Hypothetical - Favre In 2008 (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Work with me here.

Let's pretend that after Green Bay's last game last season, that Favre strolls up to the post game press conference and says:

"I'm crushed with this loss but overall it's been a great year. I feel better than I've felt in years and I absolutely want to keep this thing rolling. I feel like I'm on top of my game physically and mentally. Let me end all speculation right here and now and say that I will be back for the 2008 season with the one single focus of leading this team back the Super Bowl. Thanks and I'll see you in August."

If he'd said that, how much consideration would Aaron Rodgers have received to be the starting QB?

J

 

[ScottyFargo]

None. Favre QB'd the NFC Championship game, there would be no reason to bench him except in the case of injury during camp or something.

 

[sho nuff]

Voted none.

But Joe, no offense, how is this relevant.

Those ifs did not happen.

He did retire...all of what has happened since March did happen. Despite this poll...things are different than they would have been had he done that.

Had he done that he would have shown he was not mentally beat down and still ready to go 100%.

 

[gman8343]

I say none too.

But that's not how Favre operates. Favre's future has been in doubt every year for the last several seasons - he's done this time and time again, there is a clear pattern of him thinking about retiring, keeping everyone around him in the dark for several months. There is no other player who has been the source of so much speculation every offseason.

 

[Ned]

i think this is pretty easy, no chance rodgers gets a consideration.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I say none too.

But that's not how Favre operates. Favre's future has been in doubt every year for the last several seasons - he's done this time and time again, there is a clear pattern of him thinking about retiring, keeping everyone around him in the dark for several months. There is no other player who has been the source of so much speculation every offseason.

And that is what caused the rift between the FO and Favre. They got sick of it, justifiably so, but they got blinded by his selfishness and have decided to sit firm rather than look like flip floppers themselves, possibly to great detriment to the team.

 

[ICON211]

That is an interesting scenario. I think if he said that he definitely would be the starter this year, however, I am starting to get the feeling that McCarthy and Thompson were just waiting for an opportunity to name Rodgers the starter. Did Favre really put them in such a tough spot that they can not alter any of their other decisions by retiring earlier this year and now changing course? I say no. A lot of head coaches want to install "their guys" when they come to a team. McCarthy had no chance of unseating Favre when he came aboard, but Favre gave him an in earlier this year and he has ran with it.

 

[FavreCo]

Absolutely zero without question.

 

[Franknbeans]

I agree with your assertion in the other post Joe. You needn't go all the way back to last year. This poll could be conducted as if he said he was coming back in February. I don't think the results would change.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Voted none.

But Joe, no offense, how is this relevant.

Those ifs did not happen.

He did retire...all of what has happened since March did happen. Despite this poll...things are different than they would have been had he done that.

Had he done that he would have shown he was not mentally beat down and still ready to go 100%.

I think it's totally relevant because from the perspective of what Brett Favre can do for your football team (which is the only perspective the Green Bay front office should be considering), the hypothetical Favre of my question and the Brett Favre of today are the same.When looked at purely in the light of "what can you do for this team?", the guy that's champing at the bit last winter is no different from the guy champing at the bit in August.

What's different is the personal stuff that's got in the way.

It really isn't as complicated as it's being made in my opinion.

J

 

[3nOut]

That is an interesting scenario. I think if he said that he definitely would be the starter this year, however, I am starting to get the feeling that McCarthy and Thompson were just waiting for an opportunity to name Rodgers the starter. Did Favre really put them in such a tough spot that they can not alter any of their other decisions by retiring earlier this year and now changing course? I say no. A lot of head coaches want to install "their guys" when they come to a team. McCarthy had no chance of unseating Favre when he came aboard, but Favre gave him an in earlier this year and he has ran with it.

Yes he did. If they were certain he would not be retired in 2008, I doubt GB would have drafted Rodgers and Brohm. Rodgers was drafted in the first round, 24th overall, I believe. Thats a high pick that might be wasted if Favre sticks a round for the next two years. Rodgers will be a FA in 2 years and GB will be stuck with essentially a rookie QB in Brohm. Or Brohm may not have been drafted if they knew for certain if Favre was not retiring. It is possible that noth may not have been drafted. GB basically wasted two picks for nothing, and one was a first rounder. I wonder what they could have gotten in place of Rodgers.

