Brett Favre comeback or Aaron Rodger's New Era

Mods: I made a question like this one, but I phrased it wrong and people didn't understand what I was saying (my fault). Hopefully this will be a more accurate poll and people understand this time.

Do you think Favre should have come back, or do you think it is time for the Aaron Rodgers Era of football to begin the Green Bay? This isn't who should start (my fault on last poll), but if you think it would be better for the organization if Favre retired and Rodgers would take over now, or Favre should come back and Rodgers should keep holding a clipboard.

In my opinion, Aaron Rodgers was drafted to be the franchise QB. Brett Favre's career is over and he has nothing more to prove. The Packers, in all likelihood, won't make the playoffs and this is a wasted season if Rodgers doesn't play a lot. If the Pack want to get back in contention they need to look towards the future and give Aaron Rodgers his learning curve. If he doesn't play a lot, they will suffer a lot in 2007 because he won't have that added experience. He should know the playbook pretty well, and he isn't a rookie.

[Boston]

It was good that Favre came back. Not only did he give the packers a better chance to win, he also gave Rodgers more time to learn under a future HOF. And let's face it. The packers didn't really gain to many playmakers on offense this year, so if Rodgers came in due to favre retiring, he could end up losing confindence and free-falling from there.

Favre retiring would have been better for the team b/c Rodgers needs to start playing asap.

[Vince Lombardi]

Brett isn't setting back Aaron at all, if anything he could stand to have another year to learn from one of the greats. Alot of great QB's have spent their 1st couple of years on the bench learning the game, one more year isn't gonna hurt Aaron.

[ny10804]

Originally Posted by Vince Lombardi

Brett isn't setting back Aaron at all, if anything he could stand to have another year to learn from one of the greats. Alot of great QB's have spent their 1st couple of years on the bench learning the game, one more year isn't gonna hurt Aaron.

One such example is Matt Hasselbeck. In his first two years in the league with the Packers, he attempted a total of 29 passes. He made his first start in his 3rd year. Now, he's a Pro Bowl QB. Hopefully the same will be said about Rodgers.

Originally Posted by Vince Lombardi

Brett isn't setting back Aaron at all, if anything he could stand to have another year to learn from one of the greats. Alot of great QB's have spent their 1st couple of years on the bench learning the game, one more year isn't gonna hurt Aaron.

How many years do you need to sit and learn? You don't learn on the bench after your first year unless you are a project like Vince Young that is serious overhaul. Rodgers has great physical skills and has the mechanics down pat. He needs experience.

He is costing the team millions of dollars holding a clipboard and Favre is costing them more because they won't make the playoffs. Not only will they win 7-9 games and not make the playoffs (a waste of a season) but they won't get that high draft pick they need. If Rogers plays they will only win 5-7 games, but at least he will be learning and he will get a much better player picking #8 instead of #15.

Originally Posted by ny10804

One such example is Matt Hasselbeck. In his first two years in the league with the Packers, he attempted a total of 29 passes. He made his first start in his 3rd year. Now, he's a Pro Bowl QB. Hopefully the same will be said about Rodgers.

Bad comparison. Rodgers was a much MUCH more talented QB coming out than Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck was a little bit of a project. Rodgers isn't, he is a franchise QB. Hasselbeck was NOT franchise QB coming out of college.

Favre was a gunslinger when he was great and is still a gunslinger. He got by by talent. How much of that can be taught?

[ny10804]

Originally Posted by Simms2Clayton

Bad comparison. Rodgers was a much MUCH more talented QB coming out than Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck was a little bit of a project. Rodgers isn't, he is a franchise QB. Hasselbeck was NOT franchise QB coming out of college.

All I did was give an example of: " [the bolded] "

[quote="ny10804"][quote="Simms2Clayton"]

Originally Posted by ny10804

All I did was give an example of: " [the bolded] "

A lot of great QBs sit their first year then play. Carson Palmer is a prime example. Chris Simms would have played more in his 2nd year, but he got injured. Eli Manning is another. Drew Brees. Daunte Culpepper. Brett Favre (he was traded though). Jeff Garcia. Donovan McNabb, and I am only up to the M's.

The general consensus is to let the rookie start first year, and then play in the 2nd. I think it is bad for Rodgers to keep getting benched because it isn't doing him any good any more. That first year on the sidelines is important to understand what the NFL is about and learn the playbook. After that first year, then experience is the best teacher.

[Staubach12]

I think Favre coming back this year is best for the team, however, he should retire after this year.

