QB Competition

[Packnut]

I agree it's the best way to settle it. Let them fight it out and may the best QB win.

Mike Vandermause column: Make it Rodgers vs. Favre in camp
Mike Vandermause • July 3, 2008

Read Comments(4)Recommend Print this page E-mail this article
Share this article: Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine What’s this?
If the reports on Wednesday are true that Brett Favre wants to come out of retirement, who can stop him?


Well, in a delicate and somewhat ironic twist, the Green Bay Packers might be the biggest stumbling block.

Favre was the face of the franchise for a decade and a half. He poured his heart and soul into the organization. He carried the team on his back to division titles, countless playoff appearances, NFC championships and a Super Bowl title.

It's difficult to turn your back on a future Hall of Fame quarterback like Favre, arguably the greatest player in the nearly 90-year history of the team. But there are indications the Packers might be willing to do that.

It's hard to fault the Packers for wanting to move forward. Time stops for no player, including someone as dynamic as Favre.

Team officials are confident Aaron Rodgers is their quarterback and don't want to see his development stunted.

In February, the Packers were seemingly OK with leaving Rodgers on the bench for another season. But when Favre announced his retirement, coach Mike McCarthy spent the rest of the offseason preparing his offense with Rodgers in mind.

Favre's return would undo much of that work. The Packers could adjust, but they don't appear enthusiastic about that prospect.

It leaves the team in an uncomfortable, almost awkward position. How do the Packers tactfully tell Favre they're no longer interested in his services? If that's the case, and Favre insists on reporting to training camp anyway, what will the Packers do?

Can the team that plans to retire Favre's number in a ceremony in September decide to cut or trade him in July? Neither option looks attractive.

Fans would never forgive General Manager Ted Thompson for trading Favre. But cutting him would be worse because it invites hideous visions of Favre wearing the jersey of some quarterback-starved team like the Minnesota Vikings or Chicago Bears.

As difficult as this is for the Packers, it has to be agonizing for Favre. Can we blame him if he wants to continue his passion of playing football? Perhaps he rushed his decision to retire and needed more time to clear his mind. As training camp draws near, maybe Favre realizes how real the Packers' Super Bowl chances are.

If Favre is serious about returning, there's only one solution.

The Packers should welcome Favre back, but open the competition with Rodgers for the starting job. May the best quarterback win.

There are no guarantees in life, and the same should hold true in football. Instead of inheriting the job, Favre and Rodgers would be forced to earn it.

Healthy competition would make the Packers better and avert a public relations nightmare at the same time.

Mike Vandermause is sports editor of the Press-Gazette.

In your voice

[The Leaper]

Really?

This is so stupid. Favre's experience means he is light years ahead of Rodgers. He's the better QB right now. There isn't a debate.

The issue with Favre is that he gets physically and mentally wore down during a season. He can play 12 games with gusto...but a 16 game season plus playoffs really wears him down.

Thus, the only thing that makes sense is to bring Favre back...but give Rodgers enough action to keep Favre fresh for a stretch run.

A camp competition is stupid...insulting to both Favre and Rodgers. We know who will win, so why pull out that horse and pony show?

[]{ilr]3]

Favre's experience means he is light years ahead of Rodgers. He's the better QB right now. There isn't a debate.

The issue with Favre is that he gets physically and mentally wore down during a season. He can play 12 games with gusto...but a 16 game season plus playoffs really wears him down.




I think you hit on some god points. But lets looks at the Cowboys when they finally told Bledsoe to hit the road and put in Romo. Granted Bledsoe is no Favre, but I think Rogers is every bit as good as Romo and the main reason Romo had such an immediate impact was that he knew the system. Rogers knows the Packers offense.

[bobblehead]

Really?

This is so stupid. Favre's experience means he is light years ahead of Rodgers. He's the better QB right now. There isn't a debate.

The issue with Favre is that he gets physically and mentally wore down during a season. He can play 12 games with gusto...but a 16 game season plus playoffs really wears him down.