 

[sho nuff]

Voted none.

But Joe, no offense, how is this relevant.

Those ifs did not happen.

He did retire...all of what has happened since March did happen. Despite this poll...things are different than they would have been had he done that.

Had he done that he would have shown he was not mentally beat down and still ready to go 100%.

I think it's totally relevant because from the perspective of what Brett Favre can do for your football team (which is the only perspective the Green Bay front office should be considering), the hypothetical Favre of my question and the Brett Favre of today are the same.When looked at purely in the light of "what can you do for this team?", the guy that's champing at the bit last winter is no different from the guy champing at the bit in August.

What's different is the personal stuff that's got in the way.

It really isn't as complicated as it's being made in my opinion.

J

Point taken...at the same time...his mental state seems to be a big part of this.His mental state then when he retired was that he was beaten down.

You painted the picture of a guy still motivated right then to get ready for next year.

That is part of what McCarthy says his meeting with Favre is about...seeing how really ready mentally he is for all of this, no matter what the end result.

And yes...if the guy was champing at the bit last winter...but he was not...he was beat down and done.

The personal stuff is different...so is what his mental state was. The fire was gone.

And I don't think its as simple as you and some are making it out to be. As I have said...what about next year when Favre is gone.

With Favre...anything short of at least an appearance in the SB is a bust.

With Rodgers...I think just a decent season out of him and getting into the playoffs would be acceptable.

Sure, there will be the whatifs...there will be no matter who is starting.

 

[ICON211]

That is an interesting scenario. I think if he said that he definitely would be the starter this year, however, I am starting to get the feeling that McCarthy and Thompson were just waiting for an opportunity to name Rodgers the starter. Did Favre really put them in such a tough spot that they can not alter any of their other decisions by retiring earlier this year and now changing course? I say no. A lot of head coaches want to install "their guys" when they come to a team. McCarthy had no chance of unseating Favre when he came aboard, but Favre gave him an in earlier this year and he has ran with it.

Yes he did. If they were certain he would not be retired in 2008, I doubt GB would have drafted Rodgers and Brohm. Rodgers was drafted in the first round, 24th overall, I believe. Thats a high pick that might be wasted if Favre sticks a round for the next two years. Rodgers will be a FA in 2 years and GB will be stuck with essentially a rookie QB in Brohm. Or Brohm may not have been drafted if they knew for certain if Favre was not retiring. It is possible that noth may not have been drafted. GB basically wasted two picks for nothing, and one was a first rounder. I wonder what they could have gotten in place of Rodgers.

I don't think that he put them in such a tough spot, so much so that if he is still the best QB they can not name him the starter. He should have been more decisive earlier, but if he is still the better QB shouldn't he be the starter? We are talking about a team that went to the NFC title game not a rebuilding team.

 

[Joe Bryant]

That is an interesting scenario. I think if he said that he definitely would be the starter this year, however, I am starting to get the feeling that McCarthy and Thompson were just waiting for an opportunity to name Rodgers the starter. Did Favre really put them in such a tough spot that they can not alter any of their other decisions by retiring earlier this year and now changing course? I say no. A lot of head coaches want to install "their guys" when they come to a team. McCarthy had no chance of unseating Favre when he came aboard, but Favre gave him an in earlier this year and he has ran with it.

Exactly. This was obvious to me with them falling all over themselves to schedule his jersey retirement on the first week of the season. It was almost comical.It's an interesting business dynamic when the employees of the business are infinitely more well known and usually much better paid than the management of the business. Some managers can deal with that and keep the focus squarely on keeping the business successful. Some managers have a tougher time with that.J

 

[3nOut]

...because from the perspective of what Brett Favre can do for your football team (which is the only perspective the Green Bay front office should be considering), the hypothetical Favre of my question and the Brett Favre of today are the same.

Yes and no. I think its an important perspective, but not the only one. As I just stated, if they knew Favre was not retiring, they would not have drafted Brohm. Or they could have drafted Brohm and possibly trade Aaron Rodgers. Now they're 'stuck' with 3 QBs.

 

[Joe Bryant]

With Favre...anything short of at least an appearance in the SB is a bust.With Rodgers...I think just a decent season out of him and getting into the playoffs would be acceptable.Sure, there will be the whatifs...there will be no matter who is starting.

