Favre return isn't a given

[Brando19]

http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080212/PKR07/80212224/1989

The Brett Favre Retirement Watch has generated a collective yawn this offseason.


It’s not that people don’t care, but maybe Packers fans have endured the “will he?” or “won’t he?” scenario so often they figure it’s not worth the energy.

Fretting about Favre’s status won’t change his mind, and it won’t speed up the process.

But after the Packers came so agonizingly close to the Super Bowl, shouldn’t fans spend their waking hours hoping Favre returns for one more title run? Instead, there’s a feeling of calm among the Packers faithful.

It’s possible a false sense of security has set in because the evidence supporting Favre’s return is so overwhelming. Conventional wisdom says the decision is a no-brainer.

The Packers are a bona fide Super Bowl contender. Favre remains remarkably healthy and played at the top of his game in 2007. Favre has a strong relationship with coach Mike McCarthy. The Packers’ offense, ranked No. 2 in the NFL, has the potential to improve with the development of young receivers and the emergence of running back Ryan Grant. A $12 million base salary can’t be dismissed.

How could Favre walk away from all of that? Well, he might have his reasons:



There is nothing left to prove. Grasping for another Super Bowl ring is a noble goal, but Favre has been there and done that. Winning another championship would elevate Favre’s legacy, but it’s already in the stratosphere. He will go down as one of the best quarterbacks to play the game.


Favre’s bank account, like his legacy, doesn’t need enhancing. He can live comfortably for the rest of his life without earning another dime. If Favre needs a little spending money, his image and Hall of Fame career would attract lucrative endorsement deals for a long time.


Spending his retirement days in the warm climate of Mississippi, Favre never again would have to brave the brutal Midwest winters that feature below-zero temperatures, bone-chilling winds and frozen fingers.


Offseasons would involve carefree days of golfing, fishing, hunting and relaxing poolside instead of putting his 38-year-old body through rigorous, gut-busting workouts. The thought of not having to fly to Wisconsin for tedious minicamp and organized team activity sessions in May and June might sound appealing.


After being exposed to fame, glitz and glitter for almost two decades, the thought of a normal lifestyle would be attractive. Not having to split his grade-school daughter’s academic year between Wisconsin and Mississippi would be a big plus.


The theory that retirement would get boring and a man only can mow so much grass before needing a diversion is something everyone must face. Sometime soon, Favre will confront that dilemma. Thus, he must ask himself whether putting off the inevitable is reason enough to play another season.

I remain convinced Favre’s competitive nature will lure him back. But if the decision is so obvious, why didn’t he announce his intention to return soon after the season ended? He’s at least considering the prospect of life after football.

Favre likely will declare his plans in the next two weeks. If it’s like recent years, he will phone longtime friend Al Jones of the Biloxi Sun Herald and tell him the good tidings Packers fans want to hear. If it’s something different, news conferences will be scheduled, special editions will roll off the presses, ESPN will churn out hours of tributes, and the world as we know it never will quite be the same

[Pacopete4]

COOOOOOOOME BAAAAAAAAAAAAACK PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!!!! Even if A-rod is a capable starter in this league I dont care, I dont wanna see it yet..

[VegasPackFan]

Favre has ALWAYS said that he would keep playing if:

He felt he was still playing at a high level - CHECK

He was having fun playing the game - CHECK (even more this year than maybe ever)

The team could be a winner - CHECK

HE IS COMING BACK

[twoseven]

Arod's showing in pre-season and how he looked off the bench in Dallas are most of the reason people are not on the edge of their Favre seats. IMO, just as long as he lets them know before free agency is my only concern, I want TT to have every freedom at that time to do what he has to do.

[Iron Mike]

http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080212/PKR07/80212224/1989


Spending his retirement days in the warm climate of Mississippi, Favre never again would have to brave the brutal Midwest winters that feature below-zero temperatures, bone-chilling winds and frozen fingers.

I've lived here for 40+ years and have yet to freeze any fingers. :roll:

[MJZiggy]

Arod's showing in pre-season and how he looked off the bench in Dallas are most of the reason people are not on the edge of their Favre seats. IMO, just as long as he lets them know before free agency is my only concern, I want TT to have every freedom at that time to do what he has to do.

TT has said a hundred times that he's not going to base any decisions or choices on who the quarterback is. Even if he doesn't have a decision, he will do what he needs to do to make the team better. If he thinks a backup qb will be necessary once Favre is gone, he will get one regardless.

