Packers fall to 6-10, but failure not about Favre
Photo
GREEN BAY Thanks to a stunning seven losses by four points or less, the Green Bay Packers tumbled to a 6-10 record after making it to the NFC title game last season.
But despite a remarkably ugly player-front office dispute that turned training camp into a circus, the Packers didn't fail this season because Brett Favre was playing somewhere else.
"Favre had nothing to do with our season," wide receiver Greg Jennings said. "So people can look at it whatever way they want to view it. But we played, he didn't. It was on us."
True, first-year starting quarterback Aaron Rodgers didn't convert several chances at last-minute victories. But statistically, the Packers' offense didn't drop off significantly from last season.
Instead, the major culprit was an injury-riddled defense that gave up big plays in bunches and struggled to hold on to fourth-quarter leads.
Green Bay came into the post-Favre era hoping to win with a defense-first mentality, but that notion was derailed when backups couldn't make up for several significant injuries to starters.
The Packers lost defensive end Cullen Jenkins to a chest injury early in the season and later lost middle linebacker Nick Barnett to a knee injury. Safety Atari Bibgy had injuries all season and was never quite right, even when he was on the field.
Veteran pass rusher Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila wasn't able to regain his speed after having knee surgery in the offseason and was waived.
Defensive tackle Justin Harrell — whom the Packers were counting on to take a major step forward after an ill-fated decision to trade Corey Williams to Cleveland in the offseason — was slowed by injuries for the second straight season.
Would the Packers be back in the playoffs if the defense was healthy?
"When you start thinking about the ifs, you can 'if' all day," Jenkins said. "You start thinking about different scenarios. Obviously, the bottom line is, you've got to win with the guys you've got out there."
But the Packers' backups weren't able to take up the slack.
The secondary was the defense's best unit, but couldn't always make up for a pass rush that was almost nonexistent outside of defensive end Aaron Kampman. The run defense was a consistent disappointment.
Now veteran cornerback Charles Woodson, who played some safety in the second half of the season because of injuries, is lobbying the front office for help.
"We need to get some more veteran guys in here on the team, the guys who have weathered a few storms in their careers and know what it's all about," Woodson said. "I don't know what'll be done, but I know that there will be some things done."
There also is speculation about defensive coordinator Bob Sanders' job.
"I know it's the nature of the business, but the guys, we hope Bob will come back," defensive tackle Ryan Pickett said. "You always feel responsibility. A lot of the stuff is not on him. A lot is on the players."
Beyond boosting the defense, the Packers have several other pressing offseason priorities. Among them:
—They're searching for continuity on the offensive line after rotating players all season. But they could lose cornerstone right tackle Mark Tauscher, a free agent whose future with the team was up in the air even before his season-ending knee injury.
—Jennings, who led the Packers with 80 catches, 1,292 yards and nine touchdowns, has another year left on his contract but is angling for a new deal.
—The Packers' special teams, which took a major step backward, must get back to the success they had in 2007.
But the Packers are the only NFC North team without major questions at quarterback.
The team had high expectations for Rodgers — and he generally met them, throwing for 4,038 yards with 28 touchdowns and only 13 interceptions. And he started all 16 games despite sustaining a painful shoulder injury in Week 4.
Rodgers says he needs to become more consistent and plans to lock himself in the film room during the offseason.
After heading down under to blow off some steam, that is.
"I'll probably sit on the beach in Australia and think about some of the things that went wrong — and then get back in the water," Rodgers said. "But on a serious note, I'll definitely think about it the next few days. But I'm going to clear my head a little bit. It'll be a long offseason. There'll be plenty of time to watch the plays from this season and think about the things that went wrong and ways to fix it."
And with the seemingly never-ending issue of Favre's potential retirement not hanging over the franchise for the first time in years, the Packers can count on a relatively calm offseason — a huge plus, despite players' best efforts to brush off past Favre-related drama.
"Trust me, if it had been a distraction, some guys probably would have voiced that," Jennings said. "But it wasn't a distraction. I'm sure it was tough for 'A-Rod' at the beginning, but in hindsight, this is where we are. This is not where we would have liked to have been, but it is what it is."