But that's exactly my point. Which would you rather have:#1. A QB where the hopes are he does pretty well and has a decent season.or#2. A QB where him being there raises expectations so high that anything short of a Super Bowl win is a bust?J

 

[ScoobyDoo]

I think I'd like to just answer the intended question.

Favre should be starting in Green Bay. Period.

 

[sho nuff]

With Favre...anything short of at least an appearance in the SB is a bust.With Rodgers...I think just a decent season out of him and getting into the playoffs would be acceptable.Sure, there will be the whatifs...there will be no matter who is starting.

But that's exactly my point. Which would you rather have:#1. A QB where the hopes are he does pretty well and has a decent season.or#2. A QB where him being there raises expectations so high that anything short of a Super Bowl win is a bust?J

Like I said...as a fan...short term...the best chance for the SB is what I want.But when you take it all in perspective...Rodgers does have a chance to do well now...and it does not set them back any longer as one more year of Favre would most likely do.Its no easy simple decision that some want to make it out to be.Im also a bit biased as I would love, selfishly, to see Favre play more.

 

[gianmarco]

Voted none.

But Joe, no offense, how is this relevant.

Those ifs did not happen.

He did retire...all of what has happened since March did happen. Despite this poll...things are different than they would have been had he done that.

Had he done that he would have shown he was not mentally beat down and still ready to go 100%.

I think it's totally relevant because from the perspective of what Brett Favre can do for your football team (which is the only perspective the Green Bay front office should be considering), the hypothetical Favre of my question and the Brett Favre of today are the same.When looked at purely in the light of "what can you do for this team?", the guy that's champing at the bit last winter is no different from the guy champing at the bit in August.

What's different is the personal stuff that's got in the way.

It really isn't as complicated as it's being made in my opinion.

J

Agree 100%. And the point I think this relates even more to is all the talk of "feeling bad for Rodgers" or "Rodgers should be given a chance". If Favre had said from the outset he was coming back and followed through, would we still be feeling as badly as Rodgers? Would there have been all the talk he should have a chance? Should we feel more badly for Rodgers simply because he was told he would be the starter but then they changed their mind? Is he 14 years old with soft feelings? Even all the talk of the direction the team took, they would have to be taking this direction soon rather than later anyway. The drafting of 2 QB's this year isn't a huge loss for them and in fact could be huge to let them have a year to watch Favre as well. If Favre only plays 1 more year, I would hardly argue that these 2 picks this year were wasted.

 

[T Bell]

Voted none.

But Joe, no offense, how is this relevant.

Those ifs did not happen.

He did retire...all of what has happened since March did happen. Despite this poll...things are different than they would have been had he done that.

Had he done that he would have shown he was not mentally beat down and still ready to go 100%.

I think it's totally relevant because from the perspective of what Brett Favre can do for your football team (which is the only perspective the Green Bay front office should be considering), the hypothetical Favre of my question and the Brett Favre of today are the same.When looked at purely in the light of "what can you do for this team?", the guy that's champing at the bit last winter is no different from the guy champing at the bit in August.

What's different is the personal stuff that's got in the way.

It really isn't as complicated as it's being made in my opinion.

J

You're assuming away, with this hypothetical, the most important and legitimate bases for questioning whether Favre should start, that being his commitment to the game and therefore his commitment to offseason conditioning and preparation. That's the problem here. Nobody has any illusions about what would have happened had Favre clearly stated his intentions about returning in January, but clarity and Favre went their separate ways four-plus years ago.

 

[3nOut]

That is an interesting scenario. I think if he said that he definitely would be the starter this year, however, I am starting to get the feeling that McCarthy and Thompson were just waiting for an opportunity to name Rodgers the starter. Did Favre really put them in such a tough spot that they can not alter any of their other decisions by retiring earlier this year and now changing course? I say no. A lot of head coaches want to install "their guys" when they come to a team. McCarthy had no chance of unseating Favre when he came aboard, but Favre gave him an in earlier this year and he has ran with it.

Yes he did. If they were certain he would not be retired in 2008, I doubt GB would have drafted Rodgers and Brohm. Rodgers was drafted in the first round, 24th overall, I believe. Thats a high pick that might be wasted if Favre sticks a round for the next two years. Rodgers will be a FA in 2 years and GB will be stuck with essentially a rookie QB in Brohm. Or Brohm may not have been drafted if they knew for certain if Favre was not retiring. It is possible that noth may not have been drafted. GB basically wasted two picks for nothing, and one was a first rounder. I wonder what they could have gotten in place of Rodgers.

