Packers 5 options and odds of each

[texaspackerbacker]

First of all, I say again, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN--Favre isn't going to push to come back, and the Packers aren't going to initiate anything barring an emergency with Rodgers.

However, say for argument sake, we did do a trade and send Favre to the Vikings or Bears. Does it occur to anybody that we might just be sending them a Trojan Horse? There's no guarantee at all that Favre is going to perform at a high level. He has supposedly stated that he would want to get by with about 80% of the preparation effort of last season. Does that mean 80% of the quality of last year? Does it mean performance at the 2006 level? Who knows, but great as Favre has always been, I sure wouldn't bet that he would play very well under those circumstances. I'd almost bet against it.

[sharpe1027]

all they need on offense is a QB.

I'm not sold on Robert Ferguson and company. The Vikings passing woes might start with the QB, but their problems continue with the receivers and go all the way to the coaching staff.

I'll believe the Vikings are good when I see it on Sunday. Until then, they are just another team getting attention because they made a big splash in FA/trades only to be forgotten once they step on the field (see San Fran last year).

Would they be better with Favre? Yes, just not SB contenders IMHO.

[twoseven]

all they need on offense is a QB.

I'm not sold on Robert Ferguson and company. The Vikings passing woes might start with the QB, but their problems continue with the receivers and go all the way to the coaching staff.

I'll believe the Vikings are good when I see it on Sunday. Until then, they are just another team getting attention because they made a big splash in FA/trades only to be forgotten once they step on the field (see San Fran last year).

Would they be better with Favre? Yes, just not SB contenders IMHO.

Other than the Cowboys, what other NFC team stands in their way is my question? They kicked the Giants' ass last year, GB minus #4 with AR doesn't seem as potent. Who am I forgetting? Skins?

Vikes missed playoffs by one game with Tavaris and Ferguson and co...without Jared Allen and Berrian who while not a big gamer is certainly an upgrade from Troy Williamson.

[sharpe1027]

Other than the Cowboys, what other NFC team stands in their way is my question? They kicked the Giants' ass last year, GB minus #4 with AR doesn't seem as potent. Who am I forgetting? Skins?

Vikes missed playoffs by one game with Tavaris and Ferguson and co...without Jared Allen and Berrian who while not a big gamer is certainly an upgrade from Troy Williamson.

Honestly, I don't know for sure. The Packers, Cowboy and Giants could each stand in their way. Your discounting of the Giants is rather strange considering how the Packer's also kicked the Giant's ass last year during the regular season...

You are forgetting teams like the Panthers, Rams, Saints, Seahawks, Eagles and Tampa Bay. Are anyone of them locks? No, but neither is Minnesota. One thing is relatively certain, there usually is a surpise team or two. I just don't think the Vikings are one of them.

[twoseven]

Other than the Cowboys, what other NFC team stands in their way is my question? They kicked the Giants' ass last year, GB minus #4 with AR doesn't seem as potent. Who am I forgetting? Skins?

Vikes missed playoffs by one game with Tavaris and Ferguson and co...without Jared Allen and Berrian who while not a big gamer is certainly an upgrade from Troy Williamson.

Honestly, I don't know for sure. The Packers, Cowboy and Giants could each stand in their way. Your discounting of the Giants is rather strange considering how the Packer's also kicked the Giant's ass last year during the regular season...

You are forgetting teams like the Panthers, Rams, Saints, Seahawks, Eagles and Tampa Bay. Are anyone of them locks? No, but neither is Minnesota. One thing is relatively certain, there usually is a surpise team or two. I just don't think the Vikings are one of them.

I don't see how our win over the NYG last year has much to do with what the Vikes would do next year if Favre were at their helm. I mention the Vikes beating them because I feel the Giants have taken a step backwards with some losses in the offseason and the Vikes have upgraded. The Pack next year versus Giants next year? Without Favre, I think we should reserve judgement. To me both teams have undergone some changes that could greatly affect their effectiveness in a negative way.

For me it's simple. The Vikes to me looked strong last year. They exchanged Jared Allen for Kineche Udeze, Berrian for Stonehands Williamson, and the idea of Favre being in place of Jackson to me has them tough to beat. The Cowboys also got better adding Adam Jones and Felix Jones to an already oustanding crew. The Giants, to me, lost some important players on defense, lost an RB to the penile system, and still have unresolved issues with Shockey and I think will not be as solid next year. As for the rest of those mentioned, sure anything can happen, but if you had to lay 1000 bucks down, who are you going with? I say Cowboys then Vikings, and I'll take Vikings if the game was in MN. That's just me.

[swede]

...lost an RB to the penile system...

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[twoseven]

...lost an RB to the penile system...

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

..certainly better than a RB losing his penile system.

[sharpe1027]

I don't see how our win over the NYG last year has much to do with what the Vikes would do next year if Favre were at their helm.

