Hypothetical - Favre In 2008 (1 Viewer)

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

As I mentioned in another post.........I just don't understand why Farve coming back isn't what's best for the team.

I'm not buying that, they must think we're morons as they try to just dummy it down. They meet for hours after talking on end for days and then you get the *drum roll* and the answer is: They agree that Rodgers is the starter and Farve just wants to do what's best as the team.

Really, he does? He flew all the way there to tell him agrees that Rodgers is the starter. How many millions did that cost Green Bay for Farve to think that way?

Again, last time I checked Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, NY Jets, S.F. and Miami are all having QB competitions. They are in the business of doing what's best for their teams and they're trying to figure out who's the best QB on the team.

The Right Guards, the Left Tackles and the safeties on the Green Bay Packers are all competing for the starting job, it's open competition for every position on the team.

Competing for the QB job in Green Bay for Farve isn't in the best interest of the team..........again, really. You want me to really buy that?

 

[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.

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

Going back to sho nuff's post, if McCarthy believes that "With Favre...anything short of at least an appearance in the SB is a bust," but "With Rodgers... just a decent season out of him and getting into the playoffs would be acceptable," then the very obvious choice is to go with Favre.But judging by McCarthy's actions, I think it's rather obvious that McCarthy doesn't believe those things. If he did, Favre very likely would have been named the starter already.

 

[T Bell]

Again, last time I checked Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, NY Jets, S.F. and Miami are all having QB competitions. They are in the business of doing what's best for their teams and they're trying to figure out who's the best QB on the team.

Barry Bonds can't buy a job in MLB despite a good year last year, and despite openly saying he'll not only accept league minimum, but that he'll also donate all of it to charity. Sometimes the drama is just too much for teams to want to deal with, especially in a sport like football where chemistry is so important.

 

[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

Going back to sho nuff's post, if McCarthy believes that "With Favre...anything short of at least an appearance in the SB is a bust," but "With Rodgers... just a decent season out of him and getting into the playoffs would be acceptable," then the very obvious choice is to go with Favre.But judging by McCarthy's actions, I think it's rather obvious that McCarthy doesn't believe those things. If he did, Favre very likely would have been named the starter already.

I agree for sure. That's what I mean when I say when the coach thinks differently from what I do, I speak up.Judging from his actions (and I agree with Jason that there very well could be much deeper circumstances that are not being talked about), it appears McCarthy and Thompson think Rodgers is the best choice. That's something I disagree with.

J

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Again, last time I checked Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, NY Jets, S.F. and Miami are all having QB competitions. They are in the business of doing what's best for their teams and they're trying to figure out who's the best QB on the team.

Barry Bonds can't buy a job in MLB despite a good year last year, and despite openly saying he'll not only accept league minimum, but that he'll also donate all of it to charity. Sometimes the drama is just too much for teams to want to deal with, especially in a sport like football where chemistry is so important.

That's a bunch of bull. There's all kinds of drama in sports and that's not the end all in the decision making process. You don't think there will be drama if Mike Vick plays QB for another team when he gets out? It won't be drama that says if he can play or not, it'll be his ability.You don't think there's drama going on RIGHT NOW with the circus that's going on about this current Farve/Rodgers situation?I think they're doing the team a diservice by not allowing the QB competition.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

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

Going back to sho nuff's post, if McCarthy believes that "With Favre...anything short of at least an appearance in the SB is a bust," but "With Rodgers... just a decent season out of him and getting into the playoffs would be acceptable," then the very obvious choice is to go with Favre.But judging by McCarthy's actions, I think it's rather obvious that McCarthy doesn't believe those things. If he did, Favre very likely would have been named the starter already.

I agree for sure. That's what I mean when I say when the coach thinks differently from what I do, I speak up.Judging from his actions (and I agree with Jason that there very well could be much deeper circumstances that are not being talked about), it appears McCarthy and Thompson think Rodgers is the best choice. That's something I disagree with.

J

Interesting spin on words you have, "best choice." Do you think McCarthy and Thompson think Rodgers is the best choice because he's the best player? What do you mean by best choice, in terms of what you think they may be thinking.You obviously feel that Brett Farve gives them the best chance to win this year. I'm not 100 percent sold on that but respect others opinions.

 

[T Bell]

Again, last time I checked Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, NY Jets, S.F. and Miami are all having QB competitions. They are in the business of doing what's best for their teams and they're trying to figure out who's the best QB on the team.

Barry Bonds can't buy a job in MLB despite a good year last year, and despite openly saying he'll not only accept league minimum, but that he'll also donate all of it to charity. Sometimes the drama is just too much for teams to want to deal with, especially in a sport like football where chemistry is so important.

That's a bunch of bull. There's all kinds of drama in sports and that's not the end all in the decision making process. You don't think there will be drama if Mike Vick plays QB for another team when he gets out? It won't be drama that says if he can play or not, it'll be his ability.You don't think there's drama going on RIGHT NOW with the circus that's going on about this current Farve/Rodgers situation?I think they're doing the team a diservice by not allowing the QB competition.

Maybe you just have a higher tolerance for drama than most people do as a Cowboys fan.