Dec 31, 2008 at 10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Last year, with Favre having one of his best Packer seasons ever, the Packer offense generated 4300 passing yards, 30 tds and 15 picks. It averaged 27.2 points per game. This year, with Rodgers starting his first full season, the Packers had 3800 passing yards, 28 tds and only 13 picks. It averaged 26.2 points per game. There is not a whole lot of difference on offense between Favre's last year and Rodgers first.
However, on defense in 2007, opponents only averaged 18.2 points a game and 280 yards a game. In 2008 those numbers ballooned to 23.8 points a game and 335 yards a game. That is why the Packers had a 6-10 record! It had nothing to do with quarterback.
Dec 30, 2008 at 5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
cappy man;Who you got in your back pocket? GO JETS,& go to the unemployment line for green bay management!
Dec 30, 2008 at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
good point.
Dec 30, 2008 at 11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
I cannot belive this is still an issue. Favre is gone , Rodgers is our QB. Look to the future not the past. It was going to end sometime. Granted all sides handled this poorly, but what is done is done. I am looking forward to the Rodgers era. and remember Favre did not start his career with the pack as a pro bowler, just anther QB starting a career.
Dec 30, 2008 at 12:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Favre is just simply getting old. SAME thing happened this year with the Jets as it did with the Packers last season. He looked FANTASTIC in the middle of the season, and simply was out of gas at the end of the season.
.
The middle of the season he was the great Favre of old, both this year and last. Down the stretch he simply had nothing left. The numbers mean nothing when comparing him to Rodgers. I STILL would have taken Favre, because I think they would have done much better in the close games early in the season. Rodgers has great "west coast" numbers. Anyone can put up good rating #'s in that system, but when it comes time to actually LEAD your team to a WIN..That's when I take Favre any day over a system guy like Rodgers. Favre lead the Jets to a couple wins that were all him early in the season. Rodgers had games that were losses where he had great #'s, but did not put together that drive that WON the game.
.
All said and done, the Packers were a HUGE disappointment. The Jets had a much improved season from last year. Favre really should have just sat out in retirement, and waited for big QB to go down. It happens EVERY year. This year, 1st week, Brady went down. Imagine if had gone to New England then, with all those receivers?!
Dec 30, 2008 at 12:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
The New York Jets would not have had the season they had without Brett Farve. However Chad Pennington would not be in the situation he is in if he were still in New York and not Miami. The true question is, how much more effective would the Packers Offense have been with Farve. There is no question that teams completly changed their defensive planning without Farve in control. He is expert at reading defensive sets and using the audible to pick them apart. Rodgers just does not have 18 years of experience to do the same thing. I agree, you do not usher out an all pro quarterback unless you have someone better to take his place. Theere was alot of ego on the front offices' part to field a team "they built" which excluded Farve, the last of the champions.
Dec 29, 2008 at 10:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Your right Favre had nothing to do with this failure. Ted Thompson and Mike Mcarthy did tho. The 2 men who ran Favre off. We would be in the playoffs if they would of let him come back. Some of The teams we lost to this year is incredible. You cant compare Rodgers to Favre because there is no comparison. Favre got the offense fired up. This team week in and week out did not show any fire or enthusiam . They went thru the motions. Can you tell me who the leader of this team is ? Didnt think so because they dont have one.
Dec 29, 2008 at 10:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Stats don't always add up to victory however. I like Rodgers and am pleasantly surprised with his numbers. However, he has got to finish the game. Maybe I am missing it, but I don't see a "killer instint" yet. Maybe he can work on that this offseason. I hear he is going to Australia to sit on a beach. I sure hope he doesn't wear a Speedo this time.
Dec 29, 2008 at 8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Statistically, Rodgers was way better than Favre.
Dec 29, 2008 at 8:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
And they could have been better with Favre. Nobody knows for sure.
Dec 29, 2008 at 6:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Pack could have been worse than 6-10 this year WITH Favre...
Rogers is the Packer's starting QB and it was a good decision.
People are focusing on the record too much and trying to place blame. They lost 7 games by 7 or less points! They could have easily been 13-3 this year again. Last year they won the close games, it just didn't work out that way this year.
Next year could be a different story - and hopefully it will be.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.