NFL offseason II

[Andrik the Unsmiling]

[quote name='14th Dragon' post='1439049' date='Jul 14 2008, 09.36']Why would Favre want to play for the jets?[/quote]

The points made above by FezRock are good ones, but I think he left out one major point-- it's not about where Favre [i]wants[/i] to play, it's about where the Packers would be willing to send him. That probably means an AFC team, because they don't want to be knocked out by a Favre led Tampa Bay or Minnesota in the playoffs. If we look at the AFC, there are very few possible fits, so one of the only teams I could see being willing to give up enough to land Favre is the JETS. Hence, the fit, IMO.

[Whiskeyjack]

[quote name='Ser Paladin' post='1439126' date='Jul 14 2008, 12.19']I find that a little surprising, but the Bear fanhood here on the board will clear it up, I'm sure. Been out of the loop for the last month and a half, but I don't remember seeing much beyond the usual over-hype of a rookie.[/quote]

Pretty sure I count among the "Bear fanhood", given that I am a Bears fan (favorite NFC team), live in Chicago, and listen to Chicago sports radio every day.

[quote]My expectation is that he will get less than half the carries for the first month of the season, if not longer. Peterson's hands make it likely that even if Forte starts from day one, he's probably [i]at best [/i]a 2 down back as a rookie (barring an injury to Peterson).[/quote]

Hard to say what will happen at this point, but they are calling him an every down back and all indications are that he'll be the starter. I'm sure they'll work Peterson in too, but it looks like the plan is to give Forte most of the carries.

[Ser Paladin]

[quote name='Whiskeyjack' post='1439141' date='Jul 14 2008, 13.26']Hard to say what will happen at this point, but they are calling him an every down back and all indications are that he'll be the starter. I'm sure they'll work Peterson in too, but it looks like the plan is to give Forte most of the carries.[/quote]
If so, he'll be a huuuuge bargain in fantasy, as he's not going in the top 20. I think his ADP was around RB 30 on July 4th. As anemic as the Bears passing game is, their "every down back" should be getting more attention.

But I'll give in that his apprenticeship period could be zero, and that he's an every down guy. We'll have to see if he can block in the pre-season.

[14th Dragon]

[quote name='FezRock' post='1439100' date='Jul 14 2008, 13.08']Two reasons: One its New York, which means the Favre attention goes absolutely overboard. And the city will love him... until he screws up, which he will at some point, everybody does. But if he rebounds they'll love him all the more... until the next screw up, and so on. But when you're good, its a great place to play.

But more importantly with a good QB the Jets are a good team. Remember they were in the playoffs just two years ago, and they have seriously upgraded themselves this offseason. If it were not for the Pats being what they are, they would be in contention for the division, and I think they could strongly compete for a wild card with Favre at the helm.[/quote]

Um, how could Farve attnetion get any bigger? Is there anyone in US that does nto know who does not know Brett Farve. What more exposure does he need? It is not as if he can build his reputation or fame any higher unless he is going to start his own religion.

Yes, but he would still be the third best quarterback in the confrence. Also be on a team that would be fighting with Jacksonville, Tennesse and the Broncos for the wild card spots. If he stays in Green Bay, he is already in the play-offs, no questions asked. He would be the only quarterback in his division and clearly top 2 quarterback in the confrence. So leaving Green Bay makes so very little sense from his POV.

[quote name='Andrik the Unsmiling' post='1439140' date='Jul 14 2008, 13.26']The points made above by FezRock are good ones, but I think he left out one major point-- it's not about where Favre [i]wants[/i] to play, it's about where the Packers would be willing to send him. That probably means an AFC team, because they don't want to be knocked out by a Favre led Tampa Bay or Minnesota in the playoffs. If we look at the AFC, there are very few possible fits, so one of the only teams I could see being willing to give up enough to land Favre is the JETS. Hence, the fit, IMO.[/quote]

Yeah, but if Farve is unhappy with the trade, he can just retire again. So unless the team is really a contender, then why bother coming back?