I don't think that he put them in such a tough spot, so much so that if he is still the best QB they can not name him the starter. He should have been more decisive earlier, but if he is still the better QB shouldn't he be the starter? We are talking about a team that went to the NFC title game not a rebuilding team.

Thats the question. Perhaps GB doesn't believe he's the best QB anymore, and that they could have won as many games without him last year. I personally tink he's not the same Favre he used to be. He's only 2-6 vs the Bears the last 4 years.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Work with me here.Let's pretend that after Green Bay's last game last season, that Favre strolls up to the post game press conference and says:"I'm crushed with this loss but overall it's been a great year. I feel better than I've felt in years and I absolutely want to keep this thing rolling. I feel like I'm on top of my game physically and mentally. Let me end all speculation right here and now and say that I will be back for the 2008 season with the one single focus of leading this team back the Super Bowl. Thanks and I'll see you in August."If he'd said that, how much consideration would Aaron Rodgers have received to be the starting QB?J

Hey Joe, I voted he'd get a little consideration with Farve probably the starter.However, Farve isn't going up to the press conference and saying all that. He could have just waited a month or whatever and said he was still going to play.You can say this too: What if Aaron Rodgers just shortly after losing the game to the New York Giants walks up to the TV Booth and grabs the microphone and says on air, "I think Brett Farve is a legend and all but I can gaurantee you I wouldn't have thrown that interception to lose the game. I am better than Brett and I love the fans of Green Bay and want a win the Super Bowl for them next year with this young talented team. I can't wait to get that chance, hopefully next year."If Aaron Rodgers would have did that, what do you think would have happened?Also, on a side note. I was tempted to make yet another Farve thread but don't want to but here's another angle/perspective on this thing. Why is Brett Farve and Thompson or whoever's meeting think that this QB competition thing isn't what's best for the team? Are there not all kinds of QB competitions going on all over the league right now? Is Atlanta, SF, Baltimore, Jets, and Chicago all not doing the same exact thing? They've all got QB controversies.I don't get what they're trying to sell, that a QB competition isn't what's best......it goes on every year somewhere.

 

[sho nuff]

Why is Brett Farve and Thompson or whoever's meeting think that this QB competition thing isn't what's best for the team? Are there not all kinds of QB competitions going on all over the league right now? Is Atlanta, SF, Baltimore, Jets, and Chicago all not doing the same exact thing? They've all got QB controversies.I don't get what they're trying to sell, that a QB competition isn't what's best......it goes on every year somewhere.

From the quotes by Favre...it appears Favre is saying that while he is willing to compete, it would not work or be whats best for the team.I asked someone else and will pose the question again...does that sound like a guy who just wants to play for the Green Bay Packers? Or a guy who is looking for a way out.

 

[sholditch]

Voted none.

But Joe, no offense, how is this relevant.

Those ifs did not happen.

He did retire...all of what has happened since March did happen. Despite this poll...things are different than they would have been had he done that.

Had he done that he would have shown he was not mentally beat down and still ready to go 100%.

I think it's totally relevant because from the perspective of what Brett Favre can do for your football team (which is the only perspective the Green Bay front office should be considering), the hypothetical Favre of my question and the Brett Favre of today are the same.When looked at purely in the light of "what can you do for this team?", the guy that's champing at the bit last winter is no different from the guy champing at the bit in August.

What's different is the personal stuff that's got in the way.

It really isn't as complicated as it's being made in my opinion.

J

Best Favre post of the year. I said basically the same thing in one of the myriad threads and had people saying that Rodgers is a better QB and that he would give them more of a chance to win now. The 48 for none says otherwise.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Joe,

This assumes that Favre had not already been asked to retire, which is more or less what he has been suggesting happened. Granted, we can never know one way or another, but assuming Favre had been asked to retire what would have happened if he had gone public and said the same thing you suggest. Would GB go ahead and make Favre the starter or would some "other" thing happen?

If Favre was just Favre, I still think he should have been allowed back the second he said he wanted to. Anything else is just silly b.s. IMO. Ain't like they are going to the Super Bowl anyway.

