Favre Comeback? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Favre Comeback?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: Favre Comeback?

Postby stomperrob » Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:55 pm

Thank gawd for the start of preseason games - getting tired of nothing but Favre 24/7 on NFL Network!!! ;-D
Image
Fantasy Football: "Luck is where preparation meets opportunity"
stomperrob
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 13579
(Past Year: 160)
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Steeler Nation!!!

Re: Favre Comeback?

Postby eaglesrule » Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:41 am

BigBadBrawler wrote:
I gotcha. I think our perspectives are different because our evaluation of GB as a team and the NFC as a Conference seem to differ so greatly. With Favre, I saw GB as the clear #2 team in the NFC behind DAL, and I think they had a legit shot at getting to the SB. I had the NYG at #3 and Minny at #4, and then quite a few teams bunched up together behind them, but I still would have taken GB over the rest of them (and it's not like we're talking about some 4-12 team that really had no shot at all). I also think that having Favre improved the chances of GB getting to the SB this year by a much larger margin than 10% over Rodgers. Much larger. Plus, I tend to feel that the statements about Favre not being an asset to his team for the two years prior to last year are overblown assertions. He didn't have great statistical seasons, but it wasn't that his skill set had diminished, rather, there was very little talent around him at the time. He didn't have much to work with, so he had to force the ball consistently to try to win games (more than he already naturally does) and that resulted in poor numbers.

(I'm not arguing to be a jerk mind you, just discussing)

When I said the vikes were better, I should have worded it differently, I meant that the vikes were "better" as improved, not necessarily better than the pack. As for the percentage, I have no idea the % having Favre would be, 10 percent was arbitrary. My point was more that if the pack are say, 50 percent better with Favre, and they had a 20 percent chance of winning the bowl, having Brett takes you to 30 percent. Meaning the team can be vastly better with Favre, but the overall likelihood of winning it all might not be SO much higher as to warrant risking future iterations of the team, considering the youth accumulated etc.


Frankly, I can't give the Pack the nod over the Giants, given that they are defending champs and beat the pack head to head when it counts. I won't give the pack the edge of the Cowboys, as the Cowboys were the number one seed and should be even better this year. So right there they aren't the favorites, and that's just in the conference. They are a possibility, and I know that the NFL is weird in that anything can happen, but as it stands now, you aren't even favored to go to the conference championship, let alone beat the AFC representative. They have a good shot, but I still think its a judgment call. Because maybe their chances are diminished for this one year, in exchange for having really strong chances for a couple of years in a row. Who knows? I mean No one thought Steve Young would be that good. If Atlanta knew what they had, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. At some point you have to see what you really have-- and like I said, if it were me, I would have traded Rodgers or punted the problem before this became an issue


Favre's seasons weren't just poor, in one of those seasons, he approached 40 turnovers. To me that is atrocious. He had yardage and TD's, but he did helm some bad teams, and he was as much a cause as his stats were a sumptom. He didn't HAVE to force anything. He didn't have tools, fine. But you don't have to force an issue that isn't playing to your strengths either. There have been qbs who have had worse tools than he did during those years, and haven't been an abomination of turnovers. Granted, the QB gets too much love and hate depending, but given how much love he gets, its fair to point out that the teams led by him were bad, and his stats weren't good, and you can't whitewash it. Making sound decisions and not forcing the issue is part of the "skill set" as well. And last I saw, the mighty one also was the one making the mistake in the playoffs that cost the packers the game. IT's harsh, but he coughed it up against the Giants with a trip to the bowl on the line, and he coughed it up against the Eagles, when by all rights they should have won the game. Which Favre would they have had? I think its a more than fair question to ask, and clearly the Packers asked it and came to a conclusion. It's probably the wrong conclusion, as they misplayed their hand, but it wasn't ridiculous.

But GB was returning all the major talent it had last year, so that doesn't really come into play. I also don't think Brett's motivation really comes into play either. He had gone through similar thoughts of retirement the past two years and it didn't seem to affect his game play at all, and no one questions his focus or desire on the field, so I don't envision that motivation would have been a big issue at all.

Actually, I think that is wrong. His previous seasons weren't good, and the Packers weren't good. when you have 20 tds against 29 INTs 8 lost fumbles, then you go 18-18 with 8 fumbles, then have a good season, it makes you wonder if last season was a last hurrah, or if he was back.


