Corp000085 Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 They did a piece on the new backup QB of the packers and how he'l learn from brett favre. They then went on to mention that favre wasn't at the minicamp because he was with his wife battling cancer. The very last thing they asked rogers was "what do you think about favre not being here" and he said "lazy"... Now, i know this is just a kid, who was obviously trying to make a joke, but you don't joke about the team leader being lazy when he's really with his cancerous wife. I know i'm reading too much into this, but still... that could be damaging to this guy for as long as favre is the QB.
jayg Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 They did a piece on the new backup QB of the packers and how he'l learn from brett favre. They then went on to mention that favre wasn't at the minicamp because he was with his wife battling cancer. The very last thing they asked rogers was "what do you think about favre not being here" and he said "lazy"... Now, i know this is just a kid, who was obviously trying to make a joke, but you don't joke about the team leader being lazy when he's really with his cancerous wife. I know i'm reading too much into this, but still... that could be damaging to this guy for as long as favre is the QB. 323141[/snapback] No doubt. I thought the same thing. Crapping out of his mouth. I'm sure he had no malice in his words.
envirojeff Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 You've got alot to learn youngster, and lazy Mr. Favre is just the man to teach you! Jeff
Navy Chief Navy Pride Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Starting off on the right foot?---I think not.
Corp000085 Posted April 29, 2005 Author Posted April 29, 2005 Reminds me of the concert scene in black sheep: "KILL WHITEY!"
Mark VI Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Not a mention of it in the Green Bay papers. I don't think it's getting any play with the Packer faithful. A non-issue perhaps ?
brihs2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Not a mention of it in the Green Bay papers. I don't think it's getting any play with the Packer faithful. A non-issue perhaps ? 323149[/snapback] I would say it is a non-issue... the rest of the quote was.... "(smiling)Lazy... no, i'm just kidding. He deserves it."
Thailog80 Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I would say it is a non-issue... the rest of the quote was.... "(smiling)Lazy... no, i'm just kidding. He deserves it." 323151[/snapback] It was completely innocent.
VABills Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Yup anyway to serve an agenda. Tear down the other players selected to make it look like Losman was the best choice. Folks wait until these guys see the field to see who is best. Stop make sh-- up or taking things out of context.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Yup anyway to serve an agenda. Tear down the other players selected to make it look like Losman was the best choice. Folks wait until these guys see the field to see who is best. Stop make sh-- up or taking things out of context. I'm sure he was kidding, but there's a reason Rodgers fell to 24th in a WEAK draft. We'll see who is the better QB.
VABills Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I'm sure he was kidding, but there's a reason Rodgers fell to 24th in a WEAK draft. We'll see who is the better QB. 323173[/snapback] No, I don't think he was. The level that some folks go to make it look like a "Bills" player is so great while everyone sucks is unbelievable. We have some very good players, but we have some crap ones also, just like every other team in the league. Until Rodgers robs a bank, molests a 15 year old at a corner gas station, or is caught doing ddrugs, I could care less what the hell he pretty much does off the field. Same goes for our own players. But what they do on the field is important. Oh and the draft was not weak overall, just at the top. Every talking head and GM has said this. Very deep draft just no star quality.
BuckeyeBill Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 NO WAY does Rodgers mean it... LAZY? That was out of context. Favre better be his idol for the next year or two. He should be joyous holding the clipboard and talking with Favre and learning from one of the best ever. He would be stupid not to.
eball Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 No, I don't think he was. The level that some folks go to make it look like a "Bills" player is so great while everyone sucks is unbelievable. We have some very good players, but we have some crap ones also, just like every other team in the league. Until Rodgers robs a bank, molests a 15 year old at a corner gas station, or is caught doing ddrugs, I could care less what the hell he pretty much does off the field. Same goes for our own players. But what they do on the field is important. Oh and the draft was not weak overall, just at the top. Every talking head and GM has said this. Very deep draft just no star quality. 323178[/snapback] VA, we all know you've got an agenda to push -- namely, your "inside source" who tells you losman is going to fail. no need to start something here.
VABills Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 VA, we all know you've got an agenda to push -- namely, your "inside source" who tells you losman is going to fail. no need to start something here. 323183[/snapback] No agenda. Let's wait until they are all on the field. No reason to make sh-- up just to feel better about the Losman pick , is all I said. As far as it goes, I hope he is wrong. I really do. I am a Bills fan first and foremost, above everything else. But he sure the !@#$ was right on Travis wasn't he?
Peter Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Yup anyway to serve an agenda. Tear down the other players selected to make it look like Losman was the best choice. Folks wait until these guys see the field to see who is best. Stop make sh-- up or taking things out of context. 323171[/snapback] Very good point.
Beerball Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 It was completely innocent. 323170[/snapback] BS! He's DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
Dan Gross Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I'm sure he was kidding, but there's a reason Rodgers fell to 24th in a WEAK draft. We'll see who is the better QB. 323173[/snapback] Ummmm, because only one other team in the top 23 needed a QB of the future? Even without a weak draft you had 5 teams get their QB of the future before the 1st round was up last year (I'm counting Henson). He was the 2nd QB to go this year....
OGTEleven Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I'm sure he was kidding, but there's a reason Rodgers fell to 24th in a WEAK draft. We'll see who is the better QB. 323173[/snapback] Don't you think that the main reason he fell to 24th is that QB was not a need position for many teams from 2-23? The only one I can think of would be the fish and they needed an RB more.
Ramius Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 i'm not gonna flame him, because you know he didnt mean it, he was just kidding around...however given the circumstances, it was a poor choice of words...
Arkady Renko Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I thought it was pretty well-accepted that Rodgers fell due to a combination of many teams not needing a QB and the whole Ron Tedford curse thing. I don't think it was just being caused by teams not needing a QB. The Cardinals , the Bucs and the Dolphins, for example, would not have been criticized for drafting a QB early in the first round.
Recommended Posts