 

[Biabreakable]

on Joe for circumventing the language filter and using the F word.

 

[zadok]

Work with me here.Let's pretend that after Green Bay's last game last season, that Favre strolls up to the post game press conference and says:"I'm crushed with this loss but overall it's been a great year. I feel better than I've felt in years and I absolutely want to keep this thing rolling. I feel like I'm on top of my game physically and mentally. Let me end all speculation right here and now and say that I will be back for the 2008 season with the one single focus of leading this team back the Super Bowl. Thanks and I'll see you in August."If he'd said that, how much consideration would Aaron Rodgers have received to be the starting QB?J

A lot of this (from the team's perspective) has to do with the Draft. They wouldn't have drafted Brohm in the 2nd if they believed Favre was coming back.

 

[perry147]

Ignore my vote "Lots of consideration. Open competition for the starter."

I misread the question and thought it referred to other teams asking for AR.

 

[burd]

my opinion is that in January/February, Favre was still very much worn out and well aware that the team didn't want him back. Do i think they were trying to convince Favre to retire? Yes. Do i think that this affected his decision to retire? Yes.

I thin the truth is that Thompson didn't like being undermined by Favre when it came to football decisions. This whole "not having a place" for Favre is a game of Chicken that Thompson is going to lose. He could care less that Favre wants to play again for another team, so long as Favre does not lead another team to the playoffs. Basically, Thompson is looking out to keep his job and not concerning with helping the Pack be better than last year. If this were true, he'd have been trying to convince Favre NOT to retire. And now look at how things are going .... Thompson should be thankful that Favre wants to come back and lead the team. But how is he acting? He's trying to keep Favre off the field! That doesn't seem like a logical response if Thompson is trying to make the Pack better.

THis is why an ownership entity is useful. Any other team with an owner would say "Stop it" to Thompson.

 

[BigRed]

(which is the only perspective the Green Bay front office should be considering)

No it isn't. No one guy should be able to "hold a team hostage" and get away w/the BS he is pulling. What if he plays this year and they don't win the SB and he goes "that's it, I'm really retiring this time....." -? GB is left wondering how long that will last and hanging on a limb until next summer to see what the "real deal" is. That's ridiculous. Favre is making a total fool out of himself, the Packers organization and even to an extent the NFL (although that's already such a circus I doubt anyone even notices one more log on the fire). Personally I'm not a fan of inmates running the asylum to say the least - but hey, if GB doesn't care about any of that and wants to annoint Favre the de facto GB dictator-for-life who can basically do whatever he wants, then yeah I guess start him. I'll be there rooting for him to get knocked on his butt every play and GB (a team I have traditionally liked) to lose every game.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Work with me here.Let's pretend that after Green Bay's last game last season, that Favre strolls up to the post game press conference and says:"I'm crushed with this loss but overall it's been a great year. I feel better than I've felt in years and I absolutely want to keep this thing rolling. I feel like I'm on top of my game physically and mentally. Let me end all speculation right here and now and say that I will be back for the 2008 season with the one single focus of leading this team back the Super Bowl. Thanks and I'll see you in August."If he'd said that, how much consideration would Aaron Rodgers have received to be the starting QB?J

There would be none.But Favre didnt just do this in '08. He has three years of dikkin' with the team.

 

[gianmarco]

Work with me here.Let's pretend that after Green Bay's last game last season, that Favre strolls up to the post game press conference and says:"I'm crushed with this loss but overall it's been a great year. I feel better than I've felt in years and I absolutely want to keep this thing rolling. I feel like I'm on top of my game physically and mentally. Let me end all speculation right here and now and say that I will be back for the 2008 season with the one single focus of leading this team back the Super Bowl. Thanks and I'll see you in August."If he'd said that, how much consideration would Aaron Rodgers have received to be the starting QB?J

A lot of this (from the team's perspective) has to do with the Draft. They wouldn't have drafted Brohm in the 2nd if they believed Favre was coming back.