You are right though, this seems to come down to how much better you thought Favre made GB in the short-term versus how much better you think a year of "seasoning" makes Rodgers so that he can help GB in the long-term. Personally, I thought the Favre option far outweighed, and was far more realistic than the Rodgers' one, so that's the camp I tend to be in...

I don't necessarily disagree. But I think Favre is their "best shot" for this year, but that best shot might not necessarily mean that their best shot translates into likely success either. I won't say they got lucky, as they were clearly good. But a lot went their way, they got good Brett, and they still weren't the best team in the conference. (Cowboys, Giants). Now they have a punishing Vikings team in their own division. Their schedule isn't that easy (these things change but ...) they get the AFC south, which is a bonus, but then they get two vs vikings, dallas, indy, a NO team that should rebound, jax. Maybe the brass figured there would be a slight recession this year before stabilizing again, and wanted to use that to work rodgers in?

This isn't a perfect comparison obviously, but its kind of like joe shcmoes best shot with a supermodel is to get cleaned up, speak well, etc. IT gives you a shot, but its still an outside shot. Granted, the packers are proportionally on orders of magnitude more equipped than the joe schmo, but hopefully the kernel of what I am trying to say comes through. If you don't get an adequate replacement for favre, its like you are wasting the primes of those other players, and sometimes you need the line of demarcation.


The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Favre Comeback?

Postby JasonSeahorn » Sat Aug 09, 2008 1:20 pm

If Favre really wanted to win a Super Bowl this year he probably picked the worst division to do it in. Patriots are still the favorites to win the AFC East, and the Jets probably won't post a better record than the Colts or Chargers...so the Jets are contending with proven teams like the Jaguars, Steelers, Browns (1 year but should still be good), Bengals, and the rising Texans.
Image

Thanks to deluxe_247 for sig, he is welcome to sail with the Captain too!

I will win all of the fantasy cafe games.....next year
JasonSeahorn
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5309
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Beantown, Taxachusetts

Re: Favre Comeback?

Postby curious_george_43545 » Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:07 pm

eaglesrule wrote:I frankly don't have a dog in the fight, and I don't care. I agree that he gives them the "best shot" to win now, but the metric for judging this from GBs perspective is what is their REAL chance of winning this year? Dallas is certainly better, and the vikings are certainly better. You have a situation where the NFC East in theory could send three teams to the playoffs and Vikings could win the division WITH Favre. Last year is last year, but favre was not an asset the previous two years to that, and he is getting up there. Plus, with his motivation, who knows what you are getting this year? You have an improved conference (people forget the conferences split 50-50 last year) and the champion hailed from the NFC. I don't see it as a given that they are some lock for the playoffs to be honest. So (arbitrarily picking percentages here) if having favre improves their chances 10 percent at kidding to the bowl, but the odds are still against it, is it worth stunting future versions of the team?

At the end of the day I think they should have just traded Rodgers frankly, and kept Favre, rolled with brohm. I was being somewhat tongue in cheek with my post, with a little devil's advocate thrown in. Kind of like the old baseball owner who wouldn't give his superlative player a raise because they finished last and said "we don't need you, we can finish in last without you too" (or something like that.) Obviously, he gives them the best shot to "win now" but how likely is that REALLY (which was kind of my point). They were a very strong team last year. But they weren't stronger than the Giants, they lost twice to the Cowboys, they lost twice to Chicago who was awful (although I do forget how the HFA played out exactly, so that could have been a resting starters thing), and barely beat the Eagles.

Point being, how much does the presence of Favre contribute tot heir chances? what would their percent likeliness be with him versus without him given the status of the conference? And does that spike in liklihood justify negating the spike you would get through a year of seasoning with Rodgers? I really don't know. I don't think anyone knows, but its not a ridiculous position to take if you are the Packers. And like I said, I would have just traded rodgers at some point, because this problem was definitely something forseeable.


I hate this arguement. :-t Where the Giants a lock to win the Super Bowl last year? No, but it's the FO's job to put the best team out there every year. You can't say - oh, we're probably only the second or third or fourth best team in the conference this year on paper, so lets just punt this year and build for the future until we are number one on paper. That would only make sense if they are Dolphins bad at the moment, instead of one of the best teams (with Favre) in the NFC.
Image
curious_george_43545
Water Boy
Water Boy

User avatar

Posts: 52
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Favre Comeback?

