Can a Compromise be found to satisfy A-Rod?

[Tarlam!]

Seems to me A-Rod getting undercut by Favre has 3 main implications:

1. Pride
2. Playing Time
3. Money

1. I think this is a huge hurdle and if Favre were allowed back for 1 year, A-Rod plays lights out the year after we have to tag and probably trade him.

2. Whether or not A-Rod starts this year or next, doesn't matter in terms of playing time since he is still very young. But TT needs to see what he can do and whether he's worth big big money. Is one year enough?

3. Him not playing costs him BIG BUCKS. Even if we can still his pride, let him play more snaps in regular games to get some time, if he's not starting, that's gotta hurt that he has no pocket money.

Solve these issues, and IMHO you'll prolly see BF in G&G in September as your starter, despite the polemic and posturing going on.

[The Leaper]

Re: Can a Compromise be found to satisfy A-Rod?

2. Whether or not A-Rod starts this year or next, doesn't matter in terms of playing time since he is still very young. But TT needs to see what he can do and whether he's worth big big money. Is one year enough?

One year would almost have to be enough now.

Rodgers, if he has a decent year in 2008 as the starter, would want to get a long term deal done next offseason IMO. He could get pissed off next offseason even if Favre stays at home on his tractor in the weeks ahead...because Thompson isn't going to overpay early with Brohm in the wings.

That is why thinking you have to move on with Rodgers now is funny to me. There is no guarantee he will be a long term solution for the Packers even if everything goes his way in 2008. In the NFL, trying to think too far ahead of yourself gets you in trouble. Most of your focus has to go into the present. Thompson's only real concern going forward should be keeping a steady supply of talent in all positions. Trying to pencil in who the starters are going to be in 2008 is hard enough...projecting 2010 is a bitch and virtually impossible.

[packers11]

#1 and #2 will be hard to do...

Give him all the preseason snaps? But I don't think he'd be satisfied. Also he has been having team dinners with the receivers, so I think he would of thought all that hard work went to waste.

#3 could be handled, if T.T. just gives him a bonus for the tough situation he was put in...

Rodgers has to understand that he is very fortunate Favre was in front of him for 3 years... He would already be labeled a bust, Favre has helped him build up his body for the NFL physical play...

I know some posters will get on me 'how could you say he'd be a bust w/out favre' ... Pretty simple... He was a skinny twig and every-time he stepped on the field he would get injured. Look at him now compared to his rookie season. Its a total different person (physically)...

[Carolina_Packer]

The question I have now is, can the Packers and Brett mend fences, come to any type of agreement that allows Favre to come back and be the starter. The great impasse here is you have the QB saying, "I'm ready to take my starters job back or have you let me go," and an organization that has said, "we could bring you back but with a different role (whatevert means in the end...clipboard holder?). How do you get past this situation in the first place? Give in to Favre, not because he's trying to leverage xyz, but an honest evaluation of possible wins and losses. If you let Brett come back and bench Rodgers, then Rodgers is likely upset at the lack of confidence, as in, "Hey, you drafted me first, you told me you had confidence in me, but the minute (ok, not quite the minute in this case) Brett says he's ready to play again, your confidence has changed?

Me hoping, I still wish that something can be worked out, that TT and MM will say, "ok, no matter how much we kick it around, no matter who is right and wrong in this, it doesn't matter; if we are an organization that is about winning football games, then we have to let Brett's ability to get W's be the biggest factor. All the other stuff, the timelines, the retiring/unretiring/uncertainty, the he said/he said, don't think I feel welcome stuff has got to end, and we've got to see if there is a real chance to get our future HOF'er back in the fold. As an organization, we don't want that asterisk or bitter sweetness attached to us, even if we believe that we handled it the right way and according to what Brett was telling us."

If you can make a hard organizational decision to move on, you can also reconsider, look at the player's body of work, his many contributions and the Green Bay and Favre legacy which is tied together and say, it's not going to go down this way. He's not going to play until he's an embarrassment, but he is our guy and we give him another shot to be starter and let the inexperienced guy wait his turn one more time, even though Brett might have bungled it up and Rodgers may have been the dutiful understudy. Some say that would be the easy way out, but now, it appears that it may be the hard way because they would have to change their tune and realize that this is Brett who is deeply tied to GB, not somenone who can be easily discarded, even if he did help cause the issue.