But they did. Question is this----How does drafting Brohm = Favre not suited to lead the team in 2008?I get that they may have gone a different direction in the draft, but it still doesn't (or shouldn't) change their goals in 2008. Tell me the difference between the following 2 scenarios and how it pertains to GB chasing a title this year.A. Draft Brohm and have Favre QB in 2008B. Draft player X and have Favre QB in 2008What's the difference other than they drafted at a position they don't need immediately (and I would argue Brohm is still a very good pick even if Brett had decided to stay)? They're making it sound as if their options are to either 1) draft someone else and have Favre start if they knew he was coming back OR to 2) draft Brohm and let Rodgers start even with Favre available. Essentially, they are choosing #2 if they choose to go with Favre over Rodgers simply because they drafted Brohm. Mind-boggling.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Voted none.

But Joe, no offense, how is this relevant.

Those ifs did not happen.

He did retire...all of what has happened since March did happen. Despite this poll...things are different than they would have been had he done that.

Had he done that he would have shown he was not mentally beat down and still ready to go 100%.

I think it's totally relevant because from the perspective of what Brett Favre can do for your football team (which is the only perspective the Green Bay front office should be considering), the hypothetical Favre of my question and the Brett Favre of today are the same.When looked at purely in the light of "what can you do for this team?", the guy that's champing at the bit last winter is no different from the guy champing at the bit in August.

What's different is the personal stuff that's got in the way.

It really isn't as complicated as it's being made in my opinion.

J

I think you are wrong on the most important point of the discussion and it makes your hypothetical irrelevant. The hypothetical Favre in your poll question would obviously be welcomed back as the starter, but that assumes he is mentally and physically prepared to be the Packers QB. The reason Favre is not the starting quarterback today is entirely due to the fact that he did not commit to play, but instead gave a tearful and compelling retirement press conference in March and proceeded to live the retired life until a few weeks ago. As far as I am aware, Favre has not yet comitted to playing for the Packers this year. That was the clearly stated purpose of the meeting with McCarthy yesterday and this morning - to determine whether Favre is comitted to play for the Packers this year. I don't think he is.

 

[aburt19]

No one really knows if Rodgers can play well enough to lead the Packers to the playoffs. What will be interesting is if the team goes 8-8 or 9-7 and don't make

the playoffs. The fans in Green Bay will not and should not be happy with any outcome less than making the playoffs. The rest of the team is good enough that

whether Green Bay makes the playoffs will depend heavily on the performance of Rodgers.

It will all come down to the performance of Rodgers.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I think it's totally relevant because from the perspective of what Brett Favre can do for your football team (which is the only perspective the Green Bay front office should be considering), the hypothetical Favre of my question and the Brett Favre of today are the same.

When looked at purely in the light of "what can you do for this team?", the guy that's champing at the bit last winter is no different from the guy champing at the bit in August.

What's different is the personal stuff that's got in the way.

He would have been the de facto QB for this year, which is why the idea of an open competition deosn't compute for me. However, I disagree that only personal stuff got in the way. They changed their draft plans because of his retirement. And they noiw have to question his commitment with him changing his mind so many times over just a few months. I think the commitment issue is larger than "personal stuff".

 

[goldfinger]

Since we're talking hypotheticals here, what happens if Favre is the starter and Green Bay has exactly the same result this year; they lose the NFC Championship game at home. What happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

 

[gianmarco]

Since we're talking hypotheticals here, what happens if Favre is the starter and Green Bay has exactly the same result this year; they lose the NFC Championship game at home. What happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

Take it another step further, what if GB wins the Super Bowl with Favre, what happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

 

[T Bell]

Since we're talking hypotheticals here, what happens if Favre is the starter and Green Bay has exactly the same result this year; they lose the NFC Championship game at home. What happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

Take it another step further, what if GB wins the Super Bowl with Favre, what happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

I was corrected on this yesterday - Rodgers is signed through 2009, so it's not his last year.

 

[goldfinger]

Since we're talking hypotheticals here, what happens if Favre is the starter and Green Bay has exactly the same result this year; they lose the NFC Championship game at home. What happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

Take it another step further, what if GB wins the Super Bowl with Favre, what happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

I was corrected on this yesterday - Rodgers is signed through 2009, so it's not his last year.

