Read this piece from the Chicago Tribune’s David Haugh (how would you pronounce this last name…whenever I run into a last name I can’t pronounce that starts with “H”, I think of Dr. Hoffofferererer from the Man with Two Brains – an underrated comedy). He states that the Bears should do anything they can to land Brett Favre. He gets a fascinating quote from Robbie Gould who has no problem stating that having Favre would make the team a lot better. Even though we all know he’s right, interesting public, back-handed crack at their present QBs (again I know they both suck, but interesting).
But Haugh seems very set on his opinion that Ted Thompson and the Packers are crazy for letting Favre go. Sometimes I think as fans we’ve all gotten so close to this Favre situation, reading voraciously to make sure we have our details, chronology and rumors currrent, that we sort of lose the ability to strip away all the layers and examine the basic question: who is the better QB, Rodgers or Favre. This guy’s opinion is firm – obviously Favre and he thinks the Packers are nuts for not welcoming him back. Though I no longer believe Favre is an innocent victim here and I can follow the logic of the organization a lot better as details have emerged, it’s funny how this guy’s article has set me back again to thinking about how good Favre was last year and really, how unfortunate this whole situation is.
packergeeks 
July 18, 2008 at 10:41 am |
Bret Favre a Chicago Bear!!! Aaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!!! If that happens it’s time for Ted Thompson to be run out of town with Dan Devine’s dog. That would be the unforgivable sin. There is no chance of redemption for a violation of this magnitude.
Trade this guy now and put a stop to this now. The team doesn’t need this idiosy to carry on into the season. And if Favre has any feelings for the loyal fan base he has, he needs to do his best to put this situation to bed. Yes, he owes us just as much as we owe him.
July 18, 2008 at 12:00 pm |
[…] bad enough to read the Chicago Tribune lobbying hard for the Bears to try and steal Brett Favre if he indeed does come out of retirement and is granted a release from his contract by the Green […]
July 18, 2008 at 1:41 pm |
Undoubtedly Favre is the better QB for 2008. The question is what is the best for the Packers in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Brett is a typical player who is only thinking of what affects him (I don’t think that is wrong btw) and doesn’t care about the long term effect on the team. TT is a GM who has to think of the long term interest of the team. He realizes that the Packers will not cease operations once Brett is actually gone for real. If he believes bringing back Brett after he has retired will have a negative effect on the team in 2009, 2010 and on then he has to do what is best for the franchise. He is the one who has the position and thus will be making that decision. Brett needs to realize that he is a QB and not a GM
July 18, 2008 at 1:48 pm |
Do not let David Haugh influence you. That guy is a nimrod. A few months ago he said that the Bears should agree to renegotiate Urlacher’s contract to give him more money, even though he’s in the middle of a colossal deal already, is coming off of his worst season since he’s rookie year, and has developed a chronic back problem. He’s opinions on personnel moves are routinely terrible. Ignore him.
Unless your team was absolutely stacked, and your first-line QB just broke his throwing arm, no one in their right mind would give up a 1st, a 5th and a decent nickel back for a QB that’s going to be 39 in October. Does no one remember Favre in ’05 or ’06? Favre in ’07 proves that when he works his butt off, really understands a system, and is surrounded by talented receivers, he can be very good, at least when it’s not really cold out. That’s all. Think about it. Haugh is arguing that adding Favre to a team with no proven runners, huge holes on the offensive line, and no proven wideouts will make the offense Super Bowl caliber. That’s absurd. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Sometimes stars don’t get enough credit for making the guys around them better. Brady’s been that way. Favre definitely didn’t get that credit in the 90s when he made Freeman, or early this decade where he made Bill Schroeder a 1,000 yard receiver. And it’s definitely hard to tell when that’s happening. But I think (and I hope I’m right if Rodgers stays the starter) that the national media is giving him too much credit for the Packers’ offensive success last season.
July 18, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
“…the national media is giving him too much credit for the Packers’ offensive success last season.”
You are right on the money here. Some of the better football writers, like the guys at Football Outsiders, have given McCarthy his due, but most of the ESPN-types all talk about the offense’s success like it was all Favre’s doing….
July 18, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
As is often the case, I think the truth lies somewhere in between re credit for the offensive success last year. It was a combination of several factors. I would give a fair amount of credit to McCarthy – I am pretty certain we’ll find, eventually, that Rodgers or Brohm or whoever is next, will flourish under what is a brilliantly creative offensive scheme. And, I did get a little frustrated last year with some of the MVP talk when people kept saying Brady is surrounded by talent and Favre has a bunch of kids/suckers on his team. While I do think Brady’s situation was “easier”, the “kids” on our team proved to be very talented. Greg Jennings is already pushing elite status, Driver is always good no matter what, Jones, Grant, Lee and the others also added to the mix nicely when called upon. There was offensive talent on the team last year contrary to what some of the “Favre did everything” crowd would believe.
At the same time, however, I don’t think Favre’s role in helping the team win ought to be discounted. He had a great year statistically and from a leadership standpoint (on the field anyway). Those guys looked to him for leadership and he just plan delivered (except in the Dallas, Chicago and NYG games). He was the one who pulled Ryan Grant’s head out of his a;lkjqowe in the Seattle game. And, Favre was the one who completed a huge % of his passes, not all of which were easy “scheme” throws, leading the team to victory. Think of some of those throws (the KC game, the Denver game, the Seattle game) – he still has talent.
I think the really unfortunate thing here is that I sort of think Favre finally found a coach who helped Favre play like he can play. I almost felt from watching them last year, Favre may have another 1-2 years left because he and McCarthy seemed so in sync. But now, that’s all fallen apart and I think that may another reason why so many people are just left with that gut-rot feeling in the stomach.
July 18, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
From all these Favre haters I have yet to hear someone mention how Rodgers has played twice in his career and got hurt both times. The Packers have not been to the Super Bowl in 11 years, who cares about 09, 10,11? In the NFL, its all in, all the time.
July 18, 2008 at 7:30 pm |
For the ten thousandth time – Rodgers was not hurt in the Dallas game. If you want to dog the guy for injuries, at least get the facts straight…
July 18, 2008 at 10:24 pm |
If we are just talking about the 2008 season only, Brett makes sense. But for the long term health of the franchise, I’m not so sure. I want to win this year, but I also want to win it in 2009 and 2010. We can’t get a one year commitment from Brett, let alone two or three.
July 18, 2008 at 10:31 pm |
I believe his injury occured at practise the week following the Dallas game.
July 18, 2008 at 10:48 pm |
It did, on the last play of the Tuesday practice.
July 18, 2008 at 11:48 pm |
Holy crap this story keeps getting weirder and weirder!
Check out what Packer quarterbacking is thinking about coming out of retirement now!
http://thepackerpundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/bart-starr-un-retires.html
July 19, 2008 at 9:00 am |
Hi I am sorry for posting on such an interesting development, however I see know other way to contact the owner of Packergeeks. You guys have a great blog going, can you please consider adding PACKERSMIX.com to your blog roll.
Thanks in advance for your consideration!
The Packers knew that there was likely to be Farve drama early in the off-season, and I think the drafting of Brian Brohm was an interesting development. I think he was drafted not so much as a backup for Rodgers but as an insurance policy that if the Farve thing got to Rodgers so much they ended up having to trade Rodgers. I also think Brohm might be the future over Rodgers, to me Brohm is a more natural quarterback.