[Fez]

[quote]If he stays in Green Bay, he is already in the play-offs, no questions asked. He would be the only quarterback in his division and clearly top 2 quarterback in the confrence. So leaving Green Bay makes so very little sense from his POV.[/quote]

Except I think he's done with Green Bay, or rather Green Bay is done with him. There's no way he's willing to be a backup, so if its between re-retiring or playing elsewhere in place that would be desperate to please him, I think he'd go with option B. And so what if he is in the same conference as the Pats and Colts? Yes even with him the Jets wouldn't be as good as they are, but they would definitely become a tough team to just about everyone else, and I think with him the Jets go from a 6-7 win team to a 10-11 win team which could probably get a wildcard. And certainly a chance go deep into the playoffs...unless the seeding works out the same as two years ago and they play the Pats in the first round again.

And besides, its just like Andrik said, its not really up to Favre. If he doesn't like it he can re-retire, but Green Bay would only trade into the AFC, and of the teams that actually need him, the Jets are the best fit. And since there is no "Quarterback of the Future"(tm) on the team right now, they'd be willing to put up with his bullshit in the offseason for a few years too.

[Mexal]

I really am tired of the Bret Favre situation :(

[DanteGabriel]

For a variety of reasons, according to the New York Daily News, the Jets are not going to pursue Favre.

[quote name='Daily News']Why don't the Jets want Favre? The source says there are four factors:

Age: 39 on Oct. 10.

Salary: $12 million this season

Packers Trade Demands: The source says he expects Green Bay to want at least a second-round pick.

Commitment: Is Favre coming back for one more year? Two years? Would he get in the way of progress?

"Of course, if the Packers cut Favre and he's willing to play for the minimum, things could change," the source said. "But that's not going to happen."[/quote]
[url="http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2008/07/12/2008-07-12_source_jets_wont_pursue_brett_favre.html"]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football...rett_favre.html[/url]

Jason Whitlock had an interesting (and convincing) case on what's caused the rift between Favre and the Packers:

[quote name='Jason Whitlock']Favre has been angry at the Packers ever since the franchise didn't go after Randy Moss when he left Minnesota for Oakland. A year ago, when Moss left Oakland for New England, Favre turned irate at his organization. When Moss turned the Patriots into the greatest offense in the history of the league and an undefeated team, Favre's bitterness turned toxic.

Favre and Moss share the same agent, Bus Cook. Favre believed that Moss would've signed with the Packers over the Patriots and that all those records Tom Brady set last season would've been set by 38-year-old Brett Favre.

I'm sure Favre believes that Randy Moss would've catapulted the Packers into last year's Super Bowl and prolonged Favre's career by three seasons. With Randy Moss, Favre might have established himself as the greatest QB in league history.

Favre is right. And the Packers are tired of hearing "I told you so" from their legendary QB.

That's the only explanation I can think of for the Packers' reluctance to welcome Favre back with a parade. If Brett Favre wants to play football, you tell Aaron Rodgers to shut up and wait one, two or three more years.[/quote]
[url="http://www.kansascity.com/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/story/702886.html"]http://www.kansascity.com/sports/columnist...ory/702886.html[/url]

[Fez]

That's a shame, I think if Favre would be willing to commit for three years a second round pick would've been worth it, as would the money. I hope they go after someone else, if there is even anyone available. Because neither Pennington nor Clemens is worth all the upgrades the Jets have tried to make to the rest of the team.


And I agree with Jason Whitlock.

[Jaime L]

[quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1439181' date='Jul 14 2008, 13.59']Jason Whitlock had an interesting (and convincing) case on what's caused the rift between Favre and the Packers:[/quote]

Also heard an interview with Moss where he was asked if he would've been happy being a Packer last year, and he said to the effect: No, because they're shifty. As in, something ain't right there.

Gotta say, I completely agree with Whitlock. Favre was dead right about Moss. And while Thompson has done a great job rebuilding this roster, feels a little too much like he's trying to put his own imprint on this team... to the detriment of winning now. He wants to win with [i]his[/i] guys. He wants it done [i]his[/i] way. Not sure how else to explain the bizarre string of news stories: "Favre can come back...as a backup."Outrage everywhere.. Then it's: "Favre can compete for the job." Hmm.

