Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

[hoosier]

oh --- and be careful, these doooods IZ mah frenz ... zone 3 kru.. mad tough in da chatrewms shawtay...

Why are they signing "I love you"? Is it because (Dennis Hopper, Blue Velvet) they're going to send someone a "love letter"?

[Merlin]

The title lends this thread to be somewhat of a good natured discussion about which is right Favre over Rodgers or Rodgers over Favre. Instead it has turned into a bashing session for anyone who disagrees with the later. Sadly, everyone has their own opinion and if you disagree with the majority you are automatically chastised. Nothing new here. If you support Favre, don't bother with this bunch, you are in a no-win situation.

[sheepshead]

Re: Have many reached the wrong conclusion in Favre/Rodgers?

[quote="Patler"]The predominant opinion seems to be that the Packers chance of winning THIS YEAR is better with Favre than Rodgers. Could it be that Thompson and McCarthy are of the opinion that their chances of ultimate success are no less with Rodgers than with Favre? Do they perhaps think that at the end of a long, long season the physical strain on a 39-year-old Favre,and the chance of playing in bone chilling weather at Lambeau Field makes Rodgers a better option than Favre for success in the playoffs?[/quote]

This is obvious. So much so, I cant believe it even spurned any discussion. OF COURSE THEY THINK THAT!

[RashanGary]

Favre doesn't have a very long history of playing bad in cold weather games but he has a 10 year history of playing bad in big games. He's getting older and like people said he will only get worse, not better. He doesn't care to be a part of the team in the offseason. He thinks he can make personnel decisions. Generally, he's a pretty big headache, but a very good player still.

Rodgers appears to be impressing everyone in the Packers organization. He's younger, getting better. He's hard working, a good teammate. He's humble and knows his role as a leader but doesn't stretch it into a pain in the ass.


It's not one thing here. It's everything. I think the Packers are just ready to move forward. Brett's right about one thing. He's guilty of retiring early and that's it. It's true. He retired early and left a door open. Rodgers walked in and slammed it in Brett's face. Through hard work and success with opportunities Rodgers has allowed the Packers to move past Favre. I look forward to this season because I think a lot of people are going to be suprised that Brett is very replacable.

[The Leaper]

I look forward to this season because I think a lot of people are going to be suprised that Brett is very replacable.

Fine Harrell.

I've got $50 here that says the Packers won't reach 12 wins next year. If you think Rodgers is going to be so surprising in terms of replacing Favre, put your money where your mouth is.

[sharpe1027]

Maybe the Packers treated Favre the way the did because they thought he was more interested in playing for the Viqueens. Maybe they felt that Favre was intentionally waiting to put them in a hard spot so that they would release him.

I keep asking myself, why did he immediately ask for an outright release after one short phone conference? I'm also wondering why all the mudslinging started from his family and agent before that phone conversation. His recent interview was all about himself and not about the Packers as a team. I've given Brett a lot of leaway in the past for his actions on and off the field, I've been called and Favre apologists for it, but I look at the facts and find it hard to believe he truly wants to play for the Pack.

[Carolina_Packer]

I keep asking myself, why did he immediately ask for an outright release after one short phone conference? I'm also wondering why all the mudslinging started from his family and agent before that phone conversation.

I think it had to do with the conversation that Brett had with McCarthy where MM said that the team had moved on. I can't remember exactly the date this happened, but I think it was mid-late June. I think that probably set Favre off as if there wasn't going to be an option for him in GB. Favre has said through the media that he asked for his release so as not to be a distraction to the team since they told him they had moved on. Once it got to the point of the team will not release him and they don't want him playing for someone else and his role has changed, I think that set Brett off even more, which is why they are where they are with this whole thing.

