If Brett Favre was to enter the market as an unrestricted free agent, would the Washington Redskins consider bringing him in? Should they?
I didn’t consider this at all when the news that Favre had inquired with the Green Bay Packers about the possibility of a return last week. Wake me when it’s over, I thought then.
It’s looking more and more, though, that Favre will end up playing somewhere in 2008. Peter King thinks that it will happen, as does Pat Kirwin on Sirius NFL Radio.
If Favre does indeed want to play, all he has to do is tell the Packers that he is no longer retired and that he intends to report to training camp. They then will have three options: bring him back, trade him, or release him.
The pressure to bring him back would, of course, be overwhelming.
Imagine if in July of 2003 that Darrell Green announced that he would like to return for another season and the Redskins said, "No thanks, we’re moving forward with the people we have."
Now imagine the hue and cry of protest coming from Redskins fans in that situation and multiply it by a factor of about 1,000. That would be the reaction in Wisconsin, and around the country, if the Packers told Brett Favre to drop dead.
It’s possible, though, that the Packers won’t be so eager to welcome back the living legend. They have gone through the offseason preparing Aaron Rodgers for the role of starting quarterback. The word is that one of the reasons that Favre decided to retire in February is that the Packer organization gave him strong hints that they were ready to move on from the Favre era.
So, let’s say that Green Bay is willing to take the PR hit in the short term and do what they think is best in the long term and let Favre walk.
Are the Redskins shoppers in a market for Favre? And, assuming that he has considerable say over where he goes, would he be interested in coming to Washington?
I’ve heard in a few places that the 'Skins would be in the picture. As far as I can tell, this was nothing more than speculation, an attempt to connect the dots. Whenever a big-name player is on the market, there are those in the media who will speculate that Dan Snyder will make a play for him.
This, however, might go beyond the usual knee-jerk reaction. There are a few reasons why Favre would be a good fit for the Skins and vice versa.
·
He would need to play for a team that employs the West Coast offense.
With limited time to prepare, Favre would have to be able to get up to speed in a hurry. That would mean going to a WCO system, one that he could operate in his sleep. Jim Zorn is bringing a West Coast system to the Redskins. He’s from the Mike Holmgren school and Favre had his greatest success in that system.
·
He would want to play for a contending team.
Favre doesn’t want to come back if he doesn’t have a realistic shot of contending for a title. The problem is that most perennial playoff teams have an established QB. The Redskins have made the playoffs two of the last three years with two different starting quarterbacks in the playoffs, and a third playing most of the last year-and-a-half. That’s hardly a settled situation.
·
The Redskins are willing to take a risk.
While this offseason has been rather quiet, don’t forget the deal that wasn’t made—the offer of two draft picks for Chad Johnson. If there is an opportunity, the Redskins will listen.
There are very, very few teams that meet these criteria. The Vikings would fit the bill, but the fact that Favre might not want to join a team in the same division as the Packers works against that (certainly, if he gets traded, this destination is out of the question).
Baltimore probably was better than its 5-11 record last year, and could be called a contender, but they don’t run the WCO. There has been talk of Favre going to Carolina, but again, no West Coast offense.
I might be missing another team with the right combination of scheme, quality of surrounding talent, lack of an established QB, and aggressive style to fit the mutual needs of Favre and a new employer, but it’s certainly a short list.
Should they look into bringing Favre aboard, the Redskins would face the same dilemma as the Packers do in regards to the development of their young quarterback.
Jason Campbell was drafted just a few picks after Rodgers, as a matter of fact. While Campbell has shown promise, enough for Zorn to anoint him the uncontested starter, he hasn’t played well enough to cement his role.
If you’re offered the chance to bring in a Hall of Fame quarterback who has another couple of seasons left in the tank, you have to take a serious look at moving Campbell back to the bench.
I have no doubt that Snyder and Vinny Cerrato would kick Campbell to the curb to bring in Bret Favre. Snyder has stated that he won’t bring anyone on to the roster that Zorn does not want.
So, if it comes down to Zorn making the call to OK a deal or spike it, what does a rookie head coach do? Does he cast his lot with Campbell and sink or swim with the untested QB? Or does he go for the Hall of Famer for two years and perhaps start off his head-coaching career with a bang?
I don’t mean for this to come across as something that I think should happen or will happen. At this point, it’s an intriguing possibility, but as is the case in any deal, the devil would be in the details.
But I do think that, in the very near future, there is a very good chance that the Redskins will have to make a choice as to whether or not they will make a play for Brett Favre. It seems likely to me that they will seriously consider the possibility.