Favre's been a petulant child through this whole thing, but when you're a hall of famer that's still playing like a hall of famer, you get that right. You don't sit behind, or compete with a complete unproven the year after you throw 39 TDs and take your team to the NFC Championship Game. I don't think Thompson likes how Favre's held the franchise hostage and is trying to get control back. But it's hopeless against a player as popular as Favre is in Wisconsin. Especially as he can't overcome the fact that Favre gives them the best chance to win right now. It's an uphill fight and one that seems destined to make him the villain.

[Rockroi]

Couple of things:

1. I think we are being unfair to the Packers. I mean, nobody here is decrying them, but I think what Brett did to them was unfair. He said he was retiering, there was then a rumor that he changed his mind, the Packers talked to him, and Favre said that, yeah, he wants to play again. The Packers front office actually chartered a plane to see Favre, but at the 11th hour, Brett contact the Pack and said that after speaking with his wife, he was going to stay retired. The Pack then solidified their relationship (on the field) with Rodgers, saying that he was the starter...

...and then Brett says, "Changed my mind!" Greaaaaaaat... because Favre is $12M of cap space (IIRC, they take a portion of that as a cap hit regardless), he completely thwarts Rogers being the starter; Rogers' contract is up in 2009, so if Favre came back for another season... what happens then? What happens in 2009 when Rogers (as jilted as you can get) says, "See 'ya!" to the Pack? Great, but what if Favre is either retired (again... and this time for real... he means it, he says) or decrepid? What the FUCK do you do now?

The Pack's options have alwyas sucked. The most sensible team for Favre to go to is Minn, a division rival (Chicago is also there). WTF? Never gonna happen. So they HAVE to trade him to an AFC team and one in contention or Favre will say no and re-retire (I swear, its annoying). They could release him, but then Minn will DEFINATELY grab him. So the Pack must do the worst of all possible worlds- keep Favre as a non-starter until re retires again (unlikely) or they can trade him. This is wayyyyyy too much power for one hick to have. Especially one who defeated the Pats in 1996-1997 SB... wait I'm projecting again...

2. As far as Rabdy Moss almost becoming a Packer, I read up and down that Favre was fine with the decision and understood why it could not happen. I read that more than a few times. OH WAIT! But now that Favre is pissy that the Pack has not welcomed him with open arms, suddenly he's bringing THIS up again? I really cannot blame the Packers for not taking Moss- with Owens' departure from Philly still ringing in people's ears and his very "meh" performance in Oakland, its hard to just say, "This was a no-brainer." Only certain franchises could have done this and even in hindsight I'm not sure if the pack was one of them.

3. HOLY CRAP! Somebody wrote like 10 paragraphs on the Bengals! Wow, that's a fan.

[Mexal]

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1439252' date='Jul 14 2008, 14.35']3. HOLY CRAP! Somebody wrote like 10 paragraphs on the Bengals! Wow, that's a fan.[/quote]

I'm glad someone noticed!

But yea, I umm, like the Bengals and no one else does :(

Too many Pats/Steelers/Bears fans :(

[Jaime L]

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1439252' date='Jul 14 2008, 14.35']2. As far as Rabdy Moss almost becoming a Packer, I read up and down that Favre was fine with the decision and understood why it could not happen. I read that more than a few times. OH WAIT! But now that Favre is pissy that the Pack has not welcomed him with open arms, suddenly he's bringing THIS up again? I really cannot blame the Packers for not taking Moss- with Owens' departure from Philly still ringing in people's ears and his very "meh" performance in Oakland, its hard to just say, "This was a no-brainer." Only certain franchises could have done this and even in hindsight I'm not sure if the pack was one of them..[/quote]

Where did you read this? Can't recall [i]ever[/i] hearing that Favre agreed with the decision not to go after him. He still played the season, he didn't go on strike...but he didn't agree with it and yeah, as history bears out, he was right.