[Patler]

Arod's showing in pre-season and how he looked off the bench in Dallas are most of the reason people are not on the edge of their Favre seats. IMO, just as long as he lets them know before free agency is my only concern, I want TT to have every freedom at that time to do what he has to do.

TT has said a hundred times that he's not going to base any decisions or choices on who the quarterback is. Even if he doesn't have a decision, he will do what he needs to do to make the team better. If he thinks a backup qb will be necessary once Favre is gone, he will get one regardless.

When you think about it, why should it matter who the QB is? Does Favre need WRs more or less than Rodgers does? Does he need linemen more or less than Rodgers? RBs? It certainly has no impact on TT's plans for the defense, or special teams.

The only affect it would have is that if Favre comes back, they don't need a #2 QB, and can maybe look at drafting a guy for #3. If Favre does not come back, TT may have a little more interest in signing a veteran who would be capable of stepping in if Rodgers went out, even if he still drafts a QB "project". Other than that, it really shouldn't matter who the QB is.

[MacCool606]

I originally had no doubt that Brett would come back, given the year he has had. But then 2 things happened that raised doubt that he will (this is my very scientific deduction) - Tony Dungy and Mike Holmgren announced they were comming back.

I was 1005 convinced that Brett was comming back, and that both Dungy and Holmgren would retire. I was wrong on 2 of them, and now fear it may be a clean sweep.

Boy do I hope I'm wrong (or right on one of them!

[MJZiggy]

Arod's showing in pre-season and how he looked off the bench in Dallas are most of the reason people are not on the edge of their Favre seats. IMO, just as long as he lets them know before free agency is my only concern, I want TT to have every freedom at that time to do what he has to do.

TT has said a hundred times that he's not going to base any decisions or choices on who the quarterback is. Even if he doesn't have a decision, he will do what he needs to do to make the team better. If he thinks a backup qb will be necessary once Favre is gone, he will get one regardless.

When you think about it, why should it matter who the QB is? Does Favre need WRs more or less than Rodgers does? Does he need linemen more or less than Rodgers? RBs? It certainly has no impact on TT's plans for the defense, or special teams.

The only affect it would have is that if Favre comes back, they don't need a #2 QB, and can maybe look at drafting a guy for #3. If Favre does not come back, TT may have a little more interest in signing a veteran who would be capable of stepping in if Rodgers went out, even if he still drafts a QB "project". Other than that, it really shouldn't matter who the QB is.
Isn't that what I just said? :mrgreen:

[GBRulz]

Well, his house isn't up for sale.... so, he's coming back :D

[LL2]

One thing I agree with that the article states is that there is a sense of clam this year among the Packer faithful. The past few years everyone was anxious. You would think after coming so close to the SB people would be more anxious. I think the Packers will be fine whether or not Favre retires.

[Patler]

Arod's showing in pre-season and how he looked off the bench in Dallas are most of the reason people are not on the edge of their Favre seats. IMO, just as long as he lets them know before free agency is my only concern, I want TT to have every freedom at that time to do what he has to do.

TT has said a hundred times that he's not going to base any decisions or choices on who the quarterback is. Even if he doesn't have a decision, he will do what he needs to do to make the team better. If he thinks a backup qb will be necessary once Favre is gone, he will get one regardless.

When you think about it, why should it matter who the QB is? Does Favre need WRs more or less than Rodgers does? Does he need linemen more or less than Rodgers? RBs? It certainly has no impact on TT's plans for the defense, or special teams.

The only affect it would have is that if Favre comes back, they don't need a #2 QB, and can maybe look at drafting a guy for #3. If Favre does not come back, TT may have a little more interest in signing a veteran who would be capable of stepping in if Rodgers went out, even if he still drafts a QB "project". Other than that, it really shouldn't matter who the QB is.
Isn't that what I just said? :mrgreen:

Yup, I was just agreeing with you and TT. (I try to keep only the BEST company! :lol: )

[LL2]

Well, his house isn't up for sale.... so, he's coming back :D

Does his daughters to go school half a year in GB then half a year in Mississippi?