I meant to say he's going into 2009 as the last year of his contract

 

[Joe Bryant]

Since we're talking hypotheticals here, what happens if Favre is the starter and Green Bay has exactly the same result this year; they lose the NFC Championship game at home. What happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

Take it another step further, what if GB wins the Super Bowl with Favre, what happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

But isn't the fact that you're seriously talking about winning a Super Bowl the whole point? Does anyone seriously believe Rodgers has a decent shot to lead this team to the Super Bowl? In my opinion, my answer to the question would be "Win the Super Bowl. Then we'll see what happens."J

 

[goldfinger]

Since we're talking hypotheticals here, what happens if Favre is the starter and Green Bay has exactly the same result this year; they lose the NFC Championship game at home. What happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

Take it another step further, what if GB wins the Super Bowl with Favre, what happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

But isn't the fact that you're seriously talking about winning a Super Bowl the whole point? Does anyone seriously believe Rodgers has a decent shot to lead this team to the Super Bowl? In my opinion, my answer to the question would be "Win the Super Bowl. Then we'll see what happens."J

I don't think it's likely that the Packers will win the Super Bowl this year. But I also think it's likely that they have gone as far as they can with Favre. This seems to be the way the FO is thinking; they see it as sacrificing being good for the chance to be great.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

With Favre...anything short of at least an appearance in the SB is a bust.

With Rodgers...I think just a decent season out of him and getting into the playoffs would be acceptable.

Sure, there will be the whatifs...there will be no matter who is starting.

But that's exactly my point. Which would you rather have:#1. A QB where the hopes are he does pretty well and has a decent season.

or

#2. A QB where him being there raises expectations so high that anything short of a Super Bowl win is a bust?

J

Are you talking about the hopes and expectations of the coach and GM? Or the hopes and expectations of the fans and commentators?I'd generally want the guy who gives the team the best chance to win. And I'd rather let the coach instead of the fans figure out who that is.

 

[perry147]

Since we're talking hypotheticals here, what happens if Favre is the starter and Green Bay has exactly the same result this year; they lose the NFC Championship game at home. What happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

Take it another step further, what if GB wins the Super Bowl with Favre, what happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

But isn't the fact that you're seriously talking about winning a Super Bowl the whole point? Does anyone seriously believe Rodgers has a decent shot to lead this team to the Super Bowl? In my opinion, my answer to the question would be "Win the Super Bowl. Then we'll see what happens."

J

The window of opportunity closes very fast in the NFL and if the packers are going o have a shot a Superbowl they need to go with Favre. AR might get you there in a year or two (or even more) maybe, but that is counting your chickens before they hatch.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

I'm suprised that GB has tried to trade Rodgers now that there is hype around him. Trade Rodgers, start Favre and get Brahm ready to take over.

 

[habsfan]

There seems to be the sentiment that the Packers wanted to finally get away from all the uncertainty at QB by getting Favre out of the way. How many teams have a different kind of QB uncertainty year after year? It's called "mediocre QBs that can't distinguish themselves versus their other mediocre QB counterparts". Teams that can't decide between all their equally unimpressive QB options would love to have GB's problem right now.

 

[gianmarco]

Since we're talking hypotheticals here, what happens if Favre is the starter and Green Bay has exactly the same result this year; they lose the NFC Championship game at home. What happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

Take it another step further, what if GB wins the Super Bowl with Favre, what happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

But isn't the fact that you're seriously talking about winning a Super Bowl the whole point? Does anyone seriously believe Rodgers has a decent shot to lead this team to the Super Bowl? In my opinion, my answer to the question would be "Win the Super Bowl. Then we'll see what happens."J

Joe, always seems that I'm being misunderstood by you. If you've read any of my other posts on the subject, I'm completely on the side of the Packers bringing Favre back as he is their best shot to win. I was taking the post that I quoted and was trying to show that you'd have the exact same circumstances with Rodgers being an "unknown" whether they win the Super Bowl, lose the NFC championship, or completely bomb the season. The fact remains that despite being at that crossroad after a year, you still put your best player on the field and that's Favre.Notice I quoted the exact same thing he said in my post but switched it to reflect them winning the Super Bowl trying to imply that it doesn't matter what the result is, you still do the right thing (start Favre). Same way you call an all-in with AA preflop heads-up---even if you end up losing, it's still the correct play.

 

[Jason Wood]

Voted none.

But Joe, no offense, how is this relevant.

Those ifs did not happen.

He did retire...all of what has happened since March did happen. Despite this poll...things are different than they would have been had he done that.

Had he done that he would have shown he was not mentally beat down and still ready to go 100%.

