Anybody notice this odd bit in Peter King's INSIDE THE NFL column today?
One: Say they accept Favre back, then try to trade him. They're going to get, what, a third-round pick from Tampa Bay or the New York Jets or Washington for him?
Just thought that was kind of weird. Do you really think the Redskins would consider bringing Favre in if it was an option? Or was King just rattling off random names?
It didn't really strike me as a random comment because both the Jets and Tampa seem like semi-realistic places for Favre if Green Bay were to trade him.
This is just a drive by comment. Guys like King throw the Skins name in the hat anytime they feel like it. Favre won't be released from GB and the Skins aren't going to abandon the development of JC on a whim to get an aging Favre. Random comment + no real chance of it happening = typical media bunk.
jeremyroyce wrote:I think the Redskins would atleast entertain the thought of trading for Favre.
Why would the Redskins entertain the thought of trading for Brett Favre?
They have Jason Campbell
They have one old fart in Todd Collins
They just drafted Zorn's guy in Colt Brennan
All three together are younger and cheaper than Favre.
And Campbell has to perform or get off the stage this season.
There is no way in hell Favre plays backup to anyone if he does play.
Pure puppy pate. Every agent that wants to get his client a raise or sports writer who has no mental capacity whatsoever lists the Redskins as interested in just about anyone and everyone.
Peter Kings credibility was non-existant years ago.
Answer... ol' Pete doesn't know ANYTHING that we don't (unless he can go back in time, and put Monk into the hall at least 5 years before Irvin.)
Nah... I'm not bitter... in the least.
Bottom line... King has nothing of value to contribute here. (BTW... if Zorn wanted an over-the-hill QB of Favre's quality... he'd probably just do it himself)
"That's a clown question, bro" - - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman "But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man That he didn't, didn't already have" - - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
PK is as lazy as they come in the field (which is sad because he used to be a must-read) but this strikes me as speculation, he's not reporting it as fact or even really couching it that way.
Bob 0119 wrote:He singled us out because of our history of selling out the farm for over the hill players. Never mind that that history is four years out of date.
Four years? Did you forget the Lloyd trade two years ago? Lloyd wasn't over the hill, but we sure gave up a lot to get him.
jeremyroyce wrote:I think the Redskins would atleast entertain the thought of trading for Favre.
Why would the Redskins entertain the thought of trading for Brett Favre? They have Jason Campbell They have one old fart in Todd Collins They just drafted Zorn's guy in Colt Brennan
All three together are younger and cheaper than Favre. And Campbell has to perform or get off the stage this season. There is no way in hell Favre plays backup to anyone if he does play.
You mean to tell me that you don't think that the Redskins would even think about it for a second? I'm not saying that the Redskins are going to go all out and try and make a trade for Brett Favre. I understand what you are saying about the QB'S that we have on our team but they are not no Brett Favre.
jeremyroyce wrote:I think the Redskins would atleast entertain the thought of trading for Favre.
Why would the Redskins entertain the thought of trading for Brett Favre? They have Jason Campbell They have one old fart in Todd Collins They just drafted Zorn's guy in Colt Brennan
All three together are younger and cheaper than Favre. And Campbell has to perform or get off the stage this season. There is no way in hell Favre plays backup to anyone if he does play.
You mean to tell me that you don't think that the Redskins would even think about it for a second? I'm not saying that the Redskins are going to go all out and try and make a trade for Brett Favre. I understand what you are saying about the QB'S that we have on our team but they are not no Brett Favre.
You don't build for tomorrow with a QB with such a short shelf life. If we were Indy or Pats missing a QB, then I would think to consider it, but we're not currently contenders IMO so I would vote no.
...any given Sunday....
RIP #21 Sean Taylor. You will be loved and adored by Redskins fans forever!!!!!
GSPODS:
The National Anthem sucks.
What a useless piece of propagandist rhetoric that is.
jeremyroyce wrote:I think the Redskins would atleast entertain the thought of trading for Favre.