[sepporepi]

Well, his house isn't up for sale.... so, he's coming back Very Happy

Stalker !! :mrgreen: :crazy: :mrgreen:

[Patler]

I believe fans now realize that Favre is no longer the difference maker, whether or not he is better than Rodgers, The loss to the Giants was an awakening for some, demonstrating that even with Favre, and being just one game away from the Super Bowl, playing at home; having Favre didn't matter. Watching Manning perform efficiently when Favre didn't, under conditions in which most thought the advantage would go to Favre, raises an underlying doubt. In that game, on that day, would Rodgers maybe have performed better???

Doubts like that make the urgency of Favre's return less intense. I think many now realize it may not happen again with Favre, and so they are willing to move on, or accept his return. It isn't that important to them either way.

The belief that Favre absolutely would get the Packers to the Super Bowl if they just got close enough is now gone.

[LL2]

The belief that Favre absolutely would get the Packers to the Super Bowl if they just got close enough is now gone.

Isn't that a sign of when to hang it up?

[Patler]

The belief that Favre absolutely would get the Packers to the Super Bowl if they just got close enough is now gone.

Isn't that a sign of when to hang it up?

I have expressed an opinion earlier that he will not return; and that is why.

He made the infamous "Do I still want the ball with the game on the line" statement before, which showed me that he was very serious about retiring, and that he himself had doubts about the level of his commitment and his abilities. Having the ball with a trip to the Super Bowl on the line, and failing, I think may be enough to push him into retirement. Favre has expressed more self-doubt in the last two or three seasons than I can recall from him collectively before then.

[cpk1994]

Well, his house isn't up for sale.... so, he's coming back :DHe doesn't have another golf membership to give up, does he? :D

[Harlan Huckleby]

how many players retire before they have to? Just a handful.

[Patler]

how many players retire before they have to? Just a handful.

That's true, but we are only beginning to see the era of wildly rich players nearing the ends of their careers. The ones who made enough by age 30 to live lavishly the rest of their lives.

[fan4life]

I believe fans now realize that Favre is no longer the difference maker, whether or not he is better than Rodgers, The loss to the Giants was an awakening for some, demonstrating that even with Favre, and being just one game away from the Super Bowl, playing at home; having Favre didn't matter. Watching Manning perform efficiently when Favre didn't, under conditions in which most thought the advantage would go to Favre, raises an underlying doubt. In that game, on that day, would Rodgers maybe have performed better???

Doubts like that make the urgency of Favre's return less intense. I think many now realize it may not happen again with Favre, and so they are willing to move on, or accept his return. It isn't that important to them either way.

The belief that Favre absolutely would get the Packers to the Super Bowl if they just got close enough is now gone.

Well, that load of c&^% speaks for yourself. You are WAY OFF BASE about what most fans think.

Most fans recognize that Favre was the only reason the Packers got anywhere near the SB this year. His strong play early in the year helped a young team grow throughout the season. The efficiency and big-play threat of the passing game was the culmination of Favre's experience and his receivers' ability to master MMs "check with me" system, which allowed the veteran signal-caller to get his offense into and out of plays that had the best chance for gain. That, and MMs continued commitment to develop the run, allowed Grant to emerge as a threat out of the Packers base formation, when defenses had to respect Favre's play action.

Most fans also realize that whether Favre returns or not, the Packers need to be able to line up and run the ball against defenses focused on stopping the run. Especially if they are going to win in December and January, when executing 2 and 3-step pass plays to receivers on timing routes is complicated by uncontrollable weather conditions. Eli had a strong run game; Favre needs it; and Rodgers, who is nowhere near operating at Favre's level of expertise, will certainly benefit from having to throw much less than the old veteran.

Finally, fans are less anxious about Favre's return because they believe he will come back, encouraged by the development of the team on both offense and defense; his comfort with MM and command of MMs system; and, finally, stated goal of MM (and presumably TT) to spend the effort and resources necessay to develop a power running game.

Intelligent fans also know that Favre is still the heart-and-soul of the GB Packers and the team's best chance for a SB in the near-term, but that football is ultimately a team sport - and that while he can be the difference-maker, there is a limit to what he can do to overcome a team getting beat in the trenches. At least in a wind storm or the sub-zero temperatures of the Frozen Tundra.

Whether TT is ready to spend the money to get an O-line that can run-block, MM dedicates himself to sticking with the run, and Favre is willing to put in the time to keep his body young are issues all three men are dealing with, as we speak. Because all three of them know that if Favre returns, both the fans as well as they themselves will expect nothing less than a SB appearance in 2008.

