I hate the Packers and Packer fans, but I’ve never hated Favre (though the constant Favre love from the media was annoying). I’m also a Vikings fan, so why wouldn’t I welcome Favre to my own team?
I haven’t seen Packer fans get that volent. They have big mouths, but the worst I’ve had them do is pour beer on me (they don’t like it if you go to Lambeau in a Moss jersey and do butt dances in the stairwell every time he scores a touchdown).
Favre supposedly won’t go to the Jets, and I don’t think they’re very interested in him. There’s no point in trading for him if you don’t think he makes you a Super Bowl contender right away, and the Jets aren’t at that level. They’re still trying to see if Clemens can be a starter for them.
There was talk that Tampa Bay would want him, but I’m not sure Favre wants to play there either. He has connections to the Vikings and that may be the only other place he’s willing to play. As far as I can tell he’s really given the Packers no options in trading him, and it bothers me when stars do that - they’re within their rights to have a say in where they are playing, but when they say in public they want to be traded to only one team it decreases their value in a trade.
Seriously? They’re considered to be a team with a very strong defense and an exceptional second-year running back. The weak link is clearly at QB, where they don’t know if Tarvaris Jackson is going to pan out.
If they cut him, he’ll sign with the Vikings anyway, so they might as well get something for him. Benching him is not a realistic option.As for the Jets, Favre has a clause in his contract which allows him to veto any trade he doesn’t want, and he won’t accept a trade to the Jets (who I don’t think haven’t shown any interest anyway). It’s a turd sandwich all the way around for the Packers. All they can do is look for least unappetizing spot to take a bite.
They would become an immediate contender in the NFC. They have one of the top defenses, especially with the addition of Jared Allen to the D-line. They have one of the best O-lines and arguably the best running back in football. They have passable, but not exceptional wide receivers (getting Berrian from the bears helps), but with Adrian Peterson at running back, the recievers don’t have to great as long as they have a QB who can find the hot receiver on run blitzes. The addition of Favre would immediately make the Vikings one of the best offensive teams in the NFC (they might be anyway), and they already have one of the best defenses. I don’t know why you think they couldn’t contend.
Maybe you forgot they have an LT caliber running back now.
A very strong rush defense, but a phenomenally poor pass defense. I realize that adding Jared Allen will improve things, but I can’t help but think that their problems highlight some serious deficiencies in coverage.
To make things worse, they got rid of Dwight Smith, one of the best coverage safeties in football, and replaced him with so-so Madieu Williams.
In any case, it doesn’t matter who is throwing the ball if there’s nobody there to catch it, and Bernard Berrian plus a bunch of has-beens and never-weres is not much of a receiving corps.
I realize they look phenomenal on paper, but quarterback was hardly the team’s only deficiency last year.
If you have receivers who are constantly left open so the defense can stuff 8 or 9 in the box like teams were doing to Peterson at the end of last season, they don’t have to be great. The Vikings’ problem last year was that Tavaris Jackson didn’t have the seasoning yet to able to make teams pay for that. Favre will make them pay all day if they abandon pass coverage like that against him.
And if they don’t stuff the box to stop the run…well. we’ve seen what All Day can do with a little bit of daylight.
Dio, unlike (mostly) everyone else, I’m not ready to crown AP just yet. He had a phenomenal rookie year, but things weren’t quite so phenomenal after the injury:
I was really surprised at the time that nobody else- even the Fantasy guys- talked about it, but he became quite ineffective after the knee injury. What made it odd was that he and the team both contended that he was fully healthy, and they didn’t seem to limit his carries any more than prior to the injury.
It isn’t like his condition gradually improved- he had a good game against Detroit, and then didn’t crack 4 yards per carry for the rest of the season.
Anyway, the point is that Peterson, while a phenomenal talent, might not have the kind of follow-up that everyone thinks he will.
ETA: I didn’t see teams stuffing the box for Peterson any more than for most other running backs during the second half of the season, and I watched at least four of the Vikings’ games after Week 11 (had the Vikes’ D in fantasy).
It suddenly occurred to me late last night that the last time I saw a superstar player so unwilling to retire who had employers so anxious to put him out to pasture was in the old 1970s’ movie, Rollerball, where James Caan played the star player, Jonathan E.
Unboxed spoiler for 30 year old movie to follow:
Rollerball was designed as an opiate for the masses, intended to teach people that one man was not bigger than the corporate team. Jonathan, however, was such a great player and was so popular that the corporations that ran the world decided that Jonathan had to be forced to retire, since his superstardom was undermining the purpose of the game. When Jonathan refused to retire despite being offered a great incentive package to do so, the powers that be decided to have him killed during the championship game.