I could see where a player, especially one that has been the franchise guy and given so much, would get upset at not having good options, especially when the team had decided to move on without him and consequently won't release him after saying he is not wanted as the starter. Initially I was only thinking of it in terms of Brett "expecting" his starters job back when he talked to MM and told him he wanted to come back. While I think Favre hope the team would still be receptive to his return, I think he was surprised by the fact that after saying they didn't want him as the starter they wouldn't grant him his release. So Favre probably got mad because the team would be holding him in limbo, when he has expressed a desire to play. I could see a player being upset by that. He's 38 and has a small window of opportunity. The only thing the organization would have to change at this point is their minds regarding the moving on and Favre's role. I hope they are not artificially sticking to Rodgers as the starter because by golly we've made up our minds. Teams don't change their positions frequently? Come on. If Strayhan can sit out training camp, have there be acrimony, trade talks, huffing and puffing and he can come back from that and play, then Brett can too. Granted Favre formally retired to the press, but so what? This can still be mended. It just depends on how much the management sticks to their guns vs. looking at the big, big picture of how this all looks, even if they feel they are right to do this. There will be many who don't see it that way, and will blame the organization for not being more flexible in their thinking, especially when it comes to Favre and what he means to the organization/fans. People complain about the Favre lovers here, and some people say, "what have you done for me lately?" Well, last year wasn't a bad showing, people. Far from it. If I was Thompson, I'd take my chances on mending fences with Brett, telling him to file for reinstatement and bringing him back as the starter. I know that would probably hurt Rodgers feelings, but I'd be less concerned about that, considering the tangibles/intangibles that Brett has contributed over the years, and likely would be able to contribute again. Besides, if Favre shows he as lost it, we still have A-Rod to step in and Brett finally realizes his playing days are over. If Brett has another brilliant season, the Packers benefit, the acrimony with the team is healed and the legacies of both player and organization are in tact. That means a lot to me. Now the organization just has to come back from the edge and see it that way. Don't let it end this way, and don't keep the problem going by hitting Favre on the nose with a rolled up newspaper by having him back as a backup. If he was good enough to start last year, likely he's still good enough this year. The whole world is watching and you have to make the right decision, whether you are more right than Brett on this or not. Mend it, don't end it.

[Fritz]

In response to Patler's original question, I first want to say that Patler's a brave guy. I posted on another thread the same question and thought I was taking chances...but to start an entire thread with this heresy - wow.

But it must be considered. As I said in the other thread, so many people are proposing solutions based on an assumption that Favre is automatically a better option than Rodgers. He may well be - history would point that way.

However, Favre is 38 and has not worked out - other than at a local high school, throwing passes - this offseason. To do what he did last year seems to require - and I think Favre more of less agrees with this - a 100% commitment which means serious offseason workouts. That's why - in part - he said he retired. Didn't want to have to put in the required offseason training any more.

So, at this point, it is possible that the team believes Rodgers is a better option, in part because (barring injury) he's also got more future. At some point, people, Favre is really going to be gone. Really. So maybe the team thinks that one more year and then more retirement hemming and hawing is not in the team's best long term interest. Add to that that it is possible Rodgers is good enough to get the Pack where they want to go (not better than Favre - just good enough) this year, and maybe the assumption that Favre is automatically better for the Packers this year can be questioned.

[sharpe1027]

Favre has said through the media that he asked for his release so as not to be a distraction to the team since they told him they had moved on.

I have to say that that was a well thoughtout post and you raised a bunch of good points and I would rather have him starting than Rodgers. My problem, however, is that much of it relies upon the above statement. Publicly doing anything, much less asking for release, is the last thing that should have been done if team distraction was a concern. Everything points to Favre and Co. trying to garner public support, the effects on and distractions to the team be damned.

Why the need to take shots at the Packers and the GM? Why the public request for release? Why almost zero effort to work something out? I understand that he probably didn't like hearing that "they had moved on," but only one serious telephone conversation and then you're ready to give up on the team you say you want to play for, you're ready to take shots at the team? To me, Favre's interview comes off as trying to sell something, and I'm not buying.

[The Leaper]

Here is my summary at this point.

A. I think Favre CERTAINLY provides the best chance at a title in 2008. Rodgers will eventually be a solid starter I think, but 2008 is not going to be some kind of fairy tale for him IMO. It will be tough. There will be plenty of learning experiences. There will be times that people will scream for Favre because of his ups and downs.

I'm expecting 9 wins, plus or minus a win...enough to keep us in the playoff hunt, but probably coming up a little short.

B. However, the point that Favre will leave at some point and a transition will need to be made is valid and clearly not lost on Thompson or the Packers. I can see the team's viewpoint.