Why would the Redskins entertain the thought of trading for Brett Favre? They have Jason Campbell They have one old fart in Todd Collins They just drafted Zorn's guy in Colt Brennan
All three together are younger and cheaper than Favre. And Campbell has to perform or get off the stage this season. There is no way in hell Favre plays backup to anyone if he does play.
You mean to tell me that you don't think that the Redskins would even think about it for a second? I'm not saying that the Redskins are going to go all out and try and make a trade for Brett Favre. I understand what you are saying about the QB'S that we have on our team but they are not no Brett Favre.
You don't build for tomorrow with a QB with such a short shelf life. If we were Indy or Pats missing a QB, then I would think to consider it, but we're not currently contenders IMO so I would vote no.
I would actually disagree with the fact that I think the Redskins are and will be contenders. I think the Redskins have a better team this year then last year and I do think the one team in our division thats going to give us problems are the Cowboys. I actually think the Cowboys are going to win our division and we will somehow get into the playoffs.
I doubt Favre is coming to the Skins. All though I do believe he will be traded. Not that the people of Green Bay want that. Its just that I think the front office wants to get something for Farve.
I dont see why they would let him go? He still has a couple years left in him. The way I see it , is you play until you cannot play anymore. Its obvious he still has some gas left in the tank.
Fios wrote:PK is as lazy as they come in the field (which is sad because he used to be a must-read) but this strikes me as speculation, he's not reporting it as fact or even really couching it that way.
Agreed on all points. Kind of sad to see how far he's fallen.
Any time I see him and an article on Favre, for instance, I know there will be a heck of a lot of fellatio going on.
bwdjr wrote:This would be a dope fein move.
CanesSkins26 wrote:Four years? Did you forget the Lloyd trade two years ago? Lloyd wasn't over the hill, but we sure gave up a lot to get him.
Damn, that was 2 years ago. And Lloyd was less of a bust than TJ Duckett, whom I think we gave up the same compensation (3rd and 4th), right?
I heard Mike and Mike in the morning yesterday and they were saying the same exact thing that the Skins could end up with Farve. Also naming a couple of other teams like Vikings, Ravens, Bills
4everskins wrote:I heard Mike and Mike in the morning yesterday and they were saying the same exact thing that the Skins could end up with Farve. Also naming a couple of other teams like Vikings, Ravens, Bills
I'm not sure Golic and Greenberg would be the first place I'd look for accurate inside information ... ESPN is usually way off-base.
The only way I see Brett Favre coming to the Redskins is if the team has already given up on Jason Campbell. I don't think that has happened yet.
IF Favre did come to the Redskins, he would start. There is no way Favre would play another year just to play backup. It also means someone on the current roster would get cut. Of Campbell, Collins and Brennan, Collins is the most likely cut. But the Redskins just paid him to stay. So, that is one more year of no production from Campbell AND one year closer to retirement for Collins, meaning the Redskins would need two or three quarterbacks next year. I don't see any of this as making any sense, especially since simply adding Favre isn't going to make the Redskins a lock for the SuperBowl.
"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
That's a decent article and all, but frankly, I think King's article was so clearly speculative (based on absolutely nothing at all factual) that to even respond was giving way more attention than it deserved. It'd be like wasting time addressing internet rumors (which I'm just making up right now) that the 'skins are in talks to bring Montana back. After all, didn't he appear in uniform in those commercials a few years back?!? Clearly, he wants to play again.
Bob 0119 wrote:He singled us out because of our history of selling out the farm for over the hill players. Never mind that that history is four years out of date.
Since when though? The Danny has made better decisions in recent years. It was 2000 and 2001 when we were signing the Jeff George's, Neon Deion's and Bruce Smith's of the world. Since then we've been more or less restrained. But Peter King never, ever says anything positive about the Skins.
By CHRIS JENKINS, AP Sports Writers
48 minutes ago
Brett Favre has asked the Packers to release him so he can return to the NFL with another team after apparently being told that his latest retirement reversal wasn't welcome news in Green Bay.
missing a QB, then I would think to consider it, but we're not currently contenders IMO so I would vote no.
