Green Bay Packers Could Keep Aaron Rodgers On Ice- Keep Brett Favre & Play Both!
FAll things being equal in the game of "must win now" football, which is played by all teams in the NFL, the Green Bay Packers might do well in considering letting go of Aaron Rodgers, if his ego is that fragile, instead of the widely publicized cold shoulder given Brett Favre.
Why did Favre say he wanted to retire? Who cares, but I would say he looked pretty down and out to me, and who wants to go through camp year in and year out when they are the experts on the team?
Many players pull fast ones to get out of training camp, and no fan should forget that some experience real tragedy (death) endured by these players at overwhelmingly hot camps with over bearing equipment.
Yes, Green Bay was/is to make Aaron Rodgers their future "hopeful" replacement of the current franchise player in Favre...when he retires. The Pack has not listed him as retired though, have they? I read reserved next to the word retired, and believe that a player is considered reitred after he officially files those papers with the league. Bretts' Labor Lawyer could have a varitable field day with this mess.
Rodgers is contracted until 2009, and then its free agency. On the books, Favre is contracted until 2011. No one knows if Rodgers will even want to stay on with the Packers. His market has undoubtedly gone down by his being on the Packers, and he may want to leave. So, the Pack might not even have Rodgers for their future regardless of whether he plays or not this year. He cashes those checks, and people act as if he is not happy? He almost makes what Favres does-who at least earns it.
Chris Carter, now broadcaster specialsit, has copmpletely changed his tune from this afternnon when he said, "If Favre wants to come back, I do not see how the Packers can say no because of a rookie who is not yet a proven quantity, and Favre is." Now he says that Favre should be released, that is-as of 12:39 am Sat morning. I thought I should qualify that for Chris. Released? With no gain by the Packers? No way.
Stop the games, and take a breathe for both Favre and the Packers.
Brett doesn't have to be released unconditionally, nor does Thompson need a reinstatement from Goddell.
Favre was never "officially" deactivated because Brett was smart enough to never file official retirement paperwork. He wasn't 100% committed to being retired! He is only on the "retired/reserve" list giving each the opportunity to settle this maylay, but remember who it was that placed him on that list.
Do not be fooled, Thompsons' letter to ESPN (?), stated that if Favre wants back in, then they would activate him on their roster." Meaning if Brett wants to play, then he will be in Green and Gold!
Why not just keep both, and play both? This is a win - win sitaution for everyone involved. Young did it with Montana, and won that job as Joe got hurt, and Young went on to win the MVP that season. Romo took the job away from Bledsoe too. Let them both play, like Eli taking the job from Warner.
Favre Fans now have every indication to believe that Brett is not done playing, as illustrated by his family, his text messages asking to talk about rejoining the team, and his request of not placing the word retired attached to his collector items just yet. Now he has asked for an unconditional release which is consistent with him being a gamer-who wants to play on still. We are talking Legendary gamer too.
As illustrated by the Dallas Cowboys, who have hired on Pacman Jones, or Adam as he wishes to now be called, (also TO) NFL teams play the game to win the Super Bowl this season, not next, and certainly not five years from now. Imagine the controversy that Dallas faces with these two. The Packers problem, on the eflip side, is they have too much talent now, and that is considered a bad thing? Perspective is required.
It is hard enough just getting the Super Bowl, much less planning for it five years down the line by way of a rook. Teams like Dallas take what is, and not what could be.
Also relevant is the fact that Green Bay drafted Brian Brohm, and Rodgers was rumored to be on the chopping block. Aside from Favre, Green Bay has three quarterbacks on their roster. What's more is that Aaron Rodgers has yet to play a full game from start to finish, drawing more risk in a potential Packers release of Favre.
Rodger the Rook vs Favre The Phenom is no contest.
With Favre, the Pack almost made it to the Super Bowl, but for a nasty good Giants defense, and a deadly cold game played on the "frozen tundra" (shown above) that went into overtime. Save the argument about the interception, because more than likely, Green Bay wouldn't have been there without Favre.
The Pack has about the same team as last year, if Favre is the quarterback. What guarantee is there that they will be better with Rodgers? There is not any such guarantee. Actually, their odds with Rodgers probably decrease.
The reason so many say not to take Favre back is because of the damage that it might cause Rodgers' confidence, who again, has yet to play a full game. Eli Manning did not wait for four years to play, instead, the team committed right away and gave up Collins. Collins is not Favre, though.
Rodgers, and his backup quarterbacks just drafted, could be the Packers' future, maybe even a fan favorite, but neither are that right now. The Packers are staring a gift horse in the mouth with the way they are treating Favre, who IS a fan favorite, IS the best available quarterback, and IS the face of their franchise.
There are certainly plenty of teams that could use a potentially good quarterback, and they've all been named as possibilities for Favre. So, how about trading young Rodgers, even if it only means one more year with Favre?
That is about as guaranteed as one team can get to making the postseason, which most teams do not accomplish for very long spells of time.
I could tell you this, if given the chance, the Yankees (the Packers of baseball) would trade just about any rookie to get one more year with Lou Gherig, who held a record in baseball that Brett "The Iron Horse" Favre now holds in football, which is the most consecutive games played by a starting quarterback.
Green Bay manager Ted Thompson could do well in keeping with the guaranteed winner that is Favre, who holds the record for most touchdowns, taking it from Hall of Famer Dan Marino.
The Pack should hold off on Rodgers, in lieu of Favres' return, plain and simple. If the kid can't understand why, or is too fragile to accept why, then show him the door. Not Favre, the best quarterback in a very, very long time—without exception.
Not only that, but Thompson should also keep the Packer fans as happy as they can, after all, the fans flip the bill. Keeping Favre would also help preserve the Packers' rich history in the NFL.
No doubt that Curly Lambeau and Vince Lombardi are watching on from above in wonderment of what the hold up is with keeping the tradition of packing in the winners on their team. A team that got their name from the Indian Packing Company, the oldest name still in use by any NFL team, bar none.
Prospects come and go every year, as made evident by the Packers drafting two quarterbacks this year. Legends? Well, those come about once in a lifetime.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?