Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Green Bay management has been dumber than dumb. Which is not to say, by the way, that Favre didn't screw up by failing to combine his retirement with his unconditional release. But when Favre called to say he wanted back in, GB management should have embraced him. Instead, they are likely to wind up trading him. And when Rodgers makes his first mistake - which will undoubtedly be the first of many - he will be barbecued by every sports nudnik in the country. Double that since his performance will compared to Favre's every week. Imagine if he's winging it for the Bears or Vikings? GB management will be swinging from stadium scaffolding (relax everybody, that's figurative). Oh my, Favre teamed up with Adrian Peterson? Phew. Hate to prep my defense for that.
This will not be pretty. Not. One. Bit.
Are you ready for some football?
Brett Favre gets way too much credit in all of this, I think. He's been stringing along the Packers every offseason now for years, preventing them from ever being able to settle their QB situation for the future. Even if you believe his performance has been materially better than the Packers would otherwise get (I don't), the constant "will he, won't he" speculation Favre has fostered has undoubtedly hurt the Packers.
And I can say one thing for sure: Brett Favre will not play for the Bears, now or ever. Rex Grossman is a younger version of Favre anyway, so the Bears have already filled their quota of gunslinging quarterbacks with poor judgment.
But when Favre called to say he wanted back in, GB management should have embraced him.
A big part of the problem is that the Packers had been planning for Favre's eventual retirement for at least three years now (when they drafted Rodgers) and that Favre's abrupt return has thrown a wrench into all those years of plans. You might compare it to the Barry Sanders retirement, only in reverse (in Sanders' case, it was his 11th-hour retirement, rather than a comeback, that left the Lions franchise reeling).
You couldn't be more wrong, Anon.
Favre was pushed out by GB Management, who have fallen in love with themselves, and really don't want to win.
Yep, GB Management does not want to win. They want to be like Detroit or Buffalo, where decade after decade, a 4-12 record is expected, management can just "coast" and not work too hard, and the team just isn't expected to win anything. Ever.
Rodgers -- has never started a game, never done much of anything, even in college, and is injury prone. He isn't very good. By contrast Favre has the consecutive start record.
Favre, realistically, is the fourth best QB right now in the league, after the Mannings and Brady. He's better than McNabb. He took GB to the NFC Championship, double overtime! What more could you want?
GB management does not want to win, simple as that. They just want to coast.
someone tell me what i am missing:
1. green bay doesn't think favre can get them to where they want to go
2. trading favre doesn't change that
so why not trade him and get some value and get on with their own season? why do they want to keep him from playing?
unless i have missed something, the entire green bay management team are complete wankers.
i listen to several sports shows on the radio, and read several sports web sites, and no where have i seen any rational explanation of this bizzare situation.
Sorry, Favre is a twat. He has essentially ruined Aaron Rodgers' career. If Rodgers has an ounce of confidence after he makes his first mistake, he's made of some pretty tough stuff.
Favre is a gamer, but while you praise him for taking GB to the NFC championship, he also handed the game away with his patented interceptions. He's the all time king in a lot of things, including throwing interceptions.
I whole heartedly agree with both Anon's - pro Football these days is no longer a game where great players can leave it in January and then get back "into shape" in August at camp. Admittedly I am no Farve fan because I cannot stand a QB who throws as many bad (emphasis added) interceptions as he does. Especially one who still throws rookie type of picks. In the days of guys like Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, John Elway, Terry Bradshaw, etc. interceptions were the mark of a gun-slinger and they were tolerated. With the game as over-analyzed as it is today there is one statistic that has emerged that is actually useful and is directly correlated to winnning and that is the interception to TD ratio. Last year Farve's was very good and as such an average Pack team went very far. In year's past his ratio's were dismal and as such even good Pack teams suffered terribly.
What I think is really funny is that Tampa looks to be the place where he will end up. He will replace the guy, Jeff Garcia, who revived a hapless Philadelphia team two years ago and took a very average Tampa team without Cadilac Williams to the play-offs last year. The one statistic that Mr. Garcia is near the top since his revival in Philly and Tampa? Interceptions to TD. I think the Bucs are going to give away a better guy who has been completely engaged in football everyday since last season ended for a tremendously talented guy who is half-heartedly in to it...
Lastly, the one thing that is only now starting to come out is the financial ramifications of Farve playing. The Pack's salary cap structure gets completely thrown off kilter if he comes back, and as such they have to give up the future to respond to his "ever-changing" moods. As much as many people think the Pack Management has handled this poorly, I would completely disagree with that assessment since he would be taking almost a quarter of their cap for a guy who is not sure how badly he wants to play...? How is that bad management? Moreover, there was no winning this soap opera from the Pack's perspective, especially when Farve himself has been so fickle and has been this way for the past four seasons.
It's bad management because your job is to put the best team on the field and make and keep your viewing customers happy. It is also to make GB an attractive place for talent to come to work/play.
If GB management really didn't believe Favre gave them a better chance to win than Rodgers, then they should have released him. In one maneuver, they achieve the salary cap objective you cite and have an opportunity to put the best team on the field. Of course, they would then be taking the risk that Favre makes them look foolish - or Rodgers does.
Instead, they opted for what is evolving into the worst set of developments. Favre is on the payroll. GB management looks churlish at best - trying to pay Favre not to play or making him hold a clipboard and ending his consecutive games streak after leading them to the NFC championship.
For what? a conditional draft pick? That's what they're holding out for?
If Green Bay was owned by the typical managing GP ownership structure, I guarantee you this does not happen. It damages the franchise.
Your premise assumes that Farve comes out and blazes teams like he did last year. However, what you are not taking into account is that last year they played a fairly cupcake schedule. This year the schedule gets dialed-up considerably. What happens if they go with Farve and he is a step slow or a read too late or he sticks with one receiver too much and becomes predictable like he was in the three to four years prior to last year? What happens to management of the Pack for sticking with him too long and they fall from a 12-4 season to an 8-8 because they had to stick with the tired old gun who put nothing into the off-season? Morevoer,when do the fans start yelling that it is time to move to the future (unfortunately they are probably too polite in GB to do that - but they should have five years ago!)
Also, look at the biggest games last year - Farve stunk up the house. He personally tried winning games by himself (which is when he gets into trouble.) There is a point when coaches look at this and say we can do better.
From a coaches perspective there is no way in the world they would go with Aaron Rogers unless they thought they had a better chance of winning. There are few coaches in the NFL who are secure enough where they can throw a season or two for the future. The coaching carousel is far too fast for that to happen. So my bet is that McCarthy looked at what he had in Rogers (whom I believe will do great) and he thought he could handle this guy better and he would be less likely to lose games single-handedly like a "high-Beta" QB like Farve. What we will never know is that given identical scenarios would Farve have done better than Rogers. My vote is that Farve would have better numbers and Rogers would have more wins - but we will never know...?
Here is my prediction though - if Farve goes to NY Jets or the Bucs he will be a huge disapointment and that has more to do with the sophistication of the offenses and his limited mental abilities than anything else.
Be well - QuakerCat