Thus, the only thing that makes sense is to bring Favre back...but give Rodgers enough action to keep Favre fresh for a stretch run.

A camp competition is stupid...insulting to both Favre and Rodgers. We know who will win, so why pull out that horse and pony show?

I believe you are right at this exact moment, but hive rogers 8-9 games starting and it is no garauntee to be the case. Montana was a better NFL QB at the point they went to young, but by the end of that season it wasn't so.

Now I realize rogers can't be called steve young (yet?) but MM is the only one who has to decide if it is his time or not, and BF at this point isn't going to factor in unless MM thinks rogers really doesn't have what it takes.

[The Leaper]

{ilr]3]But lets looks at the Cowboys when they finally told Bledsoe to hit the road and put in Romo.

Entirely different situation. I didn't see Bledsoe put up NFC Offensive Player of the Year type numbers in Dallas. Maybe I missed something.

If Favre sucked donkey ass like Bledsoe did at the end, Thompson damn well should push Favre out the door. However, Favre does not suck donkey ass. When fresh and focused, he remains one of the best 3 QBs in the game...Manning and Brady are the only other guys who can claim to be better at this point in time.

You don't shove that kind of QB out the door if he doesn't want to go unless you are retarded.

[The Leaper]

BF at this point isn't going to factor in unless MM thinks rogers really doesn't have what it takes.

So if Favre and Rodgers are both in camp, you honestly think Rodgers would prove himself as the better QB? You think McCarthy would honestly say "gee, Rodgers might be really good 8 or 9 games from now...so I'll sit Brett?"

Rodgers deserves playing time. I said as much at the end of last year as Favre looked wore down. Playing Favre 99.9% of the time is stupid. Give the old man a break! Rodgers is capable and should be utilized far more than Green Bay used him last year even if Favre does play in 2008.

It is good for Rodgers, it is good for Favre, and it is good for the Packers if that happens.

[Scott Campbell]

If Favre sucked donkey ass like Bledsoe did at the end, Thompson damn well should push Favre out the door.


Well Favre played like donkey ass Bledsoe against the Giants. Though a week earlier he was incredibly studly against Seattle.

I don't think an open competition would kill either guy. Making guys compete is not a sign of disrespect.

[Tarlam!]

Well Favre played like donkey ass Bledsoe against the Giants. Though a week earlier he was incredibly studly against Seattle.

I don't think an open competition would kill either guy. Making guys compete is not a sign of disrespect.

What SC said.

[Spaulding]

This could honestly be a win win situation. Favre comes back and hopefully plays to the same level as he did early last year and we have a solid chance at the Superbowl. If not he get's the early hook and Rodgers plays and maybe we see good things from him. If Favre plays well but not awesome he's still the starter barring injury and we have depth with Rodgers. If Favre comes out flat or plays poorly he gets the hook and we see what Rodgers can do. If Rodgers bombs then we always can go back to Favre.

The only way this turns out ugly is if both players are so-so and TT/MM go with Rodgers to continue to develop him and the Packer nation gets angry with the benching of Favre and the likley lost season.

Then again, Brett could raise a ruckus if benched and then whose knows what the fallout would be.

I think Brett has earned the right to continue to be the starter until proven otherwise.

I'm also shocked that rumors suggest TT doesn't want Brett back. My feeling all along was that TT wasn't enamored with Rodgers (he didn't trade up to get him) but felt that he was by far the best player on the board when we drafted 24th - thus falling with his motto. Also with Brett waffling on retirement each year it was a solid choice to provide insurance. I just don't buy that he's stuck on Rodgers and pushing Favre out the door. The only way I see that being the case is if both McCarthy and Thompson think Rodgers is the real deal and possibly provides the Packers a better chance overall. If so who are we to think we know better. After all, until proven otherwise he may not be the type to throw horrible picks or have demons in the closet like when playing at Dallas. He also may play even better within the system versus the ad libbing that Favre is prone to do. This could then lead to more consistent (albeit boring) drives but also unfortunately without the excitement of the Favre bombs deep or magically plays like the underhanded pass while being tackled in the Seattle playoff game.