Postby moochman » Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:59 am

curious_george_43545 wrote:
eaglesrule wrote:I frankly don't have a dog in the fight, and I don't care. I agree that he gives them the "best shot" to win now, but the metric for judging this from GBs perspective is what is their REAL chance of winning this year? Dallas is certainly better, and the vikings are certainly better. You have a situation where the NFC East in theory could send three teams to the playoffs and Vikings could win the division WITH Favre. Last year is last year, but favre was not an asset the previous two years to that, and he is getting up there. Plus, with his motivation, who knows what you are getting this year? You have an improved conference (people forget the conferences split 50-50 last year) and the champion hailed from the NFC. I don't see it as a given that they are some lock for the playoffs to be honest. So (arbitrarily picking percentages here) if having favre improves their chances 10 percent at kidding to the bowl, but the odds are still against it, is it worth stunting future versions of the team?

At the end of the day I think they should have just traded Rodgers frankly, and kept Favre, rolled with brohm. I was being somewhat tongue in cheek with my post, with a little devil's advocate thrown in. Kind of like the old baseball owner who wouldn't give his superlative player a raise because they finished last and said "we don't need you, we can finish in last without you too" (or something like that.) Obviously, he gives them the best shot to "win now" but how likely is that REALLY (which was kind of my point). They were a very strong team last year. But they weren't stronger than the Giants, they lost twice to the Cowboys, they lost twice to Chicago who was awful (although I do forget how the HFA played out exactly, so that could have been a resting starters thing), and barely beat the Eagles.

Point being, how much does the presence of Favre contribute tot heir chances? what would their percent likeliness be with him versus without him given the status of the conference? And does that spike in liklihood justify negating the spike you would get through a year of seasoning with Rodgers? I really don't know. I don't think anyone knows, but its not a ridiculous position to take if you are the Packers. And like I said, I would have just traded rodgers at some point, because this problem was definitely something forseeable.


I hate this arguement. :-t Where the Giants a lock to win the Super Bowl last year? No, but it's the FO's job to put the best team out there every year. You can't say - oh, we're probably only the second or third or fourth best team in the conference this year on paper, so lets just punt this year and build for the future until we are number one on paper. That would only make sense if they are Dolphins bad at the moment, instead of one of the best teams (with Favre) in the NFC.


Agreed. Especially the way the league is currently structured it makes no sense not to try to win today at all costs. A team that is blown up can return to respectability in the length of Rodgers contract. For the Pack to be so cavilier about this season for sake of a future with an unknown QB smacks of motives that aren't solely focused toward winning it all.
Call it Favre friction....hated in TT and MMs realm, though more than welcome in Madden's world. 8-o
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Re: Favre Comeback?

Postby eaglesrule » Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:54 am

I didn't say that they should do that, in fact I said they should have kept favre. As an eagles fan I understand as well as anyone that constantly trying to be in contention and hoping it breaks the right way for magic to happen is frustrating as hell.

I do think its funny though how everyone concedes Favre is the best chance, yet conveniently forget that the last two Packers losses in the playoffs happened because of his bad throws. A lot of people explain away his previous two seasons.

If its at all possible, I honestly think that both sides misplayed their hands. Favre on the Jets doesn't help the Jets or himself, and it doesn't help the Packers either. They could have moved Rogers before. But at least the Packers's side of things has the sheen of logic. Favre just kept being indecisive to the point of silliness, and I am sure this was as much for him being indecisive the previous years as it was about this year.

But then again, it could have been an awesome decision. It seemed like trading Drew Bledsoe in division no less, was an abysmally stupid decision. Well, not so much. Granted Bledsoe isn't favre, but stuff similar to this does happen. Of course if Favre isn't good this year, is it because of him, or because of the Jets?
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Favre Comeback?

Postby BigBadBrawler » Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:33 am

eaglesrule wrote:I didn't say that they should do that, in fact I said they should have kept favre. As an eagles fan I understand as well as anyone that constantly trying to be in contention and hoping it breaks the right way for magic to happen is frustrating as hell.

I do think its funny though how everyone concedes Favre is the best chance, yet conveniently forget that the last two Packers losses in the playoffs happened because of his bad throws. A lot of people explain away his previous two seasons.

If its at all possible, I honestly think that both sides misplayed their hands. Favre on the Jets doesn't help the Jets or himself, and it doesn't help the Packers either. They could have moved Rogers before. But at least the Packers's side of things has the sheen of logic. Favre just kept being indecisive to the point of silliness, and I am sure this was as much for him being indecisive the previous years as it was about this year.