But, I agree with you that there are a fews fans foolish enough to discount Favre's significant contributions to GBs success. But those folks have always been around and will continue to raise their ugly voices until the day he finally does retire.

I just wonder, whoever will they find to blame for GB not going 19-0 every year when he's gone?

[Patler]

I believe fans now realize that Favre is no longer the difference maker, whether or not he is better than Rodgers, The loss to the Giants was an awakening for some, demonstrating that even with Favre, and being just one game away from the Super Bowl, playing at home; having Favre didn't matter. Watching Manning perform efficiently when Favre didn't, under conditions in which most thought the advantage would go to Favre, raises an underlying doubt. In that game, on that day, would Rodgers maybe have performed better???

Doubts like that make the urgency of Favre's return less intense. I think many now realize it may not happen again with Favre, and so they are willing to move on, or accept his return. It isn't that important to them either way.

The belief that Favre absolutely would get the Packers to the Super Bowl if they just got close enough is now gone.

Well, that load of c&^% speaks for yourself. You are WAY OFF BASE about what most fans think.

Most fans recognize that Favre was the only reason the Packers got anywhere near the SB this year. His strong play early in the year helped a young team grow throughout the season. The efficiency and big-play threat of the passing game was the culmination of Favre's experience and his receivers' ability to master MMs "check with me" system, which allowed the veteran signal-caller to get his offense into and out of plays that had the best chance for gain. That, and MMs continued commitment to develop the run, allowed Grant to emerge as a threat out of the Packers base formation, when defenses had to respect Favre's play action.

Most fans also realize that whether Favre returns or not, the Packers need to be able to line up and run the ball against defenses focused on stopping the run. Especially if they are going to win in December and January, when executing 2 and 3-step pass plays to receivers on timing routes is complicated by uncontrollable weather conditions. Eli had a strong run game; Favre needs it; and Rodgers, who is nowhere near operating at Favre's level of expertise, will certainly benefit from having to throw much less than the old veteran.

Finally, fans are less anxious about Favre's return because they believe he will come back, encouraged by the development of the team on both offense and defense; his comfort with MM and command of MMs system; and, finally, stated goal of MM (and presumably TT) to spend the effort and resources necessay to develop a power running game.

Intelligent fans also know that Favre is still the heart-and-soul of the GB Packers and the team's best chance for a SB in the near-term, but that football is ultimately a team sport - and that while he can be the difference-maker, there is a limit to what he can do to overcome a team getting beat in the trenches. At least in a wind storm or the sub-zero temperatures of the Frozen Tundra.

Whether TT is ready to spend the money to get an O-line that can run-block, MM dedicates himself to sticking with the run, and Favre is willing to put in the time to keep his body young are issues all three men are dealing with, as we speak. Because all three of them know that if Favre returns, both the fans as well as they themselves will expect nothing less than a SB appearance in 2008.

But, I agree with you that there are a fews fans foolish enough to discount Favre's significant contributions to GBs success. But those folks have always been around and will continue to raise their ugly voices until the day he finally does retire.

I just wonder, whoever will they find to blame for GB not going 19-0 every year when he's gone?

Either your pro-Favre passion, or my inarticulate explanation caused you to miss my point completely.

I was not at all talking about what Favre meant to the team throughout the season. For the most part, I agree with you. However, playoffs are a different animal. What I was addressing was the feeling that has persisted for years, much of it rightly so, that in a big game the Packers had a significant advantage simply because Favre was the QB. He alone could be the difference maker, just as Elway was when younger. However, that was not true of Elway in his last few years, and I would submit it is not true of Favre now at the end of a long season. You have as much admitted it.

In short, clearly the Packers can win with Favre, but to go all the way it will not be BECAUSE of Favre as much as it could have been in the past. For that reason, whether he stays or not does not have the same importance as 5 or 6 seasons ago.

[The Leaper]

He alone could be the difference maker, just as Elway was when younger. However, that was not true of Elway in his last few years, and I would submit it is not true of Favre now at the end of a long season. You have as much admitted it.

I agree. Which is why I brought up the point in another thread that if Favre comes back, he should not be on the field 100% of the time next year...not because we need to develop Rodgers, but because Favre has clearly worn down over the course of the year in the last 2 seasons.

If we are up 10 points in the 4th quarter, Aaron Rodgers needs to be on the field. He's a first round draft pick, and should have the capacity to caretake a 2 score lead in the 4th quarter and allow Favre to conserve his legs.

[fan4life]

Oh, I got your drift. But summarily dismissed it. True, Favre is not the dominant QB he was 5 or 6 years ago. But if we, as fans, have learned anything over the past 16 years it is that one man can only do so much. And will inevitably come up short when those around him can't block, can't tackle, can't run, can't catch and can't coach.

To say that fans are less anxious about Favre returning because they may have some hope that Life After Favre won't be the darkness predicted a few years ago is a presumption.

More accurate would be to say that Life After Favre is an inevitability most have accepted.

[Green Bud Packer]

I feel the Pack would be a better team in '08 with Favre than without him.

I don't believe Favre was better 5-6 years ago than he is now. He is allowed to change things up at the line which I feel is a strength where as 5-6 years ago his hands were tied.

I hope he plays out his contract.

[Patler]

To say that fans are less anxious about Favre returning because they may have some hope that Life After Favre won't be the darkness predicted a few years ago is a presumption.


Of course it is, just like any of your opinions are also presumptions.
My opinions are just that, opinions, as are yours.

However, I am of the opinion that the god-like reverence extended by many toward Favre took a hit when he was given a chance to lead a drive to the Super Bowl, and came up with a fairly bad throw when his ability was needed the most.

The addict-like need for him to return has been diminished. Withdrawal from Favre addiction has begun.

[Patler]

I feel the Pack would be a better team in '08 with Favre than without him.

I don't believe Favre was better 5-6 years ago than he is now. He is allowed to change things up at the line which I feel is a strength where as 5-6 years ago his hands were tied.

I hope he plays out his contract.

I will be pleased if he returns. He is enjoyable to watch. However, I will not agonize, regret nor shed a tear if he hangs it up.

I have seen too many great and "irreplaceable" stars in all sports leave over the past 50+ years to be too concerned about whether or not another one retires. That is why I have found the "Favre Watch" the last few years to be sort of humorous.

[4and12to12and4]

One thing I agree with that the article states is that there is a sense of clam this year among the Packer faithful. The past few years everyone was anxious. You would think after coming so close to the SB people would be more anxious. I think the Packers will be fine whether or not Favre retires.

I'm not a big fish eater. Maybe that's why I'm getting a divorce!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[twoseven]

Arod's showing in pre-season and how he looked off the bench in Dallas are most of the reason people are not on the edge of their Favre seats. IMO, just as long as he lets them know before free agency is my only concern, I want TT to have every freedom at that time to do what he has to do.

TT has said a hundred times that he's not going to base any decisions or choices on who the quarterback is. Even if he doesn't have a decision, he will do what he needs to do to make the team better. If he thinks a backup qb will be necessary once Favre is gone, he will get one regardless.
Would retaining Corey Williams be easier with Brett's 11 mil in space available? Are there any QBs in FA that might be better backups than Craig Nall? Are there any FAs, period, that would be easier to pursue with Brett's 11 mil available? You apparently can read TT's mind, I cannot. I still see it as a benefit to the team to know what #4 is doing before FA starts.

[Patler]

Would retaining Corey Williams be easier with Brett's 11 mil in space available? Are there any QBs in FA that might be better backups than Craig Nall? Are there any FAs, period, that would be easier to pursue with Brett's 11 mil available? You apparently can read TT's mind, I cannot. I still see it as a benefit to the team to know what #4 is doing before FA starts.

I'm not sure the extra $11 million in cap space would make a bit of difference in how much will be offered to Williams, or any other FA.

[the_idle_threat]

One thing I agree with that the article states is that there is a sense of clam this year among the Packer faithful. The past few years everyone was anxious. You would think after coming so close to the SB people would be more anxious. I think the Packers will be fine whether or not Favre retires.

I'm not a big fish eater. Maybe that's why I'm getting a divorce!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I'm not gonna say a word ... I'm gettin myself into enough trouble on that other thread as it is ...

[Partial]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[fan4life]

To say that fans are less anxious about Favre returning because they may have some hope that Life After Favre won't be the darkness predicted a few years ago is a presumption.


Of course it is, just like any of your opinions are also presumptions.
My opinions are just that, opinions, as are yours.

