Subscribe via RSS Feed

Must . . . not . . . blog . . . about . . .

[ 22 ] July 31, 2008 |

Resistance is Futile.

Yes this whole saga is super annoying, what with Chris Mortensen’s hourly reports from his location inside Favre’s ass, but I’m getting intrigued by the game theory aspects.

My understanding is that the Packers don’t have to pay Favre anything if they release him once he’s reinstated. So why would they offer him millions to stay retired? The answer seems to be because they think it would really hurt them for Favre to sign with somebody like Minnesota. But if Favre is still that valuable (and he was really good last year after some mediocre seasons) why not spend those millions to have him be your starter for another year? Because Aaron Rodgers would demand a trade? But Rodgers has no leverage as far as I can see. Yeah you would like to keep the guy you want to be your future QB happy, ideally, but there’s no ideal solution at this point. Why not just take Favre back?

Another option would be to trade him to somebody in the AFC. But that’s tricky because everybody realizes Green Bay is in a bind, so nobody wants to give them anything to bail them out, plus if they release Favre somebody could sign him for considerably less than what’s left on his current contract I suppose.

In any case unless you’re a Mongolian goat herder you’ll be finding out how this saga ends whether you want to or not.

Share with Sociable

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. kid bitzer says:

    a life spent herding mongolian goats has never looked so enviable as it does now.

  2. R Johnston says:

    But if Favre is still that valuable (and he was really good last year after some mediocre seasons) why not spend those millions to have him be your starter for another year?

    Because Green Bay management is tired enough of Favre’s prima donna act yanking him around every year with the will he/won’t he retire shtick that they’re just not willing to deal with him any more. He’s a great big distraction who can’t decide whether or not he really wants to play and who, should he hit a bit of decline as is likely at his age, is liable to more-or-less just give up mid-season.

  3. Rob says:

    Its really simple, Ted Thompson the Packer’s GM would rather go 9-7 and be called a genius because he got a really good wide receiver form Southeastern North Dakota State A&M than win a Super Bowl and have to share some of the credit. He’s been hoping for Favre retiring from after his first year and firing Mike Sherman and not bringing in a Holmgren guy hoping to force Favre out. Which is why he isn’t budging now that he got an out.
    Favre is better than Rodgers, Rodger’s despite being Favre’s backup, meaning he never played, managed to get seriously injured in the two games he did get in and the Packer’s don’t have a back up, and the Packer’s are always under the cap so the cost isn’t an issue because Thompson despite managing a non-profit team decided to be cheap. In other words with ahve a huge clash of egos.

  4. Tom Hilton says:

    In any case unless you’re a Mongolian goat herder you’ll be finding out how this saga ends whether you want to or not.
    Apparently, I have found my true calling; I have no idea who any of these people are. I don’t even know what sport you’re talking about. Badminton? Curling?

  5. Redleg says:

    They should cut Favre loose. He can’t make up his friggin’ mind about retirement so the Packers ought to tell him to get lost.

  6. Incertus says:

    If this really is just a test of wills, and if the Packers are willing to pay him to not play, they could always let him come back and then designate him as the third string QB and keep him inactive.
    As far as trading him to the AFC is concerned, I don’t see why they wouldn’t be willing to take even a low-round conditional draft pick for him. If he’s not going to play for the Packers, then he has no value to them–getting anything in exchange means you’ve come out ahead under that scenario.

  7. Pinko Punko says:

    I don’t give two shits about the NFL, but Mortenson has been embarassing

  8. jmack says:

    If Favre wants an unconditional release and the Packers want a first-round draft pick from a team not in the Packers’ division, I can’t see why the Packers wouldn’t let Favre go for nearly any trade just to make this all go away.
    The Packers must really believe that that Rodgers is the real deal.

  9. Y says:

    http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=youtube+Favre+cusack&hl=en&sitesearch=#
    I heard Manny Ramirez say he was going to be traded to Green Bay for Favre. I’m just waiting for Jimmy Carter to intervene.