I’m not saying the parallels between Jonathan and Brett Favre are exact, but if I was Favre, I’d be sure to hire a food taster before I ate any meals at the Packers’ training table this week.
Nonsense. Football teams often take a longer term view than “this year.”
No coach who wants to keep his job is going to sacrifice games he can win.
Well, not to worry, because it isn’t just about McCarthy - it’s also about Ted Thompson, who builds teams to win for four seasons, not just for four weeks (a/k/a The Right Way).
If the Packers start Favre this year, they’ll be in a much worse position QB-wise than they are right now.
That’s ridiculous. He’s a first ballot Hall of Famer coming off a 13-3 season. In what conceivable way is Rodgers, who has never started a game, a better choice for quarterback?
I don’t know if I agree with this statement per se - I think the jury’s very much out on that. Who the hell really knows what Aaron Rodgers is, after all? But I do agree with you in principle.
I’ve seen it written on these boards and elsewhere that a GM should be thinking of “what makes his team most likely to win the Super Bowl this year?” and it’s that simple. I think that’s a pretty unrealistic assessment of football team management. Of course a GM is always going to mouth platitudes about “trying to win every game,” but in the real world, team management is about balancing that effort with a real-world effort to make the franchise better in the long run.
I mean, look, sure, the percentage chance that the Packers will win the Super Bowl this year is higher with Favre than with Rodgers. But how much higher is it, really? I don’t know; none of us really do. Part of Ted Thompson’s job is to look at all the factors involved and make an informed judgment on that question. If Green Bay’s chances of winning the SB are (say) 25% with Favre and 15% with Rodgers, well, is that 10% increase worth sacrificing Aaron Rodgers forever? Basically burning a first round draft pick? What if you are confident, based on what you’ve seen in practices, that Rodgers is going to be something really special?
What if having Favre start this year, in your judgment, results in a 10% reduction in your chances of winning the Super Bowl in 2008-2009, but a 25% reduction in your chances of winning the Super Bowl in the three succeeeding years?
In the real-world of team management, someone has to make an educated decision regarding the answers to these questions. Right now, the Packers have a choice: Favre for this year or Rodgers for the next four. I’m not sure that’s as simple a decision as it’s being made to sound.
I’m not saying he’ll be better this year, although I’m doubtful that Favre will come close to replicating his performance last year.
However, if Favre starts every game this year, and then retires next year, the Packers will have Brian Brohm, who presumably won’t get a single first-team snap this year, and 7th (?) rounder Matt Flynn, who will presumably be cut or relegated to the practice squad now, under contract. Rodgers- who the Packers will by then have invested five years’ worth of first-round money in- will be a free agent.
What the fuck are they supposed to do then?
The GM’s job is to prepare his team to win. It’s up to ownership to decide whether that means win now or win later, but Ted Thompson has always eschewed the win-now approach, and given the fact that the Packers hired him in the first place, they’re presumably totally on board with his strategy.
As I note above, he’s obviously not, if the only consideration is your team’s success in 2008-2009. But if you give the job back to Favre and then you don’t win the Super Bowl… well, now it’s 2009-2010. Favre retires, and you have to blow another draft pick on a QB and get him game-ready, while Rodgers, who has four years of education under his belt, goes as a free agent to the Bears and (potentially) lights you up twice a year for ten years.
They’re going to be in that same situation regardless of who they start this year. Starting Rodgers this year could actually hurt them if it increases his value as a free agent.
How patient do you think the ans are going to be, by the way? Do you think they’re going to ok watching Favre sit on the bench while Rodgers throws pick after pick and can’t get in the endzone?
There’s nothing stopping Rodgers from doing that anyway, and like I said, starting him could potentially increase his value and make him too expensive to keep.
I don’t see how Rodgers can become too expensive to keep when he would be the only one of the three active QBs making significant money. I don’t know who else would be out there as a free agent, but Favre’s contract will probably be off the books, so I don’t imagine Rodgers’ deal becoming too financially difficult.
Ok, but why would his free agency next year become a problem if he doesn’t start this year?
If Favre starts all year Rodgers isn’t going to re-sign at any price. What if Favre pulls this shit again?
If he turns out to be the next Tony Romo, I highly doubt the Packers will mind paying him top-15 QB money; after all, they’ve been paying Favre top-5 money for the better part of two decades.