[Packnut]

Really?

This is so stupid. Favre's experience means he is light years ahead of Rodgers. He's the better QB right now. There isn't a debate.

The issue with Favre is that he gets physically and mentally wore down during a season. He can play 12 games with gusto...but a 16 game season plus playoffs really wears him down.

Thus, the only thing that makes sense is to bring Favre back...but give Rodgers enough action to keep Favre fresh for a stretch run.

A camp competition is stupid...insulting to both Favre and Rodgers. We know who will win, so why pull out that horse and pony show?


You obviously missed the point. Try reading the article again. If Rodgers loses in fair competition, he'd have no one to blame but himself and it stops what could be a bad situation.

[Packnut]

If Favre sucked donkey ass like Bledsoe did at the end, Thompson damn well should push Favre out the door.


Well Favre played like donkey ass Bledsoe against the Giants. Though a week earlier he was incredibly studly against Seattle.

I don't think an open competition would kill either guy. Making guys compete is not a sign of disrespect.


He was'nt the only one............. :idea:

[The Leaper]

Well Favre played like donkey ass Bledsoe against the Giants.

I disagree. Favre played OK in that game. He had a horrible throw in OT...a donkey-ass throw, if you will...I don't think that means he played horrible all game. He had several guys drop passes that he put right on the money, including one that may have wrapped up the game in regulation. He had a decent completion percentage considering the conditions, and threw 2 TDs. I don't see that as donkey-ass...mediocre, perhaps.

Favre did not play like donkey ass in the Giants game. Even if I accept your assesment...that would be all the MORE reason to bring him back. You claim he played like donkey ass but we still pushed the eventual Super Bowl champs to OT and had a great chance to win.

[DonHutson]

My problem with this is what if this competition ends up being close? You could argue that Rodgers outplayed Favre in the pre-season last year. It didn't matter because Favre was the starter. How does Rodgers even win such a competition? He can outplay Favre by a mile in the pre-season and people (meaning fans and players) will say it's only pre-season, we know what Favre can do when it counts, etc.

A scenario where the team is broken into Favre people and Rodgers people messes up otherwise good team chemistry.

If the Packers want Favre, they should bring him in and make him the starter. If they don't, they should tell him so (and it sounds like they may have done so already). Clear and decisive lines need to be drawn.

If Favre wants to play and the Packers don't want him, he should accept a trade. If he just wants to barge his way onto a team that doesn't want him, then he's putting himself in front of the team and who needs that?

[The Leaper]

You obviously missed the point. Try reading the article again. If Rodgers loses in fair competition, he'd have no one to blame but himself and it stops what could be a bad situation.

No...my point is that it is stupid, which it is. Rodgers has zero chance to win a fair competition. ZERO. The only way he could win was if Favre injured himself and couldn't compete.

Saying "Here's your chance Aaron...beat Brett Favre in a fair competition in camp where he has played for this team for the last few centuries and knows how fast each blade of grass grows in Lambeau" is hardly my idea for being fair to Aaron Rodgers.

I guess you beg to differ.

[The Leaper]

If Favre wants to play and the Packers don't want him, he should accept a trade.

I agree with your points...but my question would be why wouldn't the Packers want Brett Favre? He gives you the best chance to win in 2008...and how does bringing him back make the situation worse for Green Bay? It may make the situation worse for Aaron Rodgers personally...but I didn't realize that the Green Bay Packers were only about the development of Aaron Rodgers. My bad.

[DonHutson]

If Favre wants to play and the Packers don't want him, he should accept a trade.

I agree with your points...but my question would be why wouldn't the Packers want Brett Favre? He gives you the best chance to win in 2008...and how does bringing him back make the situation worse for Green Bay? It may make the situation worse for Aaron Rodgers personally...but I didn't realize that the Green Bay Packers were only about the development of Aaron Rodgers. My bad.

