3 Questions I don't understand

[Chevelle2]

1) Why did the Packers tell Favre no to a trade according to Favre? (Is he lying? is it not saying your player is up for trade right before a trade?)

2) As a backup, would Favre be able to compete for the job? Would he win the starting job if he plays better? Did MM or TT shed light on this at all? If so, Favre is being a bitch.

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair. Affter all he has done for us we can at least let him play" I know I disagree with this, but I can't put it into words. Can someone here help me own him?

Thanks

*for the record, Im pro Packers, not Favre*

[RashanGary]

They never told Favre no to a trade.

[Zool]

They have paid him close to $100mil. I dont really see how they owe him anything. I'd say both sides have gotten what they needed out of each other.

[RashanGary]

Yes, and if Brett didn't want to be under contract he shouldn't have signed it. Nobody forced his signature and nobody guaranteed he'd be a starter when he signed it.

[Chevelle2]

all good points, thanks. keep em coming, i wanna own this dude

[Gunakor]

1) Why did the Packers tell Favre no to a trade according to Favre? (Is he lying? is it not saying your player is up for trade right before a trade?)

2) As a backup, would Favre be able to compete for the job? Would he win the starting job if he plays better? Did MM or TT shed light on this at all? If so, Favre is being a bitch.

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair. Affter all he has done for us we can at least let him play" I know I disagree with this, but I can't put it into words. Can someone here help me own him?

Thanks

*for the record, Im pro Packers, not Favre*


1) The Packers never said they wouldn't entertain a trade.

2) I would hope if he reports to camp that they at least allow him to compete for the job. And if he outplays Rodgers then he should get the starting job. But no, TT and MM have not said word one about this possible scenario.

3) Remind your buddy that it was Favre's decision to retire in March that set all of this in motion. That nobody pushed Favre out the door, he walked out on his own. Or, if that doesn't work, tell your buddy to walk a mile in Aaron Rodgers shoes.

[Chevelle2]

1) Why did the Packers tell Favre no to a trade according to Favre? (Is he lying? is it not saying your player is up for trade right before a trade?)

2) As a backup, would Favre be able to compete for the job? Would he win the starting job if he plays better? Did MM or TT shed light on this at all? If so, Favre is being a bitch.

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair. Affter all he has done for us we can at least let him play" I know I disagree with this, but I can't put it into words. Can someone here help me own him?

Thanks

*for the record, Im pro Packers, not Favre*


1) The Packers never said they wouldn't entertain a trade.

2) I would hope if he reports to camp that they at least allow him to compete for the job. And if he outplays Rodgers then he should get the starting job. But no, TT and MM have not said word one about this possible scenario.

3) Remind your buddy that it was Favre's decision to retire in March that set all of this in motion. That nobody pushed Favre out the door, he walked out on his own. Or, if that doesn't work, tell your buddy to walk a mile in Aaron Rodgers shoes.

Oooh, this helps a lot. Thanks. Just wondering about #1, didn't Favre say otherwise last night?

[Gunakor]

1) Why did the Packers tell Favre no to a trade according to Favre? (Is he lying? is it not saying your player is up for trade right before a trade?)

2) As a backup, would Favre be able to compete for the job? Would he win the starting job if he plays better? Did MM or TT shed light on this at all? If so, Favre is being a bitch.

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair. Affter all he has done for us we can at least let him play" I know I disagree with this, but I can't put it into words. Can someone here help me own him?

Thanks

*for the record, Im pro Packers, not Favre*


1) The Packers never said they wouldn't entertain a trade.

2) I would hope if he reports to camp that they at least allow him to compete for the job. And if he outplays Rodgers then he should get the starting job. But no, TT and MM have not said word one about this possible scenario.

3) Remind your buddy that it was Favre's decision to retire in March that set all of this in motion. That nobody pushed Favre out the door, he walked out on his own. Or, if that doesn't work, tell your buddy to walk a mile in Aaron Rodgers shoes.

Oooh, this helps a lot. Thanks. Just wondering about #1, didn't Favre say otherwise last night?

Didn't TT ask Bus Cook about a list of possible teams Favre would be willing to play for? That's what I heard anyway...

[Bretsky]

1) Why did the Packers tell Favre no to a trade according to Favre? (Is he lying? is it not saying your player is up for trade right before a trade?)

I think they stated there is not room for you here, and we can't envision you going to another team. That quote was used several times and to me it's very believable tactic the Packers are using to try to get Favre to retire.
But no, I don't believe they said they will never trade him.