You can reach Rich Tandler by email at rich.tandler+bleachers@gmail.com. His Redskins blog archive is available here.
comments (24) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Good article as always Rich..do you think they should bring in Favre? I personall don't, sure he played a season that was among the best he had ever played but his interceptions are what ended up killing the team...The skins need to look to the future, not to immediate success and they dont want to end up killing the confidence of yet another young quarterback (See Patrick Ramsey).
about 1 month ago
The Redskins love Campbell too much to give Favre a one year shot. Besides, I don't think Favre would have any interest playing here. If the Packers anger him by not letting him come back to Green Bay, he will find a way to go to Minnesota. It's going to be an ugly divorce.
about 1 month ago
There is no way he will be in DC...Shaun is right he will end up in Minnesota or Chicago. Besides I am not even sure if Favre will end up coming back when the Packers turn him down. Ted Thompson clearly is not friends with Favre as their relationship has been very icy the past three or four seasons. If the Skins bring in Favre I would be rather confused about what to think though.
about 1 month ago
This would be tough and very confusing...
I think he'll be back but to whom???
Minnesota would need em...
about 1 month ago
Stop with this silly rumor already. It's simply not going to happen.
about 1 month ago
This is all based on a rumor that Favre has "an itch to play." Well of course he'll have that itch, he's only been playing football for how many years now? This would be about the time that he'd be getting ready for training camp. I think his "itch" is more akin to an amputee still feeling an itch on a limb that no longer exists, than him actually wanting to come back.
Even if he did want to come back (which he still says he doesn't) I don't think he'd want to go anywhere else besides Green Bay.
I think you were right on the money the first time when you said the King just threw the Redskins out there because of Snyder's previous history of buying up over-priced veterans well beyond their prime.
about 1 month ago
The odds certainly are against it, but if you look at my history I'm not one of those who throws things like this out there just because it gives me something to write about. Right now, I think that the best bet is that Favre will come back and the Packers will (reluctantly) take him back. It's not out of the question, though, that the Packers will risk the wrath and cut him loose. If that happens, I have no doubt--none--that the Redskins would be interested.
about 1 month ago
I wouldn't count on it!
about 1 month ago
Wow Rich I would disagree... Though the Skins go for just about every name player, this is one I don't see them going for...I feel Zorn will make sure there is a commitment to Campbell.
about 1 month ago
A few years ago I believe the Redskins would be interested in making a dumb move like this, but now I'm not buying it. If they went out and got Favre that would send a clear sign that Campbell isn't the guy and they're basically throwing in the towel with him before they even gave him a fair shot. I believe the organization is committed to Jason Campbell 100%.
about 1 month ago
It's not worth seting Campell back any more because Farve has "an itch" and is well past his prime.
about 1 month ago
if the redskins have a chance, they will take him and bench Campbell. It is apparent that Campbell is not the future of the team and they are just letting him start because they have no other viable options. he simply is not a playoff/pressure QB
about 1 month ago
Favre is "well past his prime?" He threw for over 4,200 yards last year. He took his team to the NFC championship game. No Redskin quarterback has ever done the former. No Redskin quarterback has done the latter in 17 years. If that's washed up, give me some of it.
Look, I'm a big supporter of Campbell. But I don't think that he can get the Redskins to the Super Bowl any time soon. Brett Favre can.
from about 1 month ago
Did you know that Peyton Manning(2006 season), and Kurt Warner(1999) are the only quarterbacks to throw for over 4000 yards and win the Super Bowl that year?
Also, Favre threw for 4155 last year, not "over 4200".
As for your last 17 years, the Skins have won a Super Bowl in that time period-1991 with Mark Rypien who threw for 3564 yards. The key was the record low 7 sacks allowed by that team.
So it would be easy to infer that what the Skins need is to keep what has been an injury-plagued line healthy in '08. Give Campbell time and then see what he can do.
about 1 month ago
Rich, if you're Dan Snyder what would you do? Would you make the move for Favre??
from about 1 month ago
It depends on the deal. As an unrestricted free agent, yes. If the Packers are looking for a one or a two in a trade, which seems likely now, I probably steer clear.
This story is a long way from over, however.
about 1 month ago
I'm a fan of your articles Rich...another well written piece. Although it's a long-shot and I don't believe it will happen, it's fun to imagine Farve in a Skin's uniform. How much would he have to pay Derrick Frost (punter) for the #4 jersey? just kidding.
about 1 month ago
Please no! JC is my boy and if they brought in Favre I'd be pissed. It will never happen. JC isn't coming into his own and they wouldn't screw that up for one or two years with Favre.
about 1 month ago
That would be great, please Danny Boy bring in Favre! The Giants could use the easy interceptions this season.
from about 1 month ago
That is true. Because Redskins quarterbacks this year versus the Giants threw for 1 touchdown and zero interception in 2 games. Favre, on the other hand, threw for two touchdowns and two interceptions in one of the coldest games on record. Oh, and he also had three touchdowns and one interception in their first meeting in the season. I think the Redskins would take the interceptions with the touchdowns, especially with a new young corp of receivers. I just do not think they are close enough to Super Bowl contention for Favre to choose Washington as his final spot. It could happen, but they are not even the best team in their division.
about 1 month ago
Bring on Farve. Jason is too inconsistant and if not for his injury last year the skins aren't in the playoffs
from about 1 month ago
dude, it was his first season as a starter...give him a chance before you bash him