In that respect, now is CERTAINLY the best time to make a transition. Rodgers is as ready as he will ever be, and he's motivated. The team is coming off a great season, and the experience of a playoff run could help the team overachieve in 2008, despite Rodgers' growing pains.

C. It is in the best interest of the team to put this to bed as quickly as possible...when possible. If Favre calls Thompson's bluff, so to speak, then Green Bay needs to trade Favre and move on very quickly. Extending this saga is not in the team's best interest.

I'd also put an end to the notion that the Packers would take him back under any circumstances. Just come out and say what we know they already mean...they've moved on, and will welcome moving Favre for an acceptable price to a team that isn't in the NFC North if he so desires. Point out that a flat out release is an unreasonable demand...considering the Packers own his contract rights and like any business have the right to receive fair compensation for those rights.

[Fritz]

Nice analysis.

[sheepshead]

In response to Patler's original question, I first want to say that Patler's a brave guy. I posted on another thread the same question and thought I was taking chances...but to start an entire thread with this heresy - wow.

But it must be considered. As I said in the other thread, so many people are proposing solutions based on an assumption that Favre is automatically a better option than Rodgers. He may well be - history would point that way.

However, Favre is 38 and has not worked out - other than at a local high school, throwing passes - this offseason. To do what he did last year seems to require - and I think Favre more of less agrees with this - a 100% commitment which means serious offseason workouts. That's why - in part - he said he retired. Didn't want to have to put in the required offseason training any more.

So, at this point, it is possible that the team believes Rodgers is a better option, in part because (barring injury) he's also got more future. At some point, people, Favre is really going to be gone. Really. So maybe the team thinks that one more year and then more retirement hemming and hawing is not in the team's best long term interest. Add to that that it is possible Rodgers is good enough to get the Pack where they want to go (not better than Favre - just good enough) this year, and maybe the assumption that Favre is automatically better for the Packers this year can be questioned.

again i say--NO SHIT! There is no question thats what they think-what other conclusion can you come to? This baffles me.

[mraynrand]

If you support Favre, don't bother with this bunch, you are in a no-win situation.

Instead of thinking of it as winning or losing, why not just give your view, let people know what you're thinking, and argue points you enjoy arguing?

I went nuts last weekend thinking that Thompson was satisfied that Rodgers gives the Packers the best chance to win this season over Favre. I assumed that given Favre's play last year and Rodgers' inexperience, that this was a bad position. I still think so, but I can guess the reasons why Thompson might think differently. And I think all those reasons have been stated. Now we have to wait until September, and really, most important, December and hopefully January, to see if he's right.

[sharpe1027]

again i say--NO SHIT! There is no question thats what they think-what other conclusion can you come to? This baffles me.

What other conclusions?

Maybe they were thought that Favre didn't want to play for the Packers anymore.

Maybe they weren't sure he was committed and that he might back out again.

Maybe they were trying to work a trade for someon else that we don't know about and his salary number would be problematic.

Maybe they were just pissed at him for all the crap he pulled.

Maybe there were playing hardball to leverage a contract restructuring.

Maybe they were trying to show support for Rodgers, while they were fine with him coming back.

Maybe they were just unsure of which was the better option at QB and wanted to make sure that Favre understood that there weren't any guarantees.

Relax. When people come to different conclusions than you did, they might not be idiots. They may have just thought of something you didn't. This is far from a black and white issue.

[mraynrand]

Here is my summary at this point.

A. I think Favre CERTAINLY provides the best chance at a title in 2008. Rodgers will eventually be a solid starter I think, but 2008 is not going to be some kind of fairy tale for him IMO. It will be tough. There will be plenty of learning experiences. There will be times that people will scream for Favre because of his ups and downs.

I think the same thing, EXCEPT the following stipulation. Look at 2007: The Packers started with a weak offense with no running game. They needed Favre to provide the stability for the offense to mature. This year they may start with a solid offense, but need the QB to come along. You could argue that the defense will be even stronger this year, all the young guys who gained experience over the past 1-2 years start coming into their own. So Rodgers may have time to play his way into a playoff caliber starting quarterback, for a team that now can rely on a running game, good weapons in the receiving corps., and a solid defense. In this scenario, Rodgers should be coming into his own late in the season - the same time Favre has faded over the past several seasons. It might just work.