2) As a backup, would Favre be able to compete for the job? Would he win the starting job if he plays better? Did MM or TT shed light on this at all? If so, Favre is being a bitch.

To me all evidence points to Favre being the better QB for 2008. That being said, everything the Packer Brass is doing IMO is strategical to get him to stay retired so they can flush this thing away. MM and TT are too smart to be too specific here. It's smart of them to stay general. They just keep saying Favre is retired, we have no papers, AROD is our starter, and we're moving forward with that. Again, reading into that it's resonable for Favre to figure they don't want him back and AROD is their starter. As Favre noted, if he wants to play, he NEEDS to call their bluff. Come back, and arrive at training camp. That either forces their hand to trade him or let him play. He won't backup AROD if he's in camp the whole time.

The stupidity of Bus Cook noting they may not file papers soon amazes me and plays exactly into what TT is trying to accomplish; justification for going with his boy.

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair. Affter all he has done for us we can at least let him play" I know I disagree with this, but I can't put it into words. Can someone here help me own him?

I agree that he does just want to play. But if that's the case they he has to submit the papers. Simple concept; until he does that GB does absolutely nothing. They'd be idiotic to do something. right now. By submitting the papers he makes them start playing their cards. Until he applies for reinstatement then the he just wants to play argument is bunkThanks

*for the record, Im pro Packers, not Favre*

[Bretsky]

1) Why did the Packers tell Favre no to a trade according to Favre? (Is he lying? is it not saying your player is up for trade right before a trade?)

2) As a backup, would Favre be able to compete for the job? Would he win the starting job if he plays better? Did MM or TT shed light on this at all? If so, Favre is being a bitch.

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair. Affter all he has done for us we can at least let him play" I know I disagree with this, but I can't put it into words. Can someone here help me own him?

Thanks

*for the record, Im pro Packers, not Favre*


1) The Packers never said they wouldn't entertain a trade.

2) I would hope if he reports to camp that they at least allow him to compete for the job. And if he outplays Rodgers then he should get the starting job. But no, TT and MM have not said word one about this possible scenario.

3) Remind your buddy that it was Favre's decision to retire in March that set all of this in motion. That nobody pushed Favre out the door, he walked out on his own. Or, if that doesn't work, tell your buddy to walk a mile in Aaron Rodgers shoes.

Oooh, this helps a lot. Thanks. Just wondering about #1, didn't Favre say otherwise last night?

Didn't TT ask Bus Cook about a list of possible teams Favre would be willing to play for? That's what I heard anyway...


That was one of the leaks that was never really confirmed; getting hard to separate the two

[pbmax]

Didn't TT ask Bus Cook about a list of possible teams Favre would be willing to play for? That's what I heard anyway...


That was one of the leaks that was never really confirmed; getting hard to separate the two

That was Van Susteren summarizing some of her interview with Favre for the AP before it aired. It might be in the full transcript, but I haven't seen the link.


Van Susteren -- who is from Appleton, Wis., is a Packers shareholder and previously had interviewed Favre and his wife, Deanna -- said Favre made it clear he would not return to the Packers if he wasn't the starter. And while Favre said the Packers asked him for a list of teams to which he would accept a trade, he wants to be released to make sure he ends up on a competitive club.

[Iron Mike]

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair."

If he "just wants to play," then why retire??

If he "just wants to play," then why cancel out on coming back a few weeks later?

If he "just wants to play," then why not the CFL?? Why not the Dolphins?

Methinks he "just wants to play drama queen." :x

[the_idle_threat]

Funny how when Brett was asked in the interview about coming out of the tunnel in week one as a Viking, he said he can't envision it, and yet it's pretty plain that he's interested in playing there.

If the team told Brett they can't envision him in another uniform, that does not commit them to a position of not trading him any more than his comment commits him to not signing with the Vikings.

[Partial]

Yes, and if Brett didn't want to be under contract he shouldn't have signed it. Nobody forced his signature and nobody guaranteed he'd be a starter when he signed it.

Is it not unfair to keep the greater player on the bench?

[Gunakor]

Yes, and if Brett didn't want to be under contract he shouldn't have signed it. Nobody forced his signature and nobody guaranteed he'd be a starter when he signed it.

Is it not unfair to keep the greater player on the bench?

It is unfair. But don't confuse the greater player for the highest paid one. They are not exactly always one in the same. Suppose 25 year old A-Rod is better in 2008 than 39 year old Favre. It doesn't seem all that big a stretch considering that Rodgers played at least as well as Favre did last season in very limited opportunity. I won't discount the possibility that Rodgers wins a fair competition between the two. This isn't 1996 anymore. The question isn't who's been the better QB over the last 16 years, it's who's the best quarterback in 2008. So to fairly answer your question, it most certainly is unfair to keep the better QB on the bench. So I say let's have a competition to see who the better QB is come August, with no bias twoard past accomplishments. The only thing they should be judged on is thier play in 2008. The winner takes the field and the loser holds the clipboard and ballcap. Sound fair?

[packrat]

What does Favre have to complain about if he is asked to compete with Rodgers. If he isn't confident he'd come out ahead, that says a lot about him. As to who is better, ARod has the advantage of working out and preparing for the past several months, while most of Favre's energy seems to have been invested in feeling sorry for himself. I think what Favre meant when he said he was burned out in his "retirement" speech was that he is tired of practicing. All he wants to have to do is show up for the three hours of the game. (Which is kinda what Sherman let him do, which may be why he performed better under McCarthy who insisted he prepare).

[Partial]

Yes, and if Brett didn't want to be under contract he shouldn't have signed it. Nobody forced his signature and nobody guaranteed he'd be a starter when he signed it.

Is it not unfair to keep the greater player on the bench?

It is unfair. But don't confuse the greater player for the highest paid one. They are not exactly always one in the same. Suppose 25 year old A-Rod is better in 2008 than 39 year old Favre. It doesn't seem all that big a stretch considering that Rodgers played at least as well as Favre did last season in very limited opportunity. I won't discount the possibility that Rodgers wins a fair competition between the two. This isn't 1996 anymore. The question isn't who's been the better QB over the last 16 years, it's who's the best quarterback in 2008. So to fairly answer your question, it most certainly is unfair to keep the better QB on the bench. So I say let's have a competition to see who the better QB is come August, with no bias twoard past accomplishments. The only thing they should be judged on is thier play in 2008. The winner takes the field and the loser holds the clipboard and ballcap. Sound fair?

Favre played at an all-universe level last year.

A-Rod played decently against an unprepared defense which didn't adjust their pressure package for his ability to scramble. Dallas would have taken him apart if they would have kept some more containment with their ends.

[The Leaper]

A-Rod played decently against an unprepared defense which didn't adjust their pressure package for his ability to scramble. Dallas would have taken him apart if they would have kept some more containment with their ends.

I agree. Dallas prepared to face Favre, not Rodgers. The situation easily could've been much different for Rodgers had the Cowboys prepared all week to face him and what he brings to the table.

Such is life in the NFL as a starting QB, and that is why it is so hard for guys to maintain long-term in that position.

[Merlin]

Funny how when Brett was asked in the interview about coming out of the tunnel in week one as a Viking, he said he can't envision it, and yet it's pretty plain that he's interested in playing there.

If the team told Brett they can't envision him in another uniform, that does not commit them to a position of not trading him any more than his comment commits him to not signing with the Vikings.

Right now there is speculation that Brett talked to Darrell Bevell on a professional level when it is well known the guys are friends. The Packers need to protect the rules and have done the right thing but don't blow it out of proportion just yet. At no time did Favre say he wanted to play with the Vikings and all we know about is that he talked to Bevell, big deal. I am sure he talked a lot to Bevell over the years no matter what capacity Bevell was in. The Vikings deny there was any tampering. This assumption that "it's pretty plain that he's interested in playing there" is all speculation, there are zero facts at this time to support this.

[Gunakor]

Yes, and if Brett didn't want to be under contract he shouldn't have signed it. Nobody forced his signature and nobody guaranteed he'd be a starter when he signed it.

Is it not unfair to keep the greater player on the bench?

It is unfair. But don't confuse the greater player for the highest paid one. They are not exactly always one in the same. Suppose 25 year old A-Rod is better in 2008 than 39 year old Favre. It doesn't seem all that big a stretch considering that Rodgers played at least as well as Favre did last season in very limited opportunity. I won't discount the possibility that Rodgers wins a fair competition between the two. This isn't 1996 anymore. The question isn't who's been the better QB over the last 16 years, it's who's the best quarterback in 2008. So to fairly answer your question, it most certainly is unfair to keep the better QB on the bench. So I say let's have a competition to see who the better QB is come August, with no bias twoard past accomplishments. The only thing they should be judged on is thier play in 2008. The winner takes the field and the loser holds the clipboard and ballcap. Sound fair?

