Breat Favre's Future....

sweetness34 · 01-09-2007, 12:22 AM

Ok guys...

I want to hear what you think he'll do, and what he should do....

Here's my stance:

I think he should retire. He went out on a good note (very good season, good team record, and a great game in Chicago). What more does he have to prove? What more does he have to accomplish?

I think he should let the organization move on for the future. You drafted Rodgers to lead you down the road, and from the looks of it Green Bay is not going to go to the Superbowl next year, and despite their record this season with a tougher schedule I think they'll fall short of the playoffs as well. Green Bay fans will disagree with me but this is why I think he should retire.

As for what I think he will do. I think he'll retire. That inteview with Andrea Kramer sealed the deal for me. I think he wants to spend more time with his family and I think the preparation each week is just too much for him. In fact I fell it's more than just a football decision.

Shiver · 01-09-2007, 12:23 AM

I,AM,FN,TIRED,OF,BRETT,FAVRE,RETIREMENT,TALK

He should've retired after the playoff loss to the Vikings, back in '04.

sweetness34 · 01-09-2007, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiver

I,AM,FN,TIRED,OF,BRETT,FAVRE,RETIREMENT,TALK

He should've retired after the playoff loss to the Vikings, back in '04.

Well tt, GB, sik wit it, and I were having a discussion about it in the Packers forum, so I decided to make a topic about it. If you don't like the topic, don't post. :P

Shiver · 01-09-2007, 12:28 AM

I gave my opinion, but I quantified it with my feelings on this matter.

Star Wideout · 01-09-2007, 12:33 AM

Well if the Packers are going to make a genuine effort to bring in quality free agents, and draft in order to make a run now..Favre should give it one more go around..as much as I hate to say it the Packers are probably the closest team in the NFC-North to competing with the Bears.

If their focus is on rebuilding still, and developing the younger players then Favre should hang 'em up.

njx9 · 01-09-2007, 12:48 AM

i don't think that favre playing another year is in the best interest of this team UNLESS they've come to the absolute conclusion that rodgers is not their man.

in which case, i'd expect that they would draft a QB this year.

doingthisinsteadofwork · 01-09-2007, 12:50 AM

what more does Brett have to prove?

BlindSite · 01-09-2007, 01:11 AM

I think Brett Favre should do whatever Brett Favre wants.

Shiver · 01-09-2007, 01:23 AM

You mis-spelled "Brett"....

01-09-2007, 01:24 AM

I would love to see Favre come back for another year, however he has to call it quits after that. He still has the skills, and hopefully with Jennings having another year and the Packers perhaps drafting/signing some offensive help, he could finally have the weapons.

bearsfan_51 · 01-09-2007, 02:01 AM

Spokesman for ******. Isn't he already doing commercials for some laxative pill or something? Where he throws a football over a lake and cooks some shrimp with his hillbilly friends?

LOL...you can't say V-I-A-G-R-A!?! I'm hoping that's a ban on another word that begins with a V and ends with an A.

ImBrotherCain · 01-09-2007, 08:58 AM

No!..... I may be a packer fan but i still think he can compeate and i hes in the top 10 in QB's still at his elderly football age. So to reiterate my self No Brett should not retire

Jim Jim · 01-09-2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlindSite

I think Brett Favre should do whatever Brett Favre wants.

01-09-2007, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Spokesman for **********. Isn't he already doing commercials for some laxative pill or something? Where he throws a football over a lake and cooks some shrimp with his hillbilly friends?

LOL...you can't say V-I-A-G-R-A!?! I'm hoping that's a ban on another word that begins with a V and ends with an A.

...Isn't it for heartburn? :P

NFLBOY · 01-09-2007, 09:31 AM

Personally I don't think it matters how old you are. If you love the game and can still play, why not play? The NFL has enough bad qb's like vick, frye, and so on. It's good for the game to have a big name qb who still can play better than most today.

MaxV · 01-09-2007, 09:31 AM

Yes, I think he should retire. The only reason for him to come back is to get that record, which I think would be selfish on his part.

Twiddler · 01-09-2007, 09:55 AM

He should retire. Sure I love the guy and are greatful for what he has done for the organization but there's no doubt that we are rebuilding. In fact QB is one of the only positions that we have that hasn't been completely overhauled. And sitting Rodgers for three years is insane. Because it takes a few years of him PLAYING to find out whether he is our guy so we don't want this to set us back further. Plus the game is starting to wear on Favre and he should go out now while he can still walk.

Ewing · 01-09-2007, 10:36 AM

He'll come back for one final year and break a couple of Marino's records and then hang up the uniform for the last time at be regarded as possibly the greatest quarterback who ever lived.