Considering they would've given up a piddling 4th rounder, what precisely did they have to lose? I don't want to say it was a no-brainer..but where's the risk? This ain't TO. He doesn't rip teams apart when things don't go his way. A lot of franchises might not have done this deal...but a lot of franchises are conservative to a fault.

[Starkess]

I am so sick of Favre! All the retiring/not-retiring...it's old. Crying? Is cool in small doses (e.g. KG after the beautiful finals win). Not so cool when it lasts like four hours and then ends up not being for anything.

Anyway, I hope he makes it to an AFC team and then gets crushed by Brady and the Pats.

[Rhom]

[quote name='Starkess' post='1439293' date='Jul 14 2008, 15.01']I am so sick of Favre! All the retiring/not-retiring...it's old. Crying? Is cool in small doses (e.g. KG after the beautiful finals win). Not so cool when it lasts like four hours and then ends up not being for anything.[/quote]

There is no possible way that I could agree more with this statement. I get nauseous anytime I think about it.

[awesome possum]

I'm perfectly happy with Favre ruining his legacy by showing what a huge pretentious d-bag he really is.

[Rockroi]

[quote]Where did you read this? Can't recall ever hearing that Favre agreed with the decision not to go after him. He still played the season, he didn't go on strike...but he didn't agree with it and yeah, as history bears out, he was right.[/quote]

I never said “Agreed”; I said he understood. In other words, he would have loved to have had Moss, but when it did not happen he understood the reasons. And we can also agree that after 2006, Favre was a mite bit desperate regarding his passing game and would probably have been okay had the Pack been in trade talks for Lynn Swan. Further, I read on several Peter King stories that the Moss issue DID NOT factor into any of his subsequent decisions (ie to retire, complain about the Pack, etc). This seems to me to be a huge after-the-fact adjustment. In other words, now that Moss has shown to be a stupendously smart move by the Pats AND that Favre is trying to leverage public opinion against the Pack, now Favre is all pissy and wants to call them out on this.

As far as him being "right" that is so situational. Moss was great because of Brady and the Pats system. Who knows if that would have translated in GB. Further, its really, really hard to blame the Packers for not loving the idea of trading the future of their team on a brash Wide Receiver who was rumored to be a step slow, who had once QUIT during a game that had post-season ramifications (walked off the field while the game was still going on), and had all the ability to destroy a team? Further, who wantedto become the next Eagles? A team with a declining QB and a cancerous WR who helped implode the franchise (thank God for Jeff Garcia... seriously). For Favre to now say, "Told you so" is his perogative, but its not like the Pack was carzy for NOT making that trade.

I mean… isn’t that the definition of Monday-morning Quarterbacking… from a quarterback?

[Jaime L]

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1439587' date='Jul 14 2008, 17.14']As far as him being "right" that is so situational. Moss was great because of Brady and the Pats system. Who knows if that would have translated in GB. Further, its really, really hard to blame the Packers for not loving the idea of trading the future of their team on a brash Wide Receiver who was rumored to be a step slow, who had once QUIT during a game that had post-season ramifications (walked off the field while the game was still going on), and had all the ability to destroy a team? Further, who wantedto become the next Eagles? A team with a declining QB and a cancerous WR who helped implode the franchise (thank God for Jeff Garcia... seriously). For Favre to now say, "Told you so" is his perogative, but its not like the Pack was carzy for NOT making that trade.[/quote]

Yes, the Pats made Moss great. But he could've been damn good on any of the playoff teams. His most egregious example of quitting was [i]with the Raiders.[/i] Their Weekend at Bernies ownership had quit on them long ago.

As for the game where he left the field before it was over. Fuck that. Y'know who that was against? The Redskins. I saw that entire game. It was [i]over.[/i] He left when the Redskins were kneeling by the time he left the stadium. Y'know who else left before a game was over? Bill Belichick. It wasn't a problem there and it isn't a problem here. It's just something people dredge up as part of the "Moss is a cancer" argument. When it's actually the weakest part of their argument.