Favre played at an all-universe level last year.

A-Rod played decently against an unprepared defense which didn't adjust their pressure package for his ability to scramble. Dallas would have taken him apart if they would have kept some more containment with their ends.


Fine. If you don't think the Dallas comparison is fair then toss it out. Look at preseason then, when there is no gameplan other than to evaluate the players on your own team. Rodgers played better than Favre. True enough he wasn't playing the opponents #1 defense, but he wasn't running with the Packers #1 offense either. I love how everyone makes excuses about this issue. The simple fact is Rodgers played at least as well if not better than Favre. Fuck the gameplan and just look at the QB - i.e. his mechanics, his decision making, etc. Rodgers played at least as well as Favre did.

You can't say Rodgers is responsible for the defensive gameplan anyway. He has no control over it. You saying that Rodgers stinks because he didn't face any good defense is like saying the '72 Dolphins don't deserve thier perfect season simply because they didn't play any quality opponents. That's bullshit. You play the teams on the schedule, just like you play the defense that you line up against. If you succeed, then you've done the job asked of you. What the hell does Rodgers have to do??

[The Leaper]

Fine. If you don't think the Dallas comparison is fair then toss it out. Look at preseason then, when there is no gameplan other than to evaluate the players on your own team. Rodgers played better than Favre.

In the preseason, teams play very vanilla offenses and defenses. You know that. It isn't really a fair representation to being the starter in a regular season game.

Listen, I don't want to be known as a Rodgers hater. I'm not. I think the kid has good talent and has the capacity to become a very good starter in this league.

However, the anti-Favre segment's constant search to prove that Rodgers is somehow equal to or better than Favre AT THIS POINT IN TIME is laughable. He's not. With time and gained experience he eventually will catch up and pass the skills and leadership of an aging Favre...but it sure as hell ain't happening day 1, or even day 100.


What the hell does Rodgers have to do??

Gain experience and knowledge from BEING A STARTER DURING THE REGULAR SEASON...just like any other first time starter.

That is the ultimate determinator of a QB's ability...not preseason, not being an injury fill-in, not practice. Sure, those other things can help you make an early estimate...but there are plenty of examples of guys who looked great as backups or in reserve roles, only to fail brilliantly once they were the guy leading the show.

My point, and I think the point of others as well, is that Rodgers is a very inexperienced QB in terms of what it takes to be a starter. Claiming he is as good as Favre because he can play well in preseason or as a reserve is like telling me you can hit as well as Alex Rodriguez because you can hit a 90 MPH fastball in a batting cage. Until you face the pressure of getting into the batting box and facing LIVE PITCHING, you have no idea what it is truly like to hit a 90 MPH fastball.

Practice, preseason, fill-ins...those aren't like facing live pitching.

Season opener...Lambeau...ESPN...Vikings...walking on the field as the starter...THAT is like facing live pitching, and it will be Rodgers' first taste come fall (more than likely). He has some work to do in terms of gaining experience in that regard...and he will gain experience. But in the meantime, the team will have to wait on him to gain that experience.

With Favre, the team doesn't have to wait.

[Gunakor]

You can't put this off forever Leap. Why not do it now while some of the aging veterans still on the roster have a couple years left in the tank? If Brett Favre were going to lead us to another SB he'd have done it last season. It's been 11 years now since his last SB appearance. If we wait too long then Donald Driver will lose a step, Tauch and Cliffy will lose a step, etc. Rodgers won't be coming into as good a situation as he is this year. This is the perfect opportunity to get him that experience. Those guys are part of the reason Rodgers was so successful when he got his shots last year. They were a big part of why Favre was so successful last year.

It's gotta be done before everyone else is too old as well. No guarantees how much longer the 30+'s will be around and be productive. It really doesn't get any more perfect than this.

[The Leaper]

If Brett Favre were going to lead us to another SB he'd have done it last season. It's been 11 years now since his last SB appearance.

On a veteran laden team that had SLOWLY PROGRESSED to that title run. Last year's Packer team was full of wide-eyed kids who never played in a playoff game before.


If we wait too long then Donald Driver will lose a step, Tauch and Cliffy will lose a step, etc.

