart to not sign Rivera and Wahle was pretty expensive and we didn't really have the cap room to bring him back thanks to Sherman's wonderful stretch as GM, but they replaced them with nothing. Favre had an interest in his offensive line. Amazing! I agree that he shouldn't have brought that stuff up in the GVS interview, and that he probably should butt out on personnel matters, but he also didn't say anything that 90% of us weren't thinking.

They wouldn't even have to be that crass about it. Take that $20 million you want to pay Favre off with and give $10 million to AR as a nice bonus and extend his contract another couple years. You make it pretty clear you think he's a very good QB and you want to pay him like one, but you tell him, "Favre is the best thing to happen to our organization in 40 years. We can't turn him down." Unless he's a fool, Rodgers would understand. Would he be disappointed? I'm sure. I wouldn't want him on the team if he wasn't disappointed about not playing. But he's smart enough to realize "I'm Aaron Rodgers, he's Brett Favre." And really, he's probably not wasting that much of his career by sitting the bench. He's not getting hit, so his body will probably hold up a couple years longer at the end of his career.

I voted for 7 wins. I seem them in third behind the Packers and Vikings (in some order) but ahead of the Bears, who still have no QB, no WRs, questionable running backs, and injury-prone stars on defense. "Do you believe in now?" isn't the worst slogan I've ever heard. That one goes to the Chicago Bulls from a few years back, "Because being a fan means you never get off the bandwagon." Brutal.

I think that's how a lot of people have been. When the (completely unscientific) polls were going right after he announced his intention to return, it was like just under 50% of people that wanted him back (which shocked me). Now the polls the JSO is running, it's more like 70-80%. I'm completely disgusted by Ted Thompson with how he's handled this. I'm happy to hear that the $20 million offer appears to be less of a bribe and more of a commitment toward a long post-football relationship, but the timing of it is really iffy (even if they had been discussing it for awhile). I'll definitely make it up to Green Bay this year. I didn't get to attend a game last year so I'm "getting the itch". It just seems really stupid to me that arguably the greatest QB ever, who is coming off a near-MVP season, wants to come back and play and the Packers are like "Uhh...I think we're going to go with Aaron Rodgers." Stupid. And what happens if Rodgers gets hurt in Week 3? 5-11 happens.

I think the Lions have a much better shot at finishing ahead of Green Bay than Chicago does. The Bears still have no QB, a very questionable running game, no WRs, and their best players on defense are really injury prone. I'm not ready to make a prediction on the finishing order because I want to see how the QB and DT situation in Green Bay shakes out first (and clearly if Favre does find a way to finagle his release, which I don't expect, then Minnesota is the clear-cut favorite to win the conference, let alone the division). At this point, I see the Packers and Vikings first and second (in some order), then the Lions, then the Bears.

Things are gonna start getting REALLY interesting! Favre's letter asking for reinstatement is in! I still say they should give Rodgers a really nice extension (or throw him a bonus) to do good by him since he hasn't had a chance to hit his escalators. Then start Favre. I'm geeked for this season. I think Rodgers would do just fine as long as he stays in the lineup. It really scares me that they'll dump Favre, Rodgers will get hurt and then we'll either be starting Brohm or Culpepper. Our schedule is really tough (IMO) before the bye week and then not bad at all after that. They've got three really tough games in their first four home tilts (Minnesota, Dallas, Indy). The DL concerns me as well. Jolly could be facing a suspension (dumbass), Harrell was talking about possibly needing another surgery and ending up on IR (super), Pickett is already hurt, and we traded Williams. They've got some options (like moving Jenkins back inside) if they really need help at DT, but it's still a concern. The battle I'm most looking forward to in camp (assuming we don't see Favre vs. Rodgers): Barbre vs. Colledge at LG -- they've been hyping the hell out of Barbre. I'd love to see someone step up and solidify that position. I also look forward to seeing if Rouse can push either of the safeties, if Williams is truly a future starter at corner (he should be the clear-cut nickel this year if he is), and if all the hype Jackson has gotten in the offseason is legit. Other stuff I want to see: Will Jennings take another step toward becoming an elite WR? Will Grant prove last year wasn't a fluke? Will Jon Ryan become consistent? Do we have a dime back? Will they find a way to put Hawk in a position to make more plays? Will Supertoe miss a kick this year? Gotta get Grant signed quickly. If he holds out too long, Jackson better be ready because we all remember what tends to happen when RBs hold out ::cough::DorseyLevens::cough:: Nice to see you back around these parts, Mac! BTW, if you're one of the anti-Favrites, don't burn those retirement newspapers, kay? I do still want to find a way to get them from you