Favre to compete for starting job

[cpk1994]

I don't understand how you can say that? They brought in a first round pick to compete with him and to be a quality backup. There is no denying we have had a quality backup the past two years. You have no proof to the contrary. I don't understand how you can say there wasn't a competition. These guys are competing for their jobs day in and day out because if they slack off the next guy is going to take it over.

Screw it, I'll bite.

1. Aaron was taken in the draft because Favre wouldn't commit for X number of years. We had to draft a successor to Favre and he fell in our lap. If Favre had said 'I'm playing 'til 08' it's likely Aaron isn't drafted.

2. There wasn't a competition. Do you think the Pack would bench a guy with 200+ consecutive starts, the man that won them a Super Bowl, for some new kid on the block.

You can't be this ignorant. There has never been a QB competition. Never.

Obviously he can be that ignorant.

[Partial]

I don't understand how you can say that? They brought in a first round pick to compete with him and to be a quality backup. There is no denying we have had a quality backup the past two years. You have no proof to the contrary. I don't understand how you can say there wasn't a competition. These guys are competing for their jobs day in and day out because if they slack off the next guy is going to take it over.

Screw it, I'll bite.

1. Aaron was taken in the draft because Favre wouldn't commit for X number of years. We had to draft a successor to Favre and he fell in our lap. If Favre had said 'I'm playing 'til 08' it's likely Aaron isn't drafted.

2. There wasn't a competition. Do you think the Pack would bench a guy with 200+ consecutive starts, the man that won them a Super Bowl, for some new kid on the block.

You can't be this ignorant. There has never been a QB competition. Never.

Alright, I'll bite once more. I really just don't care though. I can't commit to 100% effort

I agree with #1. That's ok though. Can't blame anyone for that.

2. What do you mean? They were about to do that this year and currently still are. It's a business. Montana was traded so a young buck could get the start. It's not unheard of. Not the same as benching I agree.. But, if Rodgers came in and was playing better than Favre consistently, how could they not start him?!? Imagine the revolt from the players! Herm said it best with "You play to win the game", and your best players give you the best shot at that.

[cpk1994]

I don't understand how you can say that? They brought in a first round pick to compete with him and to be a quality backup. There is no denying we have had a quality backup the past two years. You have no proof to the contrary. I don't understand how you can say there wasn't a competition. These guys are competing for their jobs day in and day out because if they slack off the next guy is going to take it over.

Screw it, I'll bite.

1. Aaron was taken in the draft because Favre wouldn't commit for X number of years. We had to draft a successor to Favre and he fell in our lap. If Favre had said 'I'm playing 'til 08' it's likely Aaron isn't drafted.

2. There wasn't a competition. Do you think the Pack would bench a guy with 200+ consecutive starts, the man that won them a Super Bowl, for some new kid on the block.

You can't be this ignorant. There has never been a QB competition. Never.

Alright, I'll bite once more. I really just don't care though. I can't commit to 100% effort

I agree with #1. That's ok though. Can't blame anyone for that.

2. What do you mean? They were about to do that this year and currently still are. It's a business. Montana was traded so a young buck could get the start. It's not unheard of. Not the same as benching I agree.. But, if Rodgers came in and was playing better than Favre consistently, how could they not start him?!? Imagine the revolt from the players! Herm said it best with "You play to win the game", and your best players give you the best shot at that.

NOw you are changing the timeframe to suit you argument. Unbelieveable

[BallHawk]

But, if Rodgers came in and was playing better than Favre consistently, how could they not start him?!?

Because Brett Favre is....uh....Brett Favre. You can't bench a legend under normal circumstances.

[FritzDontBlitz]

1. I don't have faith that he can lead us to a Super Bowl. He can't get it done in the playoffs.

You could say that about the entire team...since none of them showed up in that Giants game. That loss was hardly on Favre alone...the blame can be shared by every person in that locker room, players and coaches alike.

2. This team wants to get, and is getting, younger. Having a QB just short of 40 is going against the direction Ted and Co. are trying to accomplish.

I disagree. The team is not looking to get younger...they were the youngest team in the league last season, and looked like it in big games against Dallas, Chicago, and New York. This team doesn't need to gain more youth...it needs to gain more experience.

3. Favre treated this organization like trash. I will never, no matter what happens, forgive him for that.

You don't know the whole story any more than the rest of us. The truth is very likely somewhere between Favre's side and management's side. Favre has given every ounce of himself on and off the field for this organization for 15+ years. I think he has earned the chance to apologize and make it right.

4. Favre isn't coming back to help the team, he's coming back because HE wants to play the game. So why not go allow a trade to happen? He's got some mixed up feelings about the Pack.

Complete speculation. How the hell do you know Favre's motives? Favre wants to play because he feels he can still play at a high level and help the team. Maybe he didn't want to be traded because he wanted to play for the Packers. Thought of that?

