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
Sign up now to receive our Minnesota Vikings newsletter. All the best articles, videos, and podcasts from around the web delivered to your inbox twice a week.
35 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete