QB Competition

[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.