5. I believe Aaron gives us a better chance to win.

Maybe. With a competition in camp, we'll see who the better QB is. I'm putting my money on Favre...because experience is a trump card when playing QB in the NFL.

Damn. Very good points.

I would like to add three things:

1. A lot of the late season decline in Brett's game can be attributed to arm fatigue after having to handle so much of the offensive load early in the season when they had no running game whatsoever.

2. I am still not convinced M3 has adapted his offensive philosophy to cold Midwestern weather. He needs to start utilizing more short passes to the tight end to compensate for games with windy conditions like the Chicago disaster. M3 also needs to utilize some form of smash mouth running game to control the clock and give his team a psychological edge when they have the lead late in cold weather games.

3. We could just as easily blame the NFC Championship loss on Al Harris and a defensive coordinator too stubborn to give him help over the top when Plaxico Burruss was obviously dominating him.

[Partial]

But, if Rodgers came in and was playing better than Favre consistently, how could they not start him?!?

Because Brett Favre is....uh....Brett Favre. You can't bench a legend under normal circumstances.

Then why can you trade one away like Montana?!? What about Johnny U?? Jerry Rice getting cut?? It happens.

[BallHawk]

But, if Rodgers came in and was playing better than Favre consistently, how could they not start him?!?

Because Brett Favre is....uh....Brett Favre. You can't bench a legend under normal circumstances.

Then why can you trade one away like Montana?!? What about Johnny U?? Jerry Rice getting cut?? It happens.

Partial, you don't know what you're talking about.

Montana got hurt in the playoffs and missed the large part of 2 straight seasons. When Montana got healthy Steve had already filled his shoes and taken the job...... Montana's situation isn't even applicable.

Johnny U's career was coming to an end when he was traded. He just simply wasn't good enough. Favre is good enough to start at QB for most teams. Johnny was traded to SD and played poorly and then retired.

Jerry Rice was released because of salary cap issues.

Game. Set. Match.

[Partial]

It just goes to show that legends aren't bullet proof. It's ignorant to say they weren't competing, even if the competition wasn't close. If Rodgers was better and gave the team a better shot to win, they'd have started him. How you can even dispute that is whack imo.

[BallHawk]

It just goes to show that legends aren't bullet proof. It's ignorant to say they weren't competing, even if the competition wasn't close. If Rodgers was better and gave the team a better shot to win, they'd have started him. How you can even dispute that is whack imo.

Rodgers was brought in as a successor, not competition.

P, you'll find most people will agree that there was never a competition.

[BobDobbs]

This is a very interesting situation. Whether the Packers want to have a competition or create trade value, they have to play Favre in the pre-season. What I am happiest about is that now that Brett is back on the roster the whole debacle in no longer in TT's hands, or Bus Cook's, or Ari Fleischer's. McCarthy comes to the forefront and I think because of that things will become much more straightforward.

I will be interested to see what form the competition takes. Will it be like our left guard competition. Or will Favre be working with the 2nd string and have to earn the right to get reps with the first teamers?

My dream scenario is that both Favre and Rodgers pick up their intensity and raise their level of play because of this. That the team buys into the understanding that no matter who you are you need to produce in workouts, meetings, and games in order to start. The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary, right? And of course no more whining to the media. Keep it in house for once I can watch Univision for soap operas not ESPN.

I think it is going to make the preseason games really exciting. I was already excited to have tickets to the Aug 16th game, but now it might be something really special.

By the way, the team can in fact afford to pay Brett 12 million to be a backup in the event he loses his bid to start. We don't need the cap space until next year when we need to start signing guys before they hit free agency. I have no idea if Favre's ego could accept this, but it could actually work.

[Sparkey]

I sure hope those in charge see this as business, and not as personal as some of you fans have. If I have learned one thing from my years in business it is that today's foe is tomorrow's partner, and today's partner is tomorrow's foe. If you start taking it too personally, you lose out in both situations.

That's why you should never act too far on emotion. My biggest concern is that maybe Favre has; but I don't think the Packers have. This can be resolved.

This isn't a normal business though. Imagine if you had one employee who was very talented, but he refused to putin the work the others do, you would not cut him slack....I wouldn't, its sets a horrible precedent. Thats just me though.

I would. If that one employee was making me twice as much money as everybody else, Everyone else better pick it up if they want that treatment.
They are replaceable, the most skilled employee is not.

Everyone is replaceable at some point. Ask my first wife

Seriously, Rodgers is still #1 on the depth chart because he worked in the OTA's and off-season program after FAVRE RETIRED. Now that Favre is back I would imagine the competition is like most. Rodgers gets 60% of the reps with the 1st team, Favre will get 30% and Brohm/Flynn divy up the rest.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What I am happiest about is that now that Brett is back on the roster the whole debacle in no longer in TT's hands, or Bus Cook's, or Ari Fleischer's. McCarthy comes to the forefront and I think because of that things will become much more straightforward. .

McCarthy has AWAYS been the one at the forefront. He is the one closest to the personalities on the team, he knows what is and isn't going to work.