Considering a 4th rounder, on average, doesn't ever start in this league...the cost is miniscule (yes, excepitions). When the cost is that low, the only concern is that he does more harm than good. There hasn't been a single season that Moss has destroyed. There's been a few where he hasn't helped as much as he should...but he's never ripped an organization asunder like TO. And there've been a few seasons where he's made a team [i]much[/i] better than it ever should have been. And even if he actually takes more off the table than his mere presence provides, [i]you cut him.[/i] If somehow he fake moons all your fans (horror!). And you lose a 4th rounder in the process. Teams gamble 4th rounders all the time in situations where there's [i]far[/i] less potential reward. What blows my mind about it is the way teams value things. Justin McCareins is worth a second rounder while Randy Moss, still capable of drawing a double team on every single play, is worth a late fourth rounder. You'd think [i]someone[/i] would have had the cojones to offer more for a guy who was 2 years removed from being the most dangerous receiver in the game, and who in the intervening 2 years played in the worst offensive set in modern football. But it's a sheep league and low risk-low reward is where it is at.

ETA: Who'd the Raiders get with their 4th rounder?
ETA2: Who'd the Packers use their 4th rounder on?

[Young Wolf]

[quote name='Jaime L' post='1439648' date='Jul 14 2008, 16.42']Yes, the Pats made Moss great. But he could've been damn good on any of the playoff teams. His most egregious example of quitting was [i]with the Raiders.[/i] Their Weekend at Bernies ownership had quit on them long ago.

As for the game where he left the field before it was over. Fuck that. Y'know who that was against? The Redskins. I saw that entire game. It was [i]over.[/i] He left when the Redskins were kneeling by the time he left the stadium. Y'know who else left before a game was over? Bill Belichick. It wasn't a problem there and it isn't a problem here. It's just something people dredge up as part of the "Moss is a cancer" argument. When it's actually the weakest part of their argument.

Considering a 4th rounder, on average, doesn't ever start in this league...the cost is miniscule (yes, excepitions). When the cost is that low, the only concern is that he does more harm than good. There hasn't been a single season that Moss has destroyed. There's been a few where he hasn't helped as much as he should...but he's never ripped an organization asunder like TO. And there've been a few seasons where he's made a team [i]much[/i] better than it ever should have been. And even if he actually takes more off the table than his mere presence provides, [i]you cut him.[/i] If somehow he fake moons all your fans (horror!). And you lose a 4th rounder in the process. Teams gamble 4th rounders all the time in situations where there's [i]far[/i] less potential reward. What blows my mind about it is the way teams value things. Justin McCareins is worth a second rounder while Randy Moss, still capable of drawing a double team on every single play, is worth a late fourth rounder. You'd think [i]someone[/i] would have had the cojones to offer more for a guy who was 2 years removed from being the most dangerous receiver in the game, and who in the intervening 2 years played in the worst offensive set in modern football. But it's a sheep league and low risk-low reward is where it is at.

ETA: Who'd the Raiders get with their 4th rounder?
ETA2: Who'd the Packers use their 4th rounder on?[/quote]

AAAHHH! The salt! It stings!

YW

[Gold Storm]

This is a lose lose for Rodgers, he will either take the place of a legend and pissoff some fans or spend another year ridding the bench. If I was Rodgers, I would be mad, this was supposed to be his year and team, and now that's all up in the air and he is getting more pressure from an are that he thought that he would not get pressure from.

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='Gold Storm' post='1439965' date='Jul 14 2008, 22.19']This is a lose lose for Rodgers, he will either take the place of a legend and pissoff some fans or spend another year ridding the bench. If I was Rodgers, I would be mad, this was supposed to be his year and team, and now that's all up in the air and he is getting more pressure from an are that he thought that he would not get pressure from.[/quote]
Still probably a kinder fate than laboring under the shadow of Joe Montana and Steve Young, with an ownership turned to shit, behind a porous offensive line and no receiver support... I do wonder, a lot, about the Alex Smith/Aaron Rodgers debate from that draft year. Would he have done better than Smith?