You discounted the Giants because the Vikings beat them last year. I was pointing out that a single head-2-head game in the same season doesn't mean much in the same year. Thus, how the Vikings did against the Giants in one game last year is not very relevant much in my book.

If you believe that the Vikings looked strong and thus better than their record last year, I can understand that. I just don't agree. I think their record showed how good/bad they were and that their offense has problems that go beyond their QB problems. I think their bigger problem may just be their coaching/playcalling.

[The Leaper]

If you believe that the Vikings looked strong and thus better than their record last year, I can undestand that. I just don't agree. I think their record showed how good/bad they were and that their offense has problems that go beyond their QB problems. I think their bigger problem may just be their coaching/playcalling.

I would agree...but putting Favre and AP in the same backfield can make the playcalling a hell of a lot easier.

[Fritz]

Hypothetically, should it come to it..no way in hell you release him versus trading him for even a lowly 7th round pick to a team that cannot interfere with GB's progress towards another playoff run. In my opinion, the wrath TT would feel for not inviting Brett back would pale in comparison to what he would face for allowing him to to end up with MN, CHI, or on another NFC team with enough talent to make the playoffs in 08'. If a trade is possible versus a release, TT needs to play defense with the compensation and not dick around with trying to score a high rounder. Would anyone here take a 2nd/3rd round pick and Brett on a NFC contender (or worse, MN/CHI) versus a 5-7th round pick and Brett on a much more harmless NFC/AFC team? (I would also assume trading #4 to a contender yields no better than mid to late round positioning for whatever pick, and the latter proposal yields a mid to high end pick). Personally, I'll take the shitty pick and Brett on a harmless team. If said team doesn't make the playoffs, Brett probably didn't set the world on fire with this offense and TT doesn't look like a stubborn moron letting Favre go if AR plays effective enough to challenge for 10 or more wins.

Actually, twoseven, I think getting one of Minny or Chicago's second rounders in exchange for their one year of Favre would be better than getting a seventh or sixth from an AFC team, yes.

Minny or Chicago gets one year of Favre, maybe two, and I don't see either team as capable of getting to the SB (no, not Minnesota - I have a strong antipathy to teams that try to free-agent and trade their way to the SB. I don't think it works). I think the damage you do to those teams by taking away their second rounder and adding an extra to yours exceeds the damage one or two years of Favre could do, given my opinion of those teams' talent levels.

As absolutely horrific as that sounds, and it is truly blood curdling, I guess it also puts off them addressing their long QB needs for a bit. But you really have to be a glass half full kind of guy to see it that way.

I'm not suggesting I'd want this to happen. Personally, I'd like to see Favre stay retired - I think it'd be best for everyone. Favre would keep and not tarnish his legacy, the Pack could carry on, and no one has to watch Favre in another uniform.

[Fritz]

...lost an RB to the penile system...

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

..certainly better than a RB losing his penile system.

One of the problems is that these players' penile systems work too well.

[sharpe1027]

If you believe that the Vikings looked strong and thus better than their record last year, I can undestand that. I just don't agree. I think their record showed how good/bad they were and that their offense has problems that go beyond their QB problems. I think their bigger problem may just be their coaching/playcalling.

I would agree...but putting Favre and AP in the same backfield can make the playcalling a hell of a lot easier.

Agreed. No question that Favre would improve the team, we just have different positions on how much.

[MadScientist]

First, the Packers are not forced to trade/cut Favre due to cap or roster space (Flynn can always be stuffed on the PS). So unlike others who have played the retire-return game, the team has all the options. Because of this I see option 1 as most likely, which would make a comeback at all less likely. Does anyone else see Favre coming back unless he was sure of a starters job?

If the Packers decide they must git rid of Favre, there are a hell of a lot of better options for the Packers than the Bears or Vikings. Philly might be the most logical fit. For irony's sake, they could deal him to Atlanta. If they were really pissed about the whole retirement circus, they could deal him to Miami. That threat would likely keep Brett on his tractor for a long time. Or at least until Rodgers sneezes on day 1 of camp and gets a double hernia and 2 broken ribs.

[Bretsky]

If you believe that the Vikings looked strong and thus better than their record last year, I can undestand that. I just don't agree. I think their record showed how good/bad they were and that their offense has problems that go beyond their QB problems. I think their bigger problem may just be their coaching/playcalling.

I would agree...but putting Favre and AP in the same backfield can make the playcalling a hell of a lot easier.

Agreed. No question that Favre would improve the team, we just have different positions on how much.

IMO right now the Vikings are playoff hopefuls; with Favre I'd expect them to make the playoffs and they would be threats to go deep into the playoffs

I don't see Tavarius Jackson leading them deep into the playoffs, if they do get there (my guess is that they do)