Originally Posted by Vikings Fan

Favre was a gunslinger when he was great and is still a gunslinger. He got by by talent. How much of that can be taught?

Great point. I don't know what all this "mentor" stuff is about. Do you think Favre is going to "teach all of the ins and outs"? No, only Rodgers can learn for himself. That is something only experience can teach.

The only thing I think a QB can help with is set an example through leadership and work ethic. Teach them to be a leader. Rodgers should have learned that by now.

Originally Posted by Staubach12

I think Favre coming back this year is best for the team, however, he should retire after this year.

Explain how it is best for the team if they don't make the playoffs.

Because imo, the season would be a waste if he comes back and they don't.

[portermvp84]

This should be is last year if he does bad like he did last year then it was a big waste. I think he wants to make it to another Sb before he retires.

[johbur]

If you're talking best for the organization, it depends on what you mean. Do you mean money? Favre does not "cost millions". He brings in millions. Advertisers like being associated with Favre. Look at the Harris Poll. Favre is the third most popular athlete behind Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan. A lot of the TV games the Packers have had recently have been more for Favre on TV than the Packers on TV. Look at their TV schedule this year. How does a 4-12 team get that many national games? Favre. Then if you look at the merchandising the Packers do with him, Packers Pro Shop did $17.5 Million in revenue last year. I wonder what the change in revenue will be when Favre retires?

Aaron Rodgers also does not "cost millions". He has a graduated contract that took into account that he'd likely not be starting until next year, and contains clauses for playing time and performance in case he did become the starter. He'll cost millions next year, not this year.

If you mean wins, Favre has a much better chance of providing wins this year than Rodgers.

If you mean potential wins in the 2007+ season, then starting Rodgers probably the better choice. Nothing is guaranteed though. Favre was a second round pick, didn't play in Atlanta his first season and would not have played in Green Bay his second season if Don Majkowski hadn't had gotten hurt.

[Moses]

Rodgers needs this season on the bench. He'll get his shot soon enough and until then Favre is giving the Packers the best chance to win.

Originally Posted by Moses

Rodgers needs this season on the bench. He'll get his shot soon enough and until then Favre is giving the Packers the best chance to win.

The Packs' best chance to win will only amount to 8-9 games at the most (which I think they can get).

The Packs' best chance to win for the future would be to start Rodgers.

It is important to think long term. Rodgers starting now gives this team a legit shot at the playoffs in 2007, which they won't get now or next season if he doesn't get enough snaps or starts.

Originally Posted by johbur

If you're talking best for the organization, it depends on what you mean.

If you mean potential wins in the 2007+ season, then starting Rodgers probably the better choice. Nothing is guaranteed though. Favre was a second round pick, didn't play in Atlanta his first season and would not have played in Green Bay his second season if Don Majkowski hadn't had gotten hurt.

I do mean for the future. Favre gives them the best chance to win now, but I think the organization knows that the best they will be able to do is win 9 games (I predict them to overachieve in their division with not so tough of a schedule).

The future is more important than the present when you are REBUILDING. Having Favre start every game and Rodgers not getting a lot of snaps (which could happen) could set this team back 1-2 years, or even more.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by Simms2Clayton

The Packs' best chance to win will only amount to 8-9 games at the most (which I think they can get).

The Packs' best chance to win for the future would be to start Rodgers.

It is important to think long term. Rodgers starting now gives this team a legit shot at the playoffs in 2007, which they won't get now or next season if he doesn't get enough snaps or starts.

There's no point in saying a team has a ceiling or basement in terms of wins because anything can happen. That's why they play the games. Before last year (where the Packers were injury plagued and lost quite a few close games) the Packers were a perennial playoff team with a legitimate shot at getting to the Super Bowl. The group has changed a bit but it's still the same core of guys. I think they could be playoff team next year if some of the younger players step up.

Rodgers isn't ready to start yet. People seem to forget how young he is and I think these two years on the bench will really help him. Rodgers is finally showing some progression and after this year he should be able to glide (as good as any first-time starter can) into the starting role. There's no point in rushing Rodgers in when the Packers have a Hall of Fame QB ahead of him.

Originally Posted by Moses

Rodgers isn't ready to start yet. People seem to forget how young he is and I think these two years on the bench will really help him. Rodgers is finally showing some progression and after this year he should be able to glide (as good as any first-time starter can) into the starting role. There's no point in rushing Rodgers in when the Packers have a Hall of Fame QB ahead of him.