However, I am of the opinion that the god-like reverence extended by many toward Favre took a hit when he was given a chance to lead a drive to the Super Bowl, and came up with a fairly bad throw when his ability was needed the most.

The addict-like need for him to return has been diminished. Withdrawal from Favre addiction has begun. I can assure you, Patler, that fans who have a "god-like reverence for Favre" accept his fallabilities.

Me? I accept that Favre came through in the clutch too many times in both that game as well as the playoff against Seattle to doubt that he was as capable of "leading a drive to the SB" as any QB I have ever seen. But that even in sudden death overtime, it takes a team effort. And that to judge a man's ability by one botched play shows the insight of a juvenile whose expectations and 'hero worship' are way out of proportion with the realities of the game.

I respect that you are getting off your addition to Favre, though.

[twoseven]

Would retaining Corey Williams be easier with Brett's 11 mil in space available? Are there any QBs in FA that might be better backups than Craig Nall? Are there any FAs, period, that would be easier to pursue with Brett's 11 mil available? You apparently can read TT's mind, I cannot. I still see it as a benefit to the team to know what #4 is doing before FA starts.

I'm not sure the extra $11 million in cap space would make a bit of difference in how much will be offered to Williams, or any other FA.
Are there any QBs in FA that would be better backups than Nall, or potential starters over Rodgers? What is the likelihood we give any of them a look if Favre is coming back? What is the likelihood we give any of them a look if Favre retired tomorrow? If you claim no difference, so be it, I'll turn the page.

[Pacopete4]

I believe fans now realize that Favre is no longer the difference maker, whether or not he is better than Rodgers, The loss to the Giants was an awakening for some, demonstrating that even with Favre, and being just one game away from the Super Bowl, playing at home; having Favre didn't matter. Watching Manning perform efficiently when Favre didn't, under conditions in which most thought the advantage would go to Favre, raises an underlying doubt. In that game, on that day, would Rodgers maybe have performed better???

Doubts like that make the urgency of Favre's return less intense. I think many now realize it may not happen again with Favre, and so they are willing to move on, or accept his return. It isn't that important to them either way.

The belief that Favre absolutely would get the Packers to the Super Bowl if they just got close enough is now gone.



so Tom Brady isn't a difference maker either? How bout Peyton Manning?.. only ONE,....... ONE! team can win it every year.. key word TEAM

Favre gives us our best chance by a land slide and will continue to do so if he plays like he did last season..

[Patler]

Are there any QBs in FA that would be better backups than Nall, or potential starters over Rodgers? What is the likelihood we give any of them a look if Favre is coming back? What is the likelihood we give any of them a look if Favre retired tomorrow? If you claim no difference, so be it, I'll turn the page.

Did I not already state, at the start of this thread:


The only affect it would have is that if Favre comes back, they don't need a #2 QB, and can maybe look at drafting a guy for #3. If Favre does not come back, TT may have a little more interest in signing a veteran who would be capable of stepping in if Rodgers went out, even if he still drafts a QB "project". Other than that, it really shouldn't matter who the QB is.????

If you can't follow the discussion, I will simply quit. Good night.

[b bulldog]

I hope BRETT COMES back and I'm far from an apologist cause he was better this year and may be our best QB next year. Any QB at Brett's age though is far from a lock at being able to put up great numbers like he did this year. I just hope that MM has a short leash on Brett when he has his games like Dallas and the Bears where he kills the team on his own.

[RashanGary]

I don't have time to read through another stupid Favre thread right now, but I just wanted to add if nobody hasn't said this yet that. .. . .

This is a big "stir the off season pot" moment for the bored GB media. Nobody was saying a word about Favre and the media just had to stir it up.

[MJZiggy]

What else are they gonna do? It's not like the article really said anything either.

All it said was he might be back if he doesn't retire. Duh.

[Patler]

so Tom Brady isn't a difference maker either? How bout Peyton Manning?.. only ONE,....... ONE! team can win it every year.. key word TEAM

Favre gives us our best chance by a land slide and will continue to do so if he plays like he did last season..

Not in the playoffs Favre hasn't. Not for a long time, Of course that is not uncommon for old players in any sport. They wear out during the season and do not always have playoff impact.

Seattle you may say? That comeback was as much do to with the running game as it was Favre. Grant had more yards running than Favre had passing.