Can he play and win still? That's all you have to ask. I don't know what Rodgers can be, but I'm willing to wait another year (while he's still being paid) to find out. Mend it and end it!

[Jimx29]

I'm holding out for A-Rod to come out and say that he is more than happy to be backup for another season or two, and that he really wants Brett back at the helm.

[swede]

The question I have now is, can the Packers and Brett mend fences, come to any type of agreement that allows Favre to come back and be the starter...

Me hoping...that TT and MM will say, "...but he is our guy and we give him another shot to be starter and let the inexperienced guy wait his turn one more time, even though Brett might have bungled it up and Rodgers may have been the dutiful understudy. Some say that would be the easy way out, but now, it appears that it may be the hard way because they would have to change their tune and realize that this is Brett who is deeply tied to GB, not somenone who can be easily discarded, even if he did help cause the issue.

Can he play and win still? That's all you have to ask. I don't know what Rodgers can be, but I'm willing to wait another year (while he's still being paid) to find out. Mend it and end it!

A few days ago this is what I was hoping as well.

But all this stuff that makes lemonade out of lemons is predicated on Favre doing his part, putting things behind him, shutting up, and putting the team first.

After watching the FOX interview I do not believe Brett can let go of whatever the hell is bothering him. He feels wounded and was unable to articulate a defensible reason why after all that time on the air. Why would he want to go back to a team that still doesn't have Moss, Wahle, Rivera, or the inclination to let him GM from behind the scenes?

[sharpe1027]

Re: Can a Compromise be found to satisfy A-Rod?

1.)Keep Arod as the starter, and have them compete. Unless Favre can't sling it anymore, he would win. Nobody would fault Arod for losing to a Hall-of-Fame QB.

2)He's out of luck.

3.) Give him a new contract that pays him at least part of what he would have gotten in incentives for starting.

[mission]

Fuck Favre. Forget this topic.

Moot. Favre's not coming back.

It's done.

[Patler]

I'm holding out for A-Rod to come out and say that he is more than happy to be backup for another season or two, and that he really wants Brett back at the helm.

Have you been delusional for long?

[woodbuck27]

Re: Can a Compromise be found to satisfy A-Rod?

Seems to me A-Rod getting undercut by Favre has 3 main implications:

1. Pride
2. Playing Time
3. Money

1. I think this is a huge hurdle and if Favre were allowed back for 1 year, A-Rod plays lights out the year after we have to tag and probably trade him.

2. Whether or not A-Rod starts this year or next, doesn't matter in terms of playing time since he is still very young. But TT needs to see what he can do and whether he's worth big big money. Is one year enough?

3. Him not playing costs him BIG BUCKS. Even if we can still his pride, let him play more snaps in regular games to get some time, if he's not starting, that's gotta hurt that he has no pocket money.

Solve these issues, and IMHO you'll prolly see BF in G&G in September as your starter, despite the polemic and posturing going on.

Brett Favre is done as a Green Bay Packer Tarlam!

End of story.

[Little Whiskey]

isn't Rodgers contract up at the end of this season? I'm holding out hope that this is the reason for the pondering of packer mgmt.

[cpk1994]

isn't Rodgers contract up at the end of this season? I'm holding out hope that this is the reason for the pondering of packer mgmt.

Rodgers contract expires after the 2009 season.

[Cheesehead Craig]

isn't Rodgers contract up at the end of this season? I'm holding out hope that this is the reason for the pondering of packer mgmt.

His contract is up after the 2009 season.

There is only 1 option for A-Rod: Start him. The compromise is that we trade Favre for some draft pick(s) and he can start elsewhere.

[Gunakor]

isn't Rodgers contract up at the end of this season? I'm holding out hope that this is the reason for the pondering of packer mgmt.

No he has 2 years left on his contract.