But then again, it could have been an awesome decision. It seemed like trading Drew Bledsoe in division no less, was an abysmally stupid decision. Well, not so much. Granted Bledsoe isn't favre, but stuff similar to this does happen. Of course if Favre isn't good this year, is it because of him, or because of the Jets?


No one "conveniently" forgets that Favre threw the INTs to lose those play-off games, but there's not a direct correlation between those specific passes and the overall potential that GB has as a team under Farve. Did his INTs cost them in the play-offs? Of course. But he's also the guy that led them to a 13-3 regular season record, and got them to the Conference Championship in the first place. Are you "conveinently" forgetting that? If Rodgers' was the QB, would you even expect them to be in that spot last year? And again, what you call "explaining away" the two seasons prior to last year, we call accurate justification based on the surrounding talent. And what's more relevant to the conversation: what happened 2 or 3 years ago with a vastly different team, or what happened last year with the exact same supporting cast?

I agree with you that both Favre and GB Management handled this situation badly, but I completely disagree that Favre doesn't help the JETs (seriously, you don't think he's an upgrade over Penny/Clemens?), and I think that saying GB Management's side of things was approached with "the sheen of logic" is absolutely preposterous. TT and MM weren't basing their decisions on any kind of logic that I recognize. I saw a lot of ego, a lot of convoluted excuses, and a lot of posturing, but not much logic at all. And again, you say Favre was being "indecisive to the point of silliness," but we see this from Vet players every year (see: Strahan, Ogden, etc.) and it's never an issue that brings about treatment like we saw from GB this year. Yet here you try to use it to justify GB's stance. I just don't see it.

The only way this ends up being an "awesome decision" for GB is if Favre's play falls off significantly in NY and Rodgers succeeds in GB. Any other outcome is an absolute disaster. And the Bledsoe comparison doesn't apply for two very significant reasons: 1. He wasn't playing at the level Favre is now when he was traded. and more importantly 2. His back-up had actually out-performed him on the field, something that definately didn't happen here.
Image
BigBadBrawler
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 6582
Joined: 1 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The largest Media Market in the country without an NFL Franchise

Re: Favre Comeback?

Postby eaglesrule » Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:58 pm

BigBadBrawler wrote:
eaglesrule wrote:I didn't say that they should do that, in fact I said they should have kept favre. As an eagles fan I understand as well as anyone that constantly trying to be in contention and hoping it breaks the right way for magic to happen is frustrating as hell.

I do think its funny though how everyone concedes Favre is the best chance, yet conveniently forget that the last two Packers losses in the playoffs happened because of his bad throws. A lot of people explain away his previous two seasons.

If its at all possible, I honestly think that both sides misplayed their hands. Favre on the Jets doesn't help the Jets or himself, and it doesn't help the Packers either. They could have moved Rogers before. But at least the Packers's side of things has the sheen of logic. Favre just kept being indecisive to the point of silliness, and I am sure this was as much for him being indecisive the previous years as it was about this year.

But then again, it could have been an awesome decision. It seemed like trading Drew Bledsoe in division no less, was an abysmally stupid decision. Well, not so much. Granted Bledsoe isn't favre, but stuff similar to this does happen. Of course if Favre isn't good this year, is it because of him, or because of the Jets?


No one "conveniently" forgets that Favre threw the INTs to lose those play-off games, but there's not a direct correlation between those specific passes and the overall potential that GB has as a team under Farve. Did his INTs cost them in the play-offs? Of course. But he's also the guy that led them to a 13-3 regular season record, and got them to the Conference Championship in the first place. Are you "conveinently" forgetting that? If Rodgers' was the QB, would you even expect them to be in that spot last year? And again, what you call "explaining away" the two seasons prior to last year, we call accurate justification based on the surrounding talent. And what's more relevant to the conversation: what happened 2 or 3 years ago with a vastly different team, or what happened last year with the exact same supporting cast?

It's a blend of the two positions and you know it. You also know his heart has been wavering on the issue of how much he wants it, and you can't begin to argue that its somehow a positive he wants it now, whereas he didn't want it before. He isn't 100 percent committed for the long haul based upon his recent actions. What happens when he meets a little more adversity and thinks "man, I should have taken the 20 million." I'm not explaining away the good he did, I am on record as saying that the Packers should have seen this coming and prepared for it. But we know his age hasn't remained static, and he marches ever closer to being done, and the bottom can drop.