  10. Q says:

    The problem is that the Packers have two areas they’re competing in: on the field, and in fan opinion. If the Packers are convinced that a) Favre is a worse on-the-field QB than Rodgers, but b) fans would be extremely upset to see him benched or playing for someone else (resulting in less revenue from Favre jersey sales as well as general fan opprobrium); then their actions make perfect sense — they only outcome that lets them win in both areas is for Brett to retire gracefully. Now both a) and b) are extremely reasonable, so I don’t see a lot of mystery here.
    (The Packers don’t even have to care whether Favre would help one of their rivals on the field — it’s the PR hit that they’re worried about)

  11. Brian says:

    Look, it’s actually very simple and the Packers are completely in the right here. They have Favre under contract. They are have no obligation to release him. It is definitely in their interests both to play Rodgers and either sit or trade Favre to the AFC.
    If Farve is the starter, there is no way that Rodgers resigns next year when his contract ends. This is a huge long term cost, as there is every sign that Rodger in the long run will be a better than average qb. If they release Favre and he goes to the Vikings, he will make that team better, although perhaps not as much better as people think:
    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/07/brett-favre-is-overrated.html
    However, the quarterback situation in Minnesota is so bad that even an average quarterback would be a distinct improvement. The fact that letting Favre go will only mildly hurt the quality of the Packers’ offense is not inconsistent with him definitely improving the Vikings’. Favre is worth much less to a team with a quality alternative qb than a team with a substantially below average one–the Vikings but perhaps also the Bears (he would have almost no value for the Patriots, for instance). The Packer’s want to ensure long term quality play at qb and to prevent a division rival from acquiring what might be the last piece necessary for a run at a title; if it is necessary to bench Favre (and pay him) in order to keep Rodgers and to hurt the Vikings, then it is the right decision.
    I really can’t imagine why people find the Packers’ position so difficult to understand. They will either trade him to a team they approve of, or they will bench and pay him. The only mistake they could make would be to release him.

  12. Paul Campos says:

    “I really can’t imagine why people find the Packers’ position so difficult to understand. They will either trade him to a team they approve of, or they will bench and pay him. The only mistake they could make would be to release him.”
    IMO the one thing they absolutely can’t do is pay him to sit on the bench. That turns the whole GB season into a media circus and puts Rodgers in an impossible position.
    Also, while I understand the Packers don’t want to end up losing a (late) first-round pick by having Rodgers sign with somebody else next season, there’s no real evidence at this point that Rodgers is going to be a first-tier NFL QB, or I should say there isn’t any more than there was when they drafted him.
    Rob’s point about management egos seems very plausible.

  13. norbizness says:

    Any word from the Majik Man, Don Majkowski?

  14. Mike says:

    If he’s not going to play for the Packers, then he has no value to them–getting anything in exchange means you’ve come out ahead under that scenario.
    Exactly how the 49ers reasoned when they sent Joe Montana to the Chiefs for not much in return. And that worked well for everyone: the 49ers didn’t have a fan problem (except with the die-hards who hated Steve Young because he wasn’t Montana), Montana got to play a couple more years for a decent team in the other conference, and everyone parted more or less friends.

  15. McKingford says:

    Why not just take Favre back?
    Two things I can think of. The first is that it’s generally better to let a guy go a year too soon than a year too late.
    The second is that Favre has done zilch by way of offseason training this year. IOW, you have an old guy who is in danger of falling off the production cliff at any moment, and he just did nothing (physically or study-wise) to get ready for the season.

  16. John Emerson says:

    The big Vikings fan I know hates Favre and would be totally pissed if they hired him.

  17. Fledermaus says:

    What R Johnson said above.
    Also as a Minnesota Viking fan I am tremendously pleased at this turn of events.

  18. Linkmeister says:

    Where are Da Bears? Favre would be a vast improvement over Rex Grossman, no?

  19. Vikings Fan says:

    We Vikings fans don’t want that cheez smell in the Metrodome more than once a season. I say let Brit Fahvruh twist the way he did to the Packers as he contemplated retirement the last 2-3 seasons.

  20. Mrs Tilton says:

    IIANM this Favre fellow had a very small but agreeable role in Something About Mary. And fair play to him for that. But if I am not very much mistaken, Favre will neither help Ireland defeat the other five nations nor, in the other code, ensure that Italy are mired in the eternal defeat and ignominy they so richly deserve. So why are we talking about him in the realm of sport?

  21. Bayville says:

    If it weren’t for Favre, the Giants most likely wouldn’t have won the Super Bowl.
    He’s not Brady, Peyton Manning, Bradshaw or Marino. Please, go away already.
    The best thing Favre has done in the last eight years is that cameo in “Something About Mary.”

  22. witless chum says:

    “there’s no real evidence at this point that Rodgers is going to be a first-tier NFL QB, or I should say there isn’t any more than there was when they drafted him.”
    To us, true, although he played well against Dallas last year. But the Packers have been watching him in practice for three years now.
    Also, they’ve designed their offense to match Rodgers’ talents, not Favre’s. Favre adapted himself to McCarthy’s scheme, which called for lots of short, precise passes, not the mid range to deep balls that were Favre’s forte in his prime.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.