Nitschke-Hawk · 01-09-2007, 10:56 AM

If he comes back and we have a consistent 2nd option we could easily make the playoffs, I think Brett will think hard about that. We're gonna need two consistent options to win games and 3 to beat the good teams. He's gotta have three guys to rely on in the passing game for us to be real threats. And they don't have to be the All Pro caliber players some of you are probably thinking of, they just have to be good enough to win games. I think a healthy and more experienced Greg Jennings will be the second one. Let's not forget he was on pace for over 1,000 yards the first half of the year, so we need to see him finish. Sweetness pointed out the tougher schedule which in fact is the case, but I don't think it's that much tougher, I think we could go 6-2 at home and split the road games and be 10-6 and make the playoffs or even go 9-7 and have a shot. If our defense plays like it did the last part of the season we can be in every game and I believe it has the potential of doing it it's just a matter of showing it on the field.

Green Bay Packers 2007 Opponents
Home: Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Minnesota Vikings, Philadelphia Eagles, Washington Redskins, Carolina Panthers, Oakland Raiders, San Diego Chargers

Away: Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Minnesota Vikings, Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, St. Louis Rams, Denver Broncos, Kansas City Chiefs.
------------------------
Looking at the schedule there's a few things to notice, yeah we're in the NFC North, the Bears are no guarantee to be great, we're better than the Vikings and Lions. Home: We finally got the Eagles at home, the Panthers appear to be lacking a lot on offense, Raiders suck, Redskins can't figure out what to do with all that talent, who knows what the Chargers will look like if they make the Super Bowl with the recent history of Super Bowl Teams the following year. I don't know how the Chiefs made the playoffs after that disgusting performance against the Colts, we're all starting to realize they're on the decline, Denver's no powerhouse, Giants, Cowboys(is T.O. Back ? is Parcells back, what will Romo look like?), and Rams (very dangerous offense, but defense?) are so inconsistent.

Don't get me wrong this schedule is very capable of being extremely tough and sending us out with a 6-10 record, but all in all the schedule screams of inconsistent teams. If we can just be consistent for the majority of the season we definitely should be in the playoffs. We'll need to go 4-2 or better in the division, snag 5 or 6 at home and split the road games.

I see six games where we're clearly the better than the team we're playing against: Detroit, Detroit, Minnesota, Minnesota, Washington, Oakland. When you beat the teams you're supposed to you have a shot, that's true in every sport about teams on the rise. There's 10 games left, all we gotta do is win 3 to be 9-7 and have a shot or 4 of those and we're at 10-6 and when's the last time a 10-6 didn't make it? Only 4 times in the last 16 years. By no means am I guaranteeing wins or making predictions, simply my optimistic but realistic (as of now) analysis of the schedule and basically saying that if Brett Favre wants to compete with this team, he really can.

eacantdraft · 01-09-2007, 10:59 AM

Time to retire. Don't ruin your reputation by hanging around and having a real season of suckage or risk injury. Leave a little mystery to your career where people are left wondering what would happen if Favre hanged on. Like John Elway or Barry Sanders.

TacticaLion · 01-09-2007, 11:10 AM

If he can still play... and WANTS to play... he should play.

From this viewpoint, he gives the Packers the greatest chance of winning. The Packers... the PACKERS (who picked #5 last year)... were 1 game away from the playoffs. They've got the offseason and the draft to further improve the team. If they can, they need to keep him if he can and still wants to play.

YAYareaRB · 01-09-2007, 12:03 PM

If you think about it, Brett Favre is hindering the development of Aaron Rodgers. The longer he stays the longer Rodgers has to wait.

johbur · 01-09-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYareaRB

If you think about it, Brett Favre is hindering the development of Aaron Rodgers. The longer he stays the longer Rodgers has to wait.

Being behind Joe Montana didn't seem to hurt Steve Young all that much...

For the organization, Favre still gives the best chance at winning. Packers were a sack given up by a rookie guard and subsequent fumble from going to the playoffs this year, though I can't say they'd have done any better than the Giants.

Green Bay has been able to maintain a non-losing record except for 2005 in large part because they haven't had to draft a QB since Favre has been there. That means more picks elsewhere and the ability to take projects that develop and get traded.

If Rodgers sits his entire five year contract behind Favre, then so be it. I'll take those five years of Favre's.

Nitschke-Hawk · 01-09-2007, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYareaRB

If you think about it, Brett Favre is hindering the development of Aaron Rodgers. The longer he stays the longer Rodgers has to wait.

I'm willing to be in the position of having a good enough team around Rodgers when he starts playing that we'll be winning games with a balanced team on offense and defense not so much depending on the Quarterback. I don't think he's ever gonna wow us but he's really accurate and I think he'll be a good game manager and decision maker, I mean look at what Rex Grossman has done with terrible decisions and the Bears were still 13-3 because of the surrounding cast playing well the majority of the year. I don't think Rodgers will make nearly as many bad decisions on the field as Turnoversaurus-Rex. There's still countless bad decisions by him that haven't shown up as INT's on the stat sheet.

bearfan · 01-09-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFLBOY

Personally I don't think it matters how old you are. If you love the game and can still play, why not play? The NFL has enough bad qb's like vick, frye, and so on. It's good for the game to have a big name qb who still can play better than most today.

just because you can, doesnt mean you should. He has a family, and he has been in the NFL a long time. I think he should retire, not only for himself, but for the organization to move on as well