You'd have to ask Thompson and McCarthy that question. Maybe they think letting Rodgers take his lumps this season gives them a better chance in 2009, 2010, 2011... Maybe they want all of their young players to hit their prime at the same time their QB hits his. That's the only argument I could make, and I think it's a valid one. I agree that Favre probably gives you the best chance in 2008. It's a question of what, if anything, you're giving up down the road.

But obviously if they really wanted him back, and if he really wanted to be back, then he'd be back already, right?

[Scott Campbell]

Well Favre played like donkey ass Bledsoe against the Giants.

I disagree. Favre played OK in that game. He had a horrible throw in OT...a donkey-ass throw, if you will...I don't think that means he played horrible all game.


We must have watched a different ballgame. I thought he got badly outplayed by Eli. I never thought I'd see that. And Packnut is right, there were lots of guys that didn't play well. But Brett was the leader of the team, and needed to play well. He didn't.

[Gunakor]

If Favre wants to play and the Packers don't want him, he should accept a trade.

I agree with your points...but my question would be why wouldn't the Packers want Brett Favre? He gives you the best chance to win in 2008...and how does bringing him back make the situation worse for Green Bay? It may make the situation worse for Aaron Rodgers personally...but I didn't realize that the Green Bay Packers were only about the development of Aaron Rodgers. My bad.

My point in this matter is that Rodgers starting in 2008 gives Green Bay a better chance to win in 2009 and 2010 and so on. Rodgers would have a better chemistry with the first team offense. Bringing Favre back very well could stunt his development. I don't know, I guess I'm just ready to move on now. I want to see AROD win a SB at some point, and the sooner he gets the starting job the more likely that will happen. Looking at it in the very short term, of course Favre gives us the best chance to win a SB in 2008. In the long term, however, it IS in the franchise's best interest to focus on the development of their QB of the future. '09 and '10 are every bit as important as '08, and it's not like the young core of skill position players on the offense are going anywhere anytime soon. The window to win a SB isn't about to close on us at the end of the season. Let Rodgers develop good chemistry with his offense as early as possible and maybe we can win a couple rings down the road.

I know fans are generally narrow minded and can only see the upcoming season. A GM is responsible for not only the present, but also the future of the franchise. He cannot be so narrow minded. So I fully expect TT will do what is in the best interest of the long term success of the Packers, something I don't think bringing Favre back at this point would be.

[The Leaper]

In the long term, however, it IS in the franchise's best interest to focus on the development of their QB of the future.

It is...but why does it matter if the first year after Favre is 2008 or 2009 or 2059?

The fact is that there will be a year after Favre's retirement at some point where the team will have to endure growing pains regardless. It is unavoidable. You can take it now by telling Favre to stay on his tractor, or you can roll the loaded dice in 2008 and put off the growing pains for another year.

There is no guarantee that Rodgers will be a stud. We know Favre is a stud. I'll bet on the known commodity each and every time.



I know fans are generally narrow minded and can only see the upcoming season. A GM is responsible for not only the present, but also the future of the franchise. He cannot be so narrow minded.

So are you arguing that it is in the best interest of the team long term to dump Donald Driver and let Jennings, Jones and Nelson start developing? Why inhibit the development of Jones and Nelson because of Driver? We need to look LONG TERM, right?


So I fully expect TT will do what is in the best interest of the long term success of the Packers, something I don't think bringing Favre back at this point would be.

I fully expect that TT should do what is good for the Packers both short and long term...it isn't about either one at the exclusion of the other, as you suggest.

[]{ilr]3]

{ilr]3]But lets looks at the Cowboys when they finally told Bledsoe to hit the road and put in Romo.

Entirely different situation. I didn't see Bledsoe put up NFC Offensive Player of the Year type numbers in Dallas. Maybe I missed something.



Yes, you missed something: :)


]{ilr]3 said:

Granted Bledsoe is no Favre

[sharpe1027]

We must have watched a different ballgame. I thought he got badly outplayed by Eli. I never thought I'd see that. And Packnut is right, there were lots of guys that didn't play well. But Brett was the leader of the team, and needed to play well. He didn't.

I don't think Brett played very well, but Eli did not impress me at all. I don't understand what people saw in his play. He consistently misses badly on his throws. Plaxico running free in the Packer's secondary doesn't make Eli's performance great. IMHO, the Giants lose and Eli take the blame, they win and he gets credit, either way, his play was nothing spectactular.

[The Shadow]

Well Favre played like donkey ass Bledsoe against the Giants.

I disagree. Favre played OK in that game. He had a horrible throw in OT...a donkey-ass throw, if you will...I don't think that means he played horrible all game.


We must have watched a different ballgame. I thought he got badly outplayed by Eli. I never thought I'd see that. And Packnut is right, there were lots of guys that didn't play well. But Brett was the leader of the team, and needed to play well. He didn't.

Agree wholeheartedly.

[The Leaper]

Agree wholeheartedly.

Manning: 21 for 40, 254 yards...0 TDs

Yeah...he was electric that night. He didn't make any glaring errors...I'll give him that. However, Manning hardly won the game for the Giants. Their defense and running game were far more effective than Manning was.

[The Shadow]

Agree wholeheartedly.

Manning: 21 for 40, 254 yards...0 TDs

Yeah...he was electric that night. He didn't make any glaring errors...I'll give him that. However, Manning hardly won the game for the Giants. Their defense and running game were far more effective than Manning was.


And that was a HUGE factor.

[MadtownPacker]

Agree wholeheartedly.

Manning: 21 for 40, 254 yards...0 TDs

Yeah...he was electric that night. He didn't make any glaring errors...I'll give him that. However, Manning hardly won the game for the Giants. Their defense and running game were far more effective than Manning was.


And that was a HUGE factor.Sounds like your extremely aged brain is making you forget the whole game Gramps. I would say Harris getting his dreads burnt off by Plastico had way more to do with the loss. 20 offensive points in that kind of weather should have been enough to win.

[The Shadow]

Agree wholeheartedly.

Manning: 21 for 40, 254 yards...0 TDs

Yeah...he was electric that night. He didn't make any glaring errors...I'll give him that. However, Manning hardly won the game for the Giants. Their defense and running game were far more effective than Manning was.


And that was a HUGE factor.Sounds like your extremely aged brain is making you forget the whole game Gramps. I would say Harris getting his dreads burnt off by Plastico had way more to do with the loss. 20 offensive points in that kind of weather should have been enough to win.

There are lots of ebb/flow factors in a game.
But when the chips are all on the line, do you end the season run with a pick -Giants, Eagles, Falcons) or someway get your team to the winner's circle?

[The Shadow]

".....you forget the whole game"


No. I have seen variations on that same old theme FAR too many times.
Amazing how Favre always escapes all blame for the disastrous endings. Over the years, I've heard :
'poor coaching'
'poor call' (from the sidelines - always! of course)
'poor receiver decision'
'the wind'
'that missed block back in the first quarter'
'he was thinking about Deanna'
'poor referees'

and so on & on & on

[MadtownPacker]

There are lots of ebb/flow factors in a game.
But when the chips are all on the line, do you end the season run with a pick -Giants, Eagles, Falcons) or someway get your team to the winner's circle?Hey, hey! Dont pop the whole Viagra bottle in one shot!

Giant/Eagles I can hear you on but the ATL loss was not on Favre in any way. That squad was decimated like the Social Security fund you live on.

The Giants game had several moments where the game should have been closed out in the 4th. Other players didnt step up to the moment. Is it time to part ways with them too?

[twoseven]

We must have watched a different ballgame. I thought he got badly outplayed by Eli. I never thought I'd see that. And Packnut is right, there were lots of guys that didn't play well. But Brett was the leader of the team, and needed to play well. He didn't.

I don't think Brett played very well, but Eli did not impress me at all. I don't understand what people saw in his play. He consistently misses badly on his throws. Plaxico running free in the Packer's secondary doesn't make Eli's performance great. IMHO, the Giants lose and Eli take the blame, they win and he gets credit, either way, his play was nothing spectactular.That he wasn't stuffing hand warmers into his facemask impressed me, goofy kid acted like it was 40 degrees out.