Geez, heaven forbid that someone believes a 38 year old QB isn't as capable as he was at 30.

[packinpatland]

For what it's worth.........from the NFL channel, Rod Woodson's 2 cents.....he thinks that Brett will be back. Best bunch of receivers he's ever had...........

[twoseven]

Are there any QBs in FA that would be better backups than Nall, or potential starters over Rodgers? What is the likelihood we give any of them a look if Favre is coming back? What is the likelihood we give any of them a look if Favre retired tomorrow? If you claim no difference, so be it, I'll turn the page.

Did I not already state, at the start of this thread:


The only affect it would have is that if Favre comes back, they don't need a #2 QB, and can maybe look at drafting a guy for #3. If Favre does not come back, TT may have a little more interest in signing a veteran who would be capable of stepping in if Rodgers went out, even if he still drafts a QB "project". Other than that, it really shouldn't matter who the QB is.????

If you can't follow the discussion, I will simply quit. Good night.
Thank's for the lecture. I'll make sure to proof read more closely before I disturb you in the future.

[Pacopete4]

Geez, heaven forbid that someone believes a 38 year old QB isn't as capable as he was at 30.


weird.. Favre had more wins, more TD's, less INT's, more yards, a better completion percetage this year, at 38, than he did at 30.... strange


i think it has more to do with teams, he didnt have the teams from 1999 on to win super bowls.. we flat our weren't good enough and woulda been way worse without favre, just like we would now

[RashanGary]

i think it has more to do with teams, he didnt have the teams from 1999 on to win super bowls.. we flat our weren't good enough and woulda been way worse without favre, just like we would now

This seems very true. Many times a QB put in a position to not lose the game can just relax, take what's given and end up with W's. It's a very different game when you are on a bad team. I don't know what truely GREAT QB's out there never won SB's, but it wouldn't suprise me that if put in the best conditions, there are guys who would have been looked at in hindsight as the best ever but are now just considered good players.

Favre has greatness cemented, but it doesn't take away that variable of the surrounding teams that exaggerate many QB's greatness or take away greatness from players who never had the luxury of a great defnese and ST's. YOu just can't judge greatness on SB wins, wins, stats or just watching a player alone. You have to put it all together. Many in the media give it all to SB wins. I think that is the worst possible way because the QB is maybe 15% of the equation, not the whole thing and not even close.

[b bulldog]

I agree with the team thing to a point but players can lose games for a team much easier than a player can win games by himself but we were good enough the year we lost in Frisco on the Rice fumble, the year of the 4th and 26 and this year.

[packinpatland]

I agree with the team thing 100% but we were good enough the year we lost in Frisco on the Rice fumble, the year of the 4th and 26 and this year.

Rice fumble.....Young said they were 'owed' that one. :roll:

[b bulldog]

I know, maybe he was thinking of the Beebe catch where he was touched down but the refs missed that call on MNF in 96. That was a missed call in all honesty but imo, the rice call was much worse.

[twoseven]

I know, maybe he was thinking of the Beebe catch where he was touched down but the refs missed that call on MNF in 96. That was a missed call in all honesty but imo, the rice call was much worse.
The Beebe catch happened in the first half, was a first down anyway at the 20-30 yard line (I think) if he was ruled down. The Rice fumble would have literally ENDED the game. No comparison whatsoever, period, print it. Young is a crybaby who never beat GB any other time in his life, his whining about these calls is pathetic. He's a silly man that never lived up to Montana's legacy, then he got sandwiched between Aikman and Favre for the rest of his career and spent most of his January's watching them advance over his squad. It's called bitterness.

[Packerarcher]

Even though I don't post a lot I will say this again. One thing sooo many forget with Favre is the reliability factor,not only does he usually play at a kick ass level. The man does it EVERY frickin game of the season. Laugh if you want,but I guarentee that if Favre retires the Pack will have a revolving door at QB for a while. I think Rodgers is a puss and will go down by his fourth start. If Favre comes back he could just as well get hurt. But you know for damn sure it won't be a hang nail that keeps him on the bench like it would Rodgers.

[RashanGary]

I think Rodgers is a puss.

:lol:

I don't know anyone here that outwardly thinks Rodgers is anything but a puss. Welcome. You'll fit right in :lol:

[packinpatland]

Hey, he broke his foot in the Patriot game last year and still finished the game didn't he?