You make a good point Moses, but do you honestly think the Pack can win the division?

The talent gap is huge on defense between them and the Bears. I also don't think they can get a Wildcard with how tough the East and South is. Plus, Arizona should be tough and maybe even St. Louis (darkhorse, but just as much as GB).

What if Aaron Rodgers has a great TC and preseason and proves he should be the starter, but it doesn't matter how good he is because he isn't going to succeed Favre preseason?

If Green Bay is bad and won't have a chance, I think Rodgers should take the reigns mid season. He needs some experience, so I think we both make really good points and the answer is in the "gray area" and not all black/white.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by Simms2Clayton

You make a good point Moses, but do you honestly think the Pack can win the division?

The talent gap is huge on defense between them and the Bears. I also don't think they can get a Wildcard with how tough the East and South is. Plus, Arizona should be tough and maybe even St. Louis (darkhorse, but just as much as GB).

What if Aaron Rodgers has a great TC and preseason and proves he should be the starter, but it doesn't matter how good he is because he isn't going to succeed Favre preseason?

If Green Bay is bad and won't have a chance, I think Rodgers should take the reigns mid season. He needs some experience, so I think we both make really good points and the answer is in the "gray area" and not all black/white.

The NFC North is still pretty wide-open in my opinion. I still don't believe the Bears are as good as people think, at least until they prove it by winning again this year.

Packers could win the division since they have an extremely easy schedule and do have quite a bit of talent (offence is lacking but if they can get the run game going and Favre rebounds after last season...) they could make a run at the weak NFC North. The Wild Card is pretty much out of the question for any NFC North team.

The chance of Rodgers playing better than Favre is training camp is less than 1%. Rodgers is not close to starting material at this point in his career. Also, Favre will never be benched for Rodgers.

Give Rodgers one more season on the bench (he needs it). Why rush him in when you have the luxury of having a hall of famer ahead of him holding down the fort?

[bearfan]

I voted for him to retire, but now I think staying a year is better. Looking at Matt Hassleback and Aaron Brooks (I think AB was a back-up). Craig Nall will be an example to if given the shot.

But as Vince said, it wont hurt Aaron to sit behind Farve for one more year, that way he learns the system, and gets to learn from Farve as Hassleback, Brooks (maybe) and Nall did.

*as you can tell, I am high on Nall

Originally Posted by Moses

The chance of Rodgers playing better than Favre is training camp is less than 1%. Rodgers is not close to starting material at this point in his career. Also, Favre will never be benched for Rodgers.

Give Rodgers one more season on the bench (he needs it). Why rush him in when you have the luxury of having a hall of famer ahead of him holding down the fort?

I never said Rodgers would be better than Favre preseason. I just thought if he proved he is good enough to start, then Favre coming back could end up hurting them.

We don't see eye-to-eye on "rushing him in." I don't think playing a 2nd year QB is rushing it at all. I think starting a rookie is. Whether we think he is or isn't ready doesn't matter, because we aren't the QBs coach of the Packers. Only he really knows since he practices with him the most (off coordinator and HC know too, but the QBs coach is around him more).

Moses, how do you think him sitting another year will help him? I think one year is enough, I just want to totally understand your POV. Thanks

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Simms2Clayton

I never said Rodgers would be better than Favre preseason. I just thought if he proved he is good enough to start, then Favre coming back could end up hurting them.

We don't see eye-to-eye on "rushing him in." I don't think playing a 2nd year QB is rushing it at all. I think starting a rookie is. Whether we think he is or isn't ready doesn't matter, because we aren't the QBs coach of the Packers. Only he really knows since he practices with him the most (off coordinator and HC know too, but the QBs coach is around him more).

Moses, how do you think him sitting another year will help him? I think one year is enough, I just want to totally understand your POV. Thanks

Maybe it's just coincidence, but don't you think that so many favre backups have went on to become good qb's?

Mark Brunell
Aaron Brooks*
Matt Hasselback
Craig Nall?
Detmer
That's all i got off the top of my head.

You talk about hurting the franchise if he doesn't start this year. That, in fact, is probably not true. As you know the packers, for the most part, have a good, relatively young defense in place. Give them one more year to gel together, and next year you could possibly have one of the greatest D's in the league. A D could really help rodgers when he begins starting, to take off the pressure of needing to score. Kind of like a Ben Roelhlisburger* thing. Right now the packers offense is in disarray, and to put Rodgers in now, would be foolish.

Was I mistaken or didn't Aaron Rodgers back up Favre last year? :?