I think it's totally relevant because from the perspective of what Brett Favre can do for your football team (which is the only perspective the Green Bay front office should be considering), the hypothetical Favre of my question and the Brett Favre of today are the same.When looked at purely in the light of "what can you do for this team?", the guy that's champing at the bit last winter is no different from the guy champing at the bit in August.

What's different is the personal stuff that's got in the way.

It really isn't as complicated as it's being made in my opinion.

J

It certainly seems like that from the outside. But we don't know all that's happened behind the scenes. From our perspective, it seems crazy that they wouldn't welcome Favre back with open arms. But Ted Thompson has proven a shrewd guy in his own right and I'm hardly going to jump on the bandwagon and and say, "this guy is just stupid" because I HIGHLY suspect there's a heck of a lot of water under this bridge that makes Favre's return a lot more complicated than we're all seeing right now.

 

[Joe Bryant]

With Favre...anything short of at least an appearance in the SB is a bust.

With Rodgers...I think just a decent season out of him and getting into the playoffs would be acceptable.

Sure, there will be the whatifs...there will be no matter who is starting.

But that's exactly my point. Which would you rather have:#1. A QB where the hopes are he does pretty well and has a decent season.

or

#2. A QB where him being there raises expectations so high that anything short of a Super Bowl win is a bust?

J

Are you talking about the hopes and expectations of the coach and GM? Or the hopes and expectations of the fans and commentators?I'd generally want the guy who gives the team the best chance to win. And I'd rather let the coach instead of the fans figure out who that is.

But we all think for ourselves though. When the coach has a different idea of what's best than I do, I speak up. That's what fans do. I think that's what's driven much of this.J

 

[Joe Bryant]

Since we're talking hypotheticals here, what happens if Favre is the starter and Green Bay has exactly the same result this year; they lose the NFC Championship game at home. What happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

Take it another step further, what if GB wins the Super Bowl with Favre, what happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

But isn't the fact that you're seriously talking about winning a Super Bowl the whole point? Does anyone seriously believe Rodgers has a decent shot to lead this team to the Super Bowl? In my opinion, my answer to the question would be "Win the Super Bowl. Then we'll see what happens."J

Joe, always seems that I'm being misunderstood by you. If you've read any of my other posts on the subject, I'm completely on the side of the Packers bringing Favre back as he is their best shot to win. I was taking the post that I quoted and was trying to show that you'd have the exact same circumstances with Rodgers being an "unknown" whether they win the Super Bowl, lose the NFC championship, or completely bomb the season. The fact remains that despite being at that crossroad after a year, you still put your best player on the field and that's Favre.Notice I quoted the exact same thing he said in my post but switched it to reflect them winning the Super Bowl trying to imply that it doesn't matter what the result is, you still do the right thing (start Favre). Same way you call an all-in with AA preflop heads-up---even if you end up losing, it's still the correct play.

Sorry. I was just using your post as a launch to make another point.J

 

[gianmarco]

Since we're talking hypotheticals here, what happens if Favre is the starter and Green Bay has exactly the same result this year; they lose the NFC Championship game at home. What happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

Take it another step further, what if GB wins the Super Bowl with Favre, what happens then? We still don't know anything more about Rodgers than we do now, only he's in the last year of his contract. And no one will believe anything about what Favre will do until camp opens in 2009.

But isn't the fact that you're seriously talking about winning a Super Bowl the whole point? Does anyone seriously believe Rodgers has a decent shot to lead this team to the Super Bowl? In my opinion, my answer to the question would be "Win the Super Bowl. Then we'll see what happens."J

Joe, always seems that I'm being misunderstood by you. If you've read any of my other posts on the subject, I'm completely on the side of the Packers bringing Favre back as he is their best shot to win. I was taking the post that I quoted and was trying to show that you'd have the exact same circumstances with Rodgers being an "unknown" whether they win the Super Bowl, lose the NFC championship, or completely bomb the season. The fact remains that despite being at that crossroad after a year, you still put your best player on the field and that's Favre.Notice I quoted the exact same thing he said in my post but switched it to reflect them winning the Super Bowl trying to imply that it doesn't matter what the result is, you still do the right thing (start Favre). Same way you call an all-in with AA preflop heads-up---even if you end up losing, it's still the correct play.

Sorry. I was just using your post as a launch to make another point.J

No worries. I don't mind being used by you