No open competition...

[Zool]

Settle it with a QB competition and man-off. Favre wins both hands down.

I'm wasnt exactly sure what a man-off was, so I hit up the urban dictionary, and yeah....its exactly what I thought it was.

1. man off

To masturbate, or to otherwise do something private and/or embarrassing.
Anthony: Steve, your a douche, why don't you just go man off in the corner.


P, you are turning into the forum douchebag. The one even people who agree with you skip over his posts. Gratz.

[Lurker64]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

I already posted this in another thread, but I believe it's the answer I'd give here so I'll just c/p myself.

In the interest of complete honesty, I believe that in order for the Packers to win another Superbowl, we will have to have a QB that plays well in at least most of the following:

1) The Snow.
2) The Cold.
3) The Wind.
4) Dallas.

Last year, Favre saw all four conditions, played well in one of them (snow) and very poorly in the other three, so he's batting .250. Rodgers only got to see one of those conditions (Dallas), but be played very well.

So I'm not personally convinced that Favre is the best QB for the Packers in 2008. He probably would be the QB that wins the most games in September through November, but I'm not sure I trust him in the playoffs, in bad weather, or on the road in big games.

If I had seen Favre play well in extreme conditions or big games last year, I would be much more excited about having him back. As it stands, I'm worried that if Favre were annointed the starter we could win 11-12 games, but if we have to go to Dallas or if we have a home playoff game in adverse conditions, he just can't get us over the hump.

[mmmdk]

All the bickering is kinda history as...

Favre is now reinstated.

Favre cannot / will not be released.

It's business; it's beyond me though that Favre can't fathom this.

Favre is hard to trade and I don't blame the rest of the NFL.

Favre can still re-retire.

Favre is welcome as the clear cut back up QB in GB.

Favre is still a HUGE asset; take notes rest of NFL.

Favre is welcomed by all fans and Packers too - no doubt about that.

Favre has a unique chance to play for the Packers again; should injury happen to Rodgers or Rodgers plays really, really, really poorly over a lengthy period.

Can Favre's ego handle the road ahead and stay true to the Packers?

He should ask for a trade or release; as a poster noted

The Packers are only looking out for GB and Favre is looking out for Favre

If he thinks he's their best QB and he is not given a chance in an open competition he should ask for a trade.

B, Favre cannot be released. Trade or stay as backup. If the latter happens then Favre would have to commit now to be the backup.

[The Leaper]

Haven't there been other players who have felt the same way over the years? This isn't the first time a veteran player who thinks he deserves to start has been replaced by a much younger player.

Patler...

If you can find an NFL player who got MVP votes the prior season that was forced out for a younger player the next...I'll concede your point.

I'm guessing you won't find one.

The notion that Favre deserves to start is a valid one IMO. I'm not saying that means it is right...only that it is valid based on the circumstances, which are one-of-a-kind.

[POLISHHAWK]

I would rather step into an unknown with a new QB than be utterly dissappointed again in the playoffs.

Ya; you heard me! I would rather shake the dice than get into the playoffs and be dissappointed AGAIN!

[The Leaper]

So I'm not personally convinced that Favre is the best QB for the Packers in 2008. He probably would be the QB that wins the most games in September through November, but I'm not sure I trust him in the playoffs, in bad weather, or on the road in big games.

But you have more trust in a FIRST TIME STARTER?

You are nuts.

[packinpatland]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

Maybe because every time Rodgers has gotten the chance, he has outplayed Favre.

I was at the Packer/Patriot game 2 years ago.........Rodgers didn't outplay Favre, Rodgers broke his foot.

[texaspackerbacker]

This is more about "winning more games this season" than being "fair" by a long shot.

Really?

Then why isn't Favre the QB?

Because Thompson, McCarthy, Murphy, a large share of the players, and probably even most of our posters here KNOW that the team is better off with Rodgers at QB.

"Open Competition" is just another way of saying "QB Controversy". To his extreme credit, McCarthy seems determined not to let that happen in Green Bay.

mmmdk summarized the whole situation very well above.

[The Leaper]

Because Thompson, McCarthy, Murphy, a large share of the players, and probably even most of our posters here KNOW that the team is better off with Rodgers at QB.

Really?

