After the jump: national reaction to Favre's latest flip-flop.
By Joel Hammond
JHammond@pigskinpodcast.com
I didn't have a blog the last time Brett Favre "seriously" "considered" -- and yes, you can bet your behind I'm using quotation fingers to note sarcasm -- retirement, but if I did, it would have screamed:
"Favre needs to retire, and fast."
Heck, I don't even remember when ithat last time was, probably because it's happened so many times the past couple seasons: Favre dropped hints he was ready, then dropped more hints he was ready, and then came back. (It was definitely after the Packers drafted Aaron Rodgers in 2005, obviously, and after this entry in my blog's infancy.)
I was unpopular among Packers fans then, yes, but I kept shouting it to the mountaintops any time I got the chance: Brett Favre, he of all those all-time quarterback records, of three straight NFL Most Valuable Player awards, of two Super Bowl appearances and one title, needed to step aside. The Packers would be better off -- eventually, though not necessarily immediately -- without him.
Did last year's magical run through the playoffs -- which, you could argue, proved my previous assertions about Favre's need to retire very, very wrong -- change my mind?
No.
Brett Favre needs to retire, and fast.
Last year was great; I loved every minute of it, right down to the bitter end, fittingly, on a bitterly cold Lambeau Field. The Packers re-energized at least one member of their fan base -- me -- and I'm guessing plenty more. I went to the team's Thanksgiving Day thrashing of Detroit at Ford Field, I watched as much as I could and was genuinely astonished about how well the young players played and their old sage led them.
That's all over now, though.
I was sad, sure, when Favre announced his retirement in March. I used a connection -- I'm a big deal, after all -- to get a commemorative copy of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel the day after Favre retired, and it's a cherished possession.
But, despite that melancholy, I felt like it was time for him to go and I thought, finally, he thought the same thing.
And now this, he and his agent apparently ready to force the Packers' hand into taking him off the reserved/retired list and either play him, trade him or release him.
Favre has dutifully served the Packers for 16 years -- he took over in a midseason game against Cincinnati and started the next 253 regular-season games, an NFL record -- which is why this latest development is so shocking, for the pickle in which he places the franchise.
Let's look at the options:
1. Favre returns. He can still play, obviously. The Packers have a good team, obviously. So maybe he takes them back to the playoffs, or maybe they go to the Super Bowl, or maybe they win eight games. Either way, it again stunts Rodgers' development, pushing back the team's LAF (Life After Favre) plan one more year.
2. They trade or release him. Favre plays well with the Panthers, or -- yuck -- the Vikings or Bears. They go to the playoffs, and the Packers limp along with Rodgers behind center (keep reading for why I believe that won't happen; just a hypothetical here). The Packers' fan base, already enraged with the team's unwillingness to allow Favre to return to Lambeau, becomes more enraged.
So, really, the team's in a no-win situation. Yes, if they let him play, the Packers will be successful. But they'll also be successful with Rodgers at quarterback, and they'll get the LAF years started properly. As I mentioned, and as evidenced by last year's run, the Packers are a good team, reasoning that even moreso proves this is Rodgers' time: With a potent offense and a defense that simply keeps improving, the Packers will contend no matter who's throwing the ball to Donald Driver and Greg Jennings.
At some point, Green Bay must move on from the Favre era, no matter how painful that is for die-hard Cheeseheads.
Now's the time for that to happen, and, as Peter King of SI.com seems to intimate, it will happen.
I say good for general manager Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy.
Off the field, it won't be pretty. But I'm confident that, on the field, the Packers will continue to be successful.
Elsewhere:
ESPN.com's Gene Wojciechowski asks if the Packers are better off with or without Favre, and says with. Only very late in his column does he get to Favre owing the Packers anything. Burying the lead, eh, Gene?
ESPN.com's Bill Williamson asks where Favre would fit if not in Green Bay.
SI.com's Andrew Perloff: Favre should just come back now.
FoxSports.com's Alex Marvez: How are fans coping?
You're comments weren't half bad until you said:
"But they'll also be successful with Rodgers at quarterback,"
That's one hell of a statement and an assumption.
So far, every time Rogers has played any meaningful time, he's excused from practice for a week so he can recover. We will be going from the "IronMan" of quarterbacks, to the BrittleMan. He will be on IR by week three.
It takes a lot more than a decent arm to survive in the NFL as a quarterback. We've been watching what it takes for the last 16 years.
RK:
Thanks for the comment.
No doubt Favre has proven himself durable to take whatever the NFL throws at him, AND Rodgers has been a little -- OK, much, much, much -- less durable.
My point is that the Packers are a team that Brohm, me, you or Rodgers could quarterback to success. They're stacked.
And, again, at some point, somewhere, the Packers have to get on with their lives. Now's as good a time as any.
Thanks again for reading; keep checking in!
You're comments weren't half bad until you said:
"But they'll also be successful with Rodgers at quarterback,"
That's one hell of a statement and an assumption.
So far, every time Rogers has played any meaningful time, he's excused from practice for a week so he can recover. We will be going from the "IronMan" of quarterbacks, to the BrittleMan. He will be on IR by week three.
It takes a lot more than a decent arm to survive in the NFL as a quarterback. We've been watching what it takes for the last 16 years.