Sorry, pal. That argument would be far more on the side of KEEPING Favre. Rodgers will probably take at least 2-3 years before he can be considered a true championship QB. He has ZERO experience right now as a starter, no playoff experience, 59 total career passes. He's got a lot of learning to do...and likely won't be at his zenith until the guys you mention are starting to fall off.

NOW is the time to push for a title. We were knocking on the door last year, and have most pieces in place to do it again...but with added experience from last year's run. Sticking a newbie starting QB in there isn't the way to push for a title in 2008, and that could carry over to 2009 depending on how long it takes for Rodgers to have the game slow down around him.

[Gunakor]

If Brett Favre were going to lead us to another SB he'd have done it last season. It's been 11 years now since his last SB appearance.

On a veteran laden team that had SLOWLY PROGRESSED to that title run. Last year's Packer team was full of wide-eyed kids who never played in a playoff game before.


If we wait too long then Donald Driver will lose a step, Tauch and Cliffy will lose a step, etc.

Sorry, pal. That argument would be far more on the side of KEEPING Favre. Rodgers will probably take at least 2-3 years before he can be considered a true championship QB. He has ZERO experience right now as a starter, no playoff experience, 59 total career passes. He's got a lot of learning to do...and likely won't be at his zenith until the guys you mention are starting to fall off.

NOW is the time to push for a title. We were knocking on the door last year, and have most pieces in place to do it again...but with added experience from last year's run. Sticking a newbie starting QB in there isn't the way to push for a title in 2008, and that could carry over to 2009 depending on how long it takes for Rodgers to have the game slow down around him.


You don't have to START for 3 years before being considered a championship caliber QB. You don't even have to be in the league that long, and Rodgers has. He's NOT A ROOKIE.

Tell Tom Brady or Ben Rothlisberger that you need 3 years as a starter to be a championship caliber QB. I'm not saying Rodgers is as good as Brady or Rothlisberger necessarily, but without seeing him get a chance there's no reason to believe he can't be. So stop hating on Rodgers as if he doesn't have a chance. God I can't wait for him to prove you wrong...

[Gunakor]

Besides that, in case you are wondering, the odds of Rodgers resigning with the team beyond 2009 are slim to none if we bring Brett back. Don't just assume that we can bring Favre back again and continue grooming Rodgers to be our future QB. If Favre comes back our new future QB is Brian Brohm and he's 3 years behind Rodgers in preparation to be a starter. Do you really want to see us go 4-12 in 2010? Would it be worth it if Favre and Co. did NOT win a SB this year?

[The Leaper]

Besides that, in case you are wondering, the odds of Rodgers resigning with the team beyond 2009 are slim to none if we bring Brett back.

I don't agree.

Where is Rodgers going to go? In Green Bay, he knows the system and the players. He has a foot up on anyone else...other than Favre, of course.

I don't think Rodgers bolting is as big of a guarantee as you'd like to make it. If Green Bay took Favre back and told him 2008 was it...and that Rodgers was going to be the guy in 2009...I don't see why Rodgers would be yelling to get away from a group of young receivers like Jennings, Jones and Nelson.

[Gunakor]

Besides that, in case you are wondering, the odds of Rodgers resigning with the team beyond 2009 are slim to none if we bring Brett back.

I don't agree.

Where is Rodgers going to go? In Green Bay, he knows the system and the players. He has a foot up on anyone else...other than Favre, of course.

I don't think Rodgers bolting is as big of a guarantee as you'd like to make it. If Green Bay took Favre back and told him 2008 was it...and that Rodgers was going to be the guy in 2009...I don't see why Rodgers would be yelling to get away from a group of young receivers like Jennings, Jones and Nelson.


What do you think Rodgers is going to do? He's going to get PISSED OFF just like any other pampered professional athlete would. Then he'd start bitching about all the stuff Favre is bitching about RIGHT NOW - that he was told one thing and others were told something else. Then he'd leave for a better employer. At some point it isn't about football anymore, it's about respect. Pulling the rug out from under Rodgers at this point - a week or two before camp starts - is very disrespectful to Rodgers given the way this entire offseason has played out. I'm sure he'll at least look for another place to play, and since he'll be a FA he'll find a new home for sure if he does. That's what pro athletes do when they feel disrespected. I mean, it's not like there aren't enough teams in the NFL that need a good young QB.