Evidence?

[mission]

Because Thompson, McCarthy, Murphy, a large share of the players, and probably even most of our posters here KNOW that the team is better off with Rodgers at QB.

Really?

Evidence?

Well --

we KNOW this team isn't a super bowl team.

we didnt go to it last year and definitely didnt deserve it even if we had stumbled ass backwards into the super bowl. we had every chance to win that game 10 times and didnt ...

can you argue with the fact rodgers can AT LEAST *not* get us to the super bowl?

by standard logic, we're even there ... at least there's a *chance* that the outcome is different.

either we dont make it to the super bowl (that we know) or we do (that *could* happen)

this might sound stupidly obvious but think about it ... we already know the result of one path.

might as well try the other one and see where that road takes us...

thanks, drive thru.

we're outta fries.

[Patler]

The notion that Favre deserves to start is a valid one IMO. I'm not saying that means it is right...only that it is valid based on the circumstances, which are one-of-a-kind.

I'm not really arguing that that he doesn't deserve to start. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. That's really not the issue. Coaching staffs make decisions for a lot of reasons, that's just the way it is. The Packers still own Favre's rights, to do with as they please. That's also just the way it is. Eventually, something will happen, a trade, a release, Favre being a backup, Favre being a starter, or Favre re-retiring. With an unexpired contract, the team has the controlling hand, with the player's strength coming mostly from the effect of his compensation on the team and his ability to hold out or retire. For Favre and the Packers, that really comes down to just the compensation, because a holdout or retirement would suit the Packers just fine.

The situation is what it is, and exceptions should not be made just because it involves Favre. That's why I think the commissioner getting involved is ridiculous. If the commissioner starts exerting influence on teams as to who should or shouldn't start, who should or shouldn't be traded or released, or when a trade or release should occur, that's a very bad precedent, in my opinion.

[Fritz]

I think Favre has more power than you think, Patler. His continuing presence is a negative for the Packers - a huge negative. Even if Rodgers is hurt and has to sit out for a few weeks, what happens when he comes back?

Favre holds the upper hand, in my mind. He's got the Pack by the short hairs. If they let him back as a backup, the distraction will unravel the team. If they let him compete after moving on with Rodgers, MM loses all credibility.

[The Leaper]

we KNOW this team isn't a super bowl team.

we didnt go to it last year and definitely didnt deserve it even if we had stumbled ass backwards into the super bowl. we had every chance to win that game 10 times and didnt ...

So none of that was because we had an extremely young, inexperienced roster mostly going through a playoff run for the first time?

We didn't go, so we should just scrap the whole thing and start over?

We went into overtime with the eventual SB winner. How can you say there is no chance the Packers could make a SB run in 2008?

[The Leaper]

Favre holds the upper hand, in my mind. He's got the Pack by the short hairs. If they let him back as a backup, the distraction will unravel the team. If they let him compete after moving on with Rodgers, MM loses all credibility.

I somewhat agree. The longer this drags out, the more Favre gains the advantage...especially if Rodgers isn't lights out in preseason.

I wouldn't say Favre holds the upper hand yet...but it could get there within a week or two. The Packers can't just release Favre or trade him for nothing. They'd look foolish. They can't open up the QB spot to competition. They'd look foolish. Even leaving him on the roster without utilizing him at $13M looks foolish, although might be more palatable than releasing him.

As I've pointed out elsewhere...the Packers have painted themselves into a corner with a strategy that they could somehow force Favre to stay in retirement by saying they've "moved on".

It was a poorly thought out strategy IMO...and has left them open for a potential disaster.

[Patler]

Favre holds the upper hand, in my mind. He's got the Pack by the short hairs. If they let him back as a backup, the distraction will unravel the team. If they let him compete after moving on with Rodgers, MM loses all credibility.

I somewhat agree. The longer this drags out, the more Favre gains the advantage...especially if Rodgers isn't lights out in preseason.

I wouldn't say Favre holds the upper hand yet...but it could get there within a week or two.

I don't think the "publicity" "conflict" whatever you want to call it is as much of a concern to the Packers as some think. Sure, they would like to avoid it, but they know it would be only temporary. Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not Rodgers justifies the confidence in him. If he does, none of this will matter.