Jet-Tisoning Favre the Wrong Move? Not So Fast

Before you dismiss my opinion, let me say that I am a Brett Favre and Green Bay Packer fan. Now, I am rarely on one end or the other in most polarizing discussions, but I was definitely in the Favre court before Green Bay traded him. 

As soon as he said he wanted to come back, I would have welcomed him back, traded Aaron Rodgers to the New York Jets, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, etc., and groomed Brian Brohm as my quarterback of the future.

Favre was a better choice at quarterback at the time and he gave the Pack a much better chance to win than Rodgers did.

Obviously, that wasn't the route that Ted Thompson chose to go, and that's fine—I am not an NFL GM and I trust Thompson to be a lot more informed about the subject of professional football than me.

Now, I'm a big Rodgers fan, too—he seems to have broken the Jeff Tedford curse, plays really well in cold weather, and has a great season going as a first-year starter. Let's break it down a little further:

The Jets, who finished 4-12 last year had the third-easiest schedule in the NFL this year (according to Pro Football Prospectus). Their out-of-division opponents featured "cupcake" games against Cincinnati, Oakland, Kansas City, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Seattle (combined record 17-68-1).

Their "tough" games were against Arizona, Tennessee, and Denver (combined record 28-14).  Green Bay's non-division "cupcakes" were against Jacksonville and Seattle (combined record 8-20—the only two sub-.500 teams GB has played overall except for one game against Detroit). 

Their "tough" opponents were Dallas, Tampa, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Tennessee, and Carolina (combined record 60-24). Say what you will about the two teams' talent levels, but it's obviously pretty clear that Green Bay has had an incredibly tougher schedule.

Another thing to look at is that the Packers were 5-2 (including playoffs) in games in 2007 decided by a touchdown or less. This year? 1-6.  Now you can say that, "Well, Brett Favre is Captain Comeback and he would have led the Pack to wins in all of those games.

Rodgers would have choked those close wins all away in '07."  Maybe you're right. But I'll submit that over the past decade in the NFL, most teams are so closely balanced that it is nearly impossible to win a high percentage of close games year after year. The law of averages is probably showing itself here.

Also, Aaron Rodgers—always much maligned for his inability to stay healthy—has been the iron man this year, playing through a pretty gruesome shoulder injury for the better part of a month.

And for a team that was relatively injury-free in 2007, Green Bay has been decimated by injuries this year, especially on the defensive side of the ball.

(Note that Rodgers and his offense have rarely been blamed for losses this year. And when they have, it was usually because of their inability to run the football. Rather, it has been the defense that has periodically let the team down late in games.)

The trade of defensive tackle Corey Williams has been huge, as teams have gutted the Pack's run defense up the middle en route to dominating football games against Green Bay. There's no Nick Barnett (torn ACL) to stop running backs there, and an out-of-position A.J. Hawk has also struggled to shake a nasty chest injury that has obviously affected his play.

Atari Bigby—who broke out in 2007—has also finally admitted what we kind of knew all along:  He has been playing hurt since Week Three. That injury, along with Nick Collins inability to stay healthy, has forced Charles Woodson to play safety—a position that he has never played before in his career.

And without him chucking and smothering a wide receiver at the line every play, opposing pass-catchers are able to get much better breaks on their routes and shake coverage a lot easier.

Rodgers has given his team chances to win this season, too.  With highly-questionable late-game play-calling by Mike McCarthy, Ryan Grant looking about as schizophrenic as Robert Downey, Jr. in Tropic Thunder, and Mason Crosby missing big-time, high-pressure kicks, I find it hard to put the entire blame on Rodgers.

In the NFL, quarterbacks and head coaches get way too much credit when a team wins and way too much blame when a team loses. I still do question Rodgers ability to play big late in close games, but we have seen with many other recent quarterbacks that it can take some time to learn how to win those games (i.e. Favre, both Mannings, and Donovan McNabb—Tony Romo still hasn't learned).

Give Rodgers time, and his chops will match his stats—I'm a big believer in that.

So which games exactly would Favre have won for Green Bay if he was still leading the Pack this year?  Well, he wouldn't have stopped Marion Barber, nor could he have played safety when Drew Brees and Matt Schaub shredded the Packers' secondary. 

Rodgers lit up Tennessee, Jacksonville, and Atlanta, so we can't assume that Favre would have made a difference there. No. 4 has always struggled in the Metrodome, so he is far from a safe bet there—besides Mason Crosby missed the game-winner there after Rodgers had already put Green Bay in position to win.

I can't really put the Carolina loss squarely on Rodgers shoulders, either. He threw for 300 yards and three scores against a stellar defense. I know he forced up that pass that was picked at the very end, but can't we chalk up Favre to doing that at least once this season?

I have a hard time believing Favre wouldn't have done the same thing, if not in this game, then in another loss.

So let's say that Brett would have been the sole difference in the nine-point loss at Tampa.  That puts the Pack's record at 6-8 this season, still three games out with two games to go.  That means even with Brett, it wouldn't have made a difference for Green Bay in the loaded NFC this year.  In fact, a 6-8 record would only give them the 12th best record out of 16 teams in the conference.

It's easy to say that Green Bay wasn't going to go 13-3 again, especially since Vegas projected their wins total at 9.5 before the season even started. Even with Favre, I knew that the Packers were not going to get all of the great breaks they caught last year—that's just the natural ebb and flow in the NFL.

So, long-term, Rodgers is the best man for the job in Titletown. And after looking at all this, I hardly think that Thompson cost himself a Super Bowl victory this year by "Jet-tisoning" Favre. (Pun intended.)