[Gunakor]

On top of that, 2008 is NOT it for Favre. It's not. We bring him back this year and he pulls this shit again next year. He's under contract until 2011 for crying out loud, so he has the absolute right to come back every year until then unless he's traded or released. What makes you think that 2008 will be the last? I thought 2006 was going to be his last. Then 2007. I'm not so sure now in 2008.

[The Leaper]

What do you think Rodgers is going to do? He's going to get PISSED OFF just like any other pampered professional athlete would. Then he'd start bitching about all the stuff Favre is bitching about RIGHT NOW - that he was told one thing and others were told something else. Then he'd leave for a better employer. At some point it isn't about football anymore, it's about respect. Pulling the rug out from under Rodgers at this point - a week or two before camp starts - is very disrespectful to Rodgers given the way this entire offseason has played out. I'm sure he'll at least look for another place to play, and since he'll be a FA he'll find a new home for sure if he does. That's what pro athletes do when they feel disrespected. I mean, it's not like there aren't enough teams in the NFL that need a good young QB.

So we should be all worried about Rodgers mental outlook and ego...

But give a rat's ass about Favre's?

I don't get it. Which is it? You are whining about Favre being too pampered and whiney...but then claim Rodgers is the exact same thing, and that we have to carefully stoke his ego to keep him happy.

[The Leaper]

On top of that, 2008 is NOT it for Favre. It's not.

Perhaps not...but the Packers can MAKE it the last year for them. Just release him after the season.

I'm not in favor of giving Favre multiple more seasons. I think he's got one more bullet left in the chamber. He proved that last season. If the Packers took Favre back in 2008, I would want them to make it clear it was Favre's last hurrah in Green Bay...and that Rodgers was going to be their guy in 2009.

[Gunakor]

What do you think Rodgers is going to do? He's going to get PISSED OFF just like any other pampered professional athlete would. Then he'd start bitching about all the stuff Favre is bitching about RIGHT NOW - that he was told one thing and others were told something else. Then he'd leave for a better employer. At some point it isn't about football anymore, it's about respect. Pulling the rug out from under Rodgers at this point - a week or two before camp starts - is very disrespectful to Rodgers given the way this entire offseason has played out. I'm sure he'll at least look for another place to play, and since he'll be a FA he'll find a new home for sure if he does. That's what pro athletes do when they feel disrespected. I mean, it's not like there aren't enough teams in the NFL that need a good young QB.

So we should be all worried about Rodgers mental outlook and ego...

But give a rat's ass about Favre's?

I don't get it. Which is it? You are whining about Favre being too pampered and whiney...but then claim Rodgers is the exact same thing, and that we have to carefully stoke his ego to keep him happy.

This is getting stupid. You know goddamn well that Rodgers hasn't been a whiny bitch while Favre has. The point is you don't want to go pissing off TWO good QB's because before you know it they are BOTH gone. Keep Rodgers happy because Rodgers IS happy. Because Rodgers is the future QB, while Favre is the past QB. Because we want Rodgers to be here for many more years while we don't want the same from Favre.

Kinda had to stroke Favre's ego a bit when he was young too. But we wanted him to be here long term, so we did it to keep him here. He stayed for a decade and a half. Same situation with Rodgers. We want him to be here longer than we want Favre to be here, so we have to stroke his ego a bit to make sure he stays. Who knows, maybe he'll be an elite QB for us here in Green Bay for a decade and a half just like Favre was.

The common theme in all of my posts is the future. More to the point, it's consistency. It's being a contender every year rather than a serious contender for just one. All I want from this season, 2008, is a division win and a playoff berth with Rodgers at QB. But I want nothing less than that next year or the year after or any other year. And I fear that bringing Brett back this year could and likely would drive Rodgers away, leaving far greater uncertainty in the following years as we are feeling with Rodgers at QB this year. Is this making any sense at all??

[Gunakor]

On top of that, 2008 is NOT it for Favre. It's not.

Perhaps not...but the Packers can MAKE it the last year for them. Just release him after the season.



Why not just trade him now? Why can't the Packers make LAST season the last year for him? I mean, if Favre comes back and takes us to the NFCC again and loses, then how is it any different than this year? I don't see a huge difference...

[cpk1994]

Why not just trade him now? He is still retired, therefore not taking up any space on the active roster means no need to trade him.

[Gunakor]

Why not just trade him now? He is still retired, therefore not taking up any space on the active roster means no need to trade him.

Well assuming he sends in a formal request to be reinstated to the NFL. That's what I meant.