Favre . Wanted or not?

[Tarlam!]

I've been avoiding this crap for the whole weekend. Wish I had waited longer. What happens if he does come back this year? Same BS around the March-June time frame 2009.

I gotta think if he's with the Packers, it would be a last "hurrah".

I'm a big fan of A-Rod, but can he get us a SB as a first year starter? Has it been done before? I don't have enough history of the game to answer, but my suspicion is "no", it hasn't.

In SB XXV, Jeff Hostetler, New York Giants took over for Phil Simms late in the season (90/91 season). He'd had 5 or so years in the league. But that's the closest I could find during the Super Bowl Era.

Seems all QB's needed a couple, few years to win one.

So, dear fans, if A-Rod starts tis season and leads our club to the SB win, it will make history.

Simple statistics say, it won't happen. And we all crave for that ultimate fan feeling.

So, statistically, our best bet is #4.

#4 coming back must force TT to trade A-Rod, or piss him off so badly, that he's a short-lived Packer, 2 years at best.

I am getting to a point, I just need to gather my thoughts.

If we take Favre back, we are almost certain to lose A-Rod. So, we take now and sacrifice the future. Basically, we place a bet.

If Favre only plays one more year, win, lose or draw and we lose A-Rod in the process, we should continue to treat our QB's, the way we treated A-Rod in that we don't flame Brohm or Flynn by starting them too early.

For me, the Packers are in a Win/Win situation.

Play Favre, potentially win SB.
Play A-Rod potentially make history and at very least, build for the future.
Play Favre, lose A-Rod, hire a vet for next season and continue to build future grooming Brohm/Flynn.

I put a lot of thought into this post, because I know you all think I am just a rambler. I hope you'll have some courtesy on this one if I didn't explain myself very well.

[Brainerd]

Favre

Came off the bench after having thrown just 3 or so NFL passes when the starting QB was injured and lead the team to a dramatic come-from-behind victory. No sitting and learning and going over playbooks for 3 years. No learning from a Hall of Fame QB. Came straight off the bench cold and just won baby.

Rodgers

Yeah. Thats right. He lost the Dallas game.

[Brainerd]

#4 coming back must force TT to trade A-Rod, or piss him off so badly, that he's a short-lived Packer, 2 years at best.

Isn't everyone saying Favre should man-up and quit being a prima-donna?

Rodgers and his feelings. Sigh. Who cares if he's pissed-off? Its a TEAM game right?

[swede]

#4 coming back must force TT to trade A-Rod, or piss him off so badly, that he's a short-lived Packer, 2 years at best.

Isn't everyone saying Favre should man-up and quit being a prima-donna?

Rodgers and his feelings. Sigh. Who cares if he's pissed-off? Its a TEAM game right?

So when you get to work today and find that old Al, who retired last week, has come back and taken away the promotion you were given you'll welcome him back by buying a beer for him after work. No biggie. Just money for your family and prestige in your professional standing with peers.

[Badgerinmaine]

Swede made some valid points. As the Packers coaches, GM have shifted their focus for the future, I believe it is time for the Packers to move forward without Brett Favre.

Please do not take my point as dissrespecting Brett Favre. As a Packer fan, I will always be grateful for his dedication, spirit, toughness, and will to win. He made his decision to retire and the Packers have made decisions to start the 2008 without Favre.

Amen across the board.

[Brainerd]

#4 coming back must force TT to trade A-Rod, or piss him off so badly, that he's a short-lived Packer, 2 years at best.

Isn't everyone saying Favre should man-up and quit being a prima-donna?

Rodgers and his feelings. Sigh. Who cares if he's pissed-off? Its a TEAM game right?

So when you get to work today and find that old Al, who retired last week, has come back and taken away the promotion you were given you'll welcome him back by buying a beer for him after work. No biggie. Just money for your family and prestige in your professional standing with peers.

Stuck sharp objects deep into your ears as a small child Swede? It would explain your inability to differentiate between apples and oranges. Here's a hint: Apples are red.

Since you love things made of straw here's a taste:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

[The Leaper]

I'm fine with Favre coming back...as long as he states 2008 will be his final year in the NFL and is OK with allowing Rodgers to play a significant role as a reserve so that Favre can stay fresh for a stretch run.

[The Leaper]

This team has already been re-tooled around another quarterback, one who was moved into the starting position on the depth chart because Brett retired or didn't feel enough love--whichever you choose to believe--and the bottom line is that Brett quit and the team had to move on.

Retooled? Perhaps somewhat...but training camp hasn't even started yet.

Rodgers should be a key player in 2008, even if Favre returns. Any adjustments to the playbook or strategy don't have to be tossed out the window if Favre returns.

[Tarlam!]

#4 coming back must force TT to trade A-Rod, or piss him off so badly, that he's a short-lived Packer, 2 years at best.

Isn't everyone saying Favre should man-up and quit being a prima-donna?

Rodgers and his feelings. Sigh. Who cares if he's pissed-off? Its a TEAM game right?

So when you get to work today and find that old Al, who retired last week, has come back and taken away the promotion you were given you'll welcome him back by buying a beer for him after work. No biggie. Just money for your family and prestige in your professional standing with peers.

Stuck sharp objects deep into your ears as a small child Swede? It would explain your inability to differentiate between apples and oranges. Here's a hint: Apples are red.

Since you love things made of straw here's a taste:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Owned, Bitch. Try and come back all you'd want. Swede just doused your lights.

Helluva comeback, Swede. respect.

[Brainerd]

#4 coming back must force TT to trade A-Rod, or piss him off so badly, that he's a short-lived Packer, 2 years at best.

Isn't everyone saying Favre should man-up and quit being a prima-donna?

Rodgers and his feelings. Sigh. Who cares if he's pissed-off? Its a TEAM game right?

So when you get to work today and find that old Al, who retired last week, has come back and taken away the promotion you were given you'll welcome him back by buying a beer for him after work. No biggie. Just money for your family and prestige in your professional standing with peers.

Stuck sharp objects deep into your ears as a small child Swede? It would explain your inability to differentiate between apples and oranges. Here's a hint: Apples are red.

Since you love things made of straw here's a taste:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Owned, Bitch. Try and come back all you'd want. Swede just doused your lights.

Helluva comeback, Swede. respect.

How sweet. Swede has friends to pass through life in ignorant bliss. Pigs do love their slop.

[Tarlam!]

I'm fine with Favre coming back...as long as he states 2008 will be his final year in the NFL and is OK with allowing Rodgers to play a significant role as a reserve so that Favre can stay fresh for a stretch run.

Wow, new perspective here.

Favre doesn't need to do shit, except turn up on mandatories. He has, what, 2 more years on his deal? So, what you are saying is, you want him to renigg on his deal. Again.

People, Favre is not a mechanic on some assembly line. he is a QB in the NFL. He is the equivilent of Lee Ioccoca on the football field. These people do not get a pass for retiring under false pretences. They make more money, and do so easiliy, than anybody on this forum could ever dream of making.

I do not get this love fest with Favre. I just do not. A man in his position should not be forgiven for making mistakes, not as his level. set some standards.

[The Leaper]

I do not get this love fest with Favre. I just do not.

It is about winning.

It is about having a franchise caliber QB leading your team.

Rodgers MIGHT be OK as a starter. He MIGHT even be very good. He MIGHT play well in 2008. However, we don't know.

I KNOW that Favre would be very solid in 2008 if he returned. He's too experienced and too talented to not take advantage of the wealth of skill on the offensive roster. He can put up MVP numbers with this offense...we saw it firsthand last season.

My issue is that he poops out by year end because he's an old man by NFL standards. He needs to let Rodgers have more of a role in the preparation and playing process...to help Rodgers grow and keep Brett fresh.

Personally, I don't really care either way. I think Green Bay will be OK with Rodgers...although I doubt they challenge for a title in 2008 because of his inexperience. There will be a period of growing pains whenever Favre does move on...whether it is in 2008 or 2050. When that period comes is of no concern to me...because it is unavoidable.

So, I'd rather take a shot at another title run with Favre in 2008...because the future with Rodgers is a complete unknown, regardless of the promise or potential he holds. Can he avoid injury? Can he handle the expectations?

In terms of "holding him to a standard"...I'm speechless. I didn't realize there was some kind of "retirement etiquette" out there that Favre is forced to follow. He still has a valid contract with the Packers...and he can play if he wants to.

Those booting him to the curb are the ones ignoring the contract and devaluing it.

[Scott Campbell]

How sweet. Swede has friends to pass through life in ignorant bliss. Pigs do love their slop.

Ok, this is your third pissing match already this morning. Try one of these:

[Tarlam!]

Leaper, you qouted me, but you utterly ignored what i really had to say. That's OK. I just wanted to point it out is all.

[Scott Campbell]

Leaper, you qouted me, but you utterly ignored what i really had to say. That's OK. I just wanted to point it out is all.

I get the lovefest with Favre.