With Rodgers at the helm last year, no, they don't make it there. With Favre at the helm, they made it there and still fell short. If we are speculating on who will do that, its not right to assume the worst for Aaron, and the best from Favre, because Favre's last couple of playoff appearances haven't inspired a ton of confidence either. But with Rodgers at the helm last year, maybe they get bumped in the WC Weekend, and now are looking strong for a number of years in a row. Or maybe they are regretting a big mistake Who knows? you can't prove a negative, so we can just speculate or drop that.

As per the different talent levels, we also know he had an unwillingness to do things anyway but his own hence the atrocious TD to INT turnover. Someone with his experience and ability would be even more in a position to be more careful, knowing his guys were questionable. But I guess it's ok, because it's just Favre trying to win games. Only problem is, he was spotting the opposition over two turnovers a game. From where I sit, talent or not, part of being the leader etc. is recognizing the limitations and strengths of his teammates. I doubt the coaches were like "oh yea Brett just wing it down there to your pedestrian wides and fumble it away. It's all in the name of winning." So crappy teammates or not, I expect a HOF Qb that gets the benefit of the doubt to not do stupid stuff like that. Sorry. He gets way too much of a pass on that. He makes a good amount of boneheaded throws for someone of his stature. This year, we had "safe, smart, ball control brett" shoved down our throats, until oops -- he returned to his old ways when it counted the most.

The point in my arguments, AGAIN is that they are better off with him -- CLEARLY. Despite the tone of my arguments, I do think you jsut say screw it an win when things align. It's not like building a baseball team or something where your advancement comes in increments. I don't think GB handled it the right way. But they handled it in a way that was at least someone based on logic, even if the conclusion proves to be wrong (remember, we don't know, we are just treating it as such -- so no matter how right it seems now or ends up to be, none of us are fortunetellers). Brett has vacillated for a few years now based on emotions, and did so again this off-season. A plan was put in place and they are sticking with it. Right or wrong, there is a thought process there, which you can't say the same for Brett who invoked his heart and "passion" in his conflicting decisions.

I'm not conveniently forgetting the good he has done either. I just think somethings with Favre are being treated as a given, and his recent trend has been uneven and that's being a big generous. And some recent performances have been a double-edged sword.

I agree with you that both Favre and GB Management handled this situation badly, but I completely disagree that Favre doesn't help the JETs (seriously, you don't think he's an upgrade over Penny/Clemens?), and I think that saying GB Management's side of things was approached with "the sheen of logic" is absolutely preposterous. TT and MM weren't basing their decisions on any kind of logic that I recognize.

Like I said, there is a logic. "Have good shot with Brett THIS year and see a drop, or lesson our chances this year in favor of really good chances for the next two or three." I don't think their optimism on it is the right conclusion (as i have said), but its something...


It's preposterous to think the jets will realistically be sniffing a win in the playoffs, considering who is in their division and the depth of the other divisions. They almost without a doubt WILL not win the East, so that is a significant impediment right there. Then they have to contend with other AFC divisons that have two or more solid teams. The jets are better with favre, but how much? 8-8? Of course its worth it for them, why not? They paid nothing. But is Favre winning the Super Bowl with them? No. So, its safe to say that things didn't work out for him either, if we are assuming the worst of GBs decision.


I saw a lot of ego, a lot of convoluted excuses, and a lot of posturing, but not much logic at all. And again, you say Favre was being "indecisive to the point of silliness," but we see this from Vet players every year (see: Strahan, Ogden, etc.) and it's never an issue that brings about treatment like we saw from GB this year. Yet here you try to use it to justify GB's stance. I just don't see it.

You see it for one season here or there, not plural seasons, all in a row that affect the approach of the draft.

The only way this ends up being an "awesome decision" for GB is if Favre's play falls off significantly in NY and Rodgers succeeds in GB. Any other outcome is an absolute disaster. And the Bledsoe comparison doesn't apply for two very significant reasons: 1. He wasn't playing at the level Favre is now when he was traded. and more importantly 2. His back-up had actually out-performed him on the field, something that definately didn't happen here.

This is why I said it was an imperfect comparison. That decision was definitely of the mixed review variety when it went down. "What did Brady do for a full season? Bledsoe was hurt and still recovering." It was still a judgment call, which was my point.

The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Previous

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 18:15 hours
(and 41 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact