The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Cappster wrote:They cut Pennington because he made too much money.

that makes sense and ainge might not be a bad third guy

Cappster wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:We won't see Favre anymore (according to his contract) unless we meet the Jets in the superbowl. If he plays past his contract than I think we'll see him in 2011 since we just played the AFC East last year?

We might see him in preseason since we play the jets after Buffalo.

True dat, I forgot about that. I'm guessing they'd really need to play him too so he could get caught up?

The Jets (who, coincidentally, gave up 53 sacks last year, 4th worst in the NFL) are counting on the notion that, of the past three seasons for Favre, two of them were flukes and the most recent one was a truer measure of what he is capable of at this point in his career. Because if they get the Brett of '05 or '06 (47 INTs to 38 TDs, average passer rating of 72) they are going to regret having made this deal.

Fios wrote:The Jets (who, coincidentally, gave up 53 sacks last year, 4th worst in the NFL) are counting on the notion that, of the past three seasons for Favre, two of them were flukes and the most recent one was a truer measure of what he is capable of at this point in his career. Because if they get the Brett of '05 or '06 (47 INTs to 38 TDs, average passer rating of 72) they are going to regret having made this deal.

Right, Fios.

This trade reeks of dissapointment. After all the media-craziness we have seen for the past month, Favre comes with inmense pressure to perform.

I don´t believe anyone, not even the great Favre, can live up to the expectations they have for him in NY.

Every pass, every sack that´s his fault, every interception he throws, will be analyzed with microscopic precision. Teamm-meltdown seems very realistic at about week 8 of the regular season.

Oh, and one other thing: Favre was the guy who gave Michael Strahan that record-setting sack, so you already have half the NY media, the Pro-Giant outlets, against you. Not a good way to start out in a new town.

Fios wrote:The Jets (who, coincidentally, gave up 53 sacks last year, 4th worst in the NFL) are counting on the notion that, of the past three seasons for Favre, two of them were flukes and the most recent one was a truer measure of what he is capable of at this point in his career. Because if they get the Brett of '05 or '06 (47 INTs to 38 TDs, average passer rating of 72) they are going to regret having made this deal.

good point. as great as favre is he can be just as bad. as easily as he can win you a game he can lose it for you. and with a bad o-line even with faneca if he gets beat up, he might just not like feel like playing by the 8th-10th game. he retired for a reason; maybe he was sick of getting hit all the time but after a while off his body feels better and he thinks he can take all the hits but he'll feel the same thing again when he comes back

langleyparkjoe wrote:Yea man, pretty much it was Favre who was doing all the beefing. He cried saying he wanted to retire, changed his mind and tried to put it on the Packers; that's not cool. He expects them to say "ok Bret, its yours again but can you give us a year notice when you REALLY retire for the 4th time"?

Did you ever stop to think that the Packers forced him to retire? You know whats really interesting is that nobody is talking about when the Packers hired McCarthy Favre was going to happily retire THEN. However Ted Thompson got on his knees and begged Favre to come to the Packers and continue his career and so Favre did Thompson a favor. Its very interesting when the team holds a press conference that Favre is going to retire before Favre announces his retirement. The writing is on the wall man the Packers made it clear that they were done with him. Favre is not the problem its the Packers. The Packers lied to Favre, and the other thing you don't ask a player right after the season, are you going to retire. Favre needs time to talk it over with his family. I'm sorry but I have been following this story so close and I am really pissed at the Packers, I will promise you that the Packers will regret trading Brett Favre.

jeremyroyce wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Yea man, pretty much it was Favre who was doing all the beefing. He cried saying he wanted to retire, changed his mind and tried to put it on the Packers; that's not cool. He expects them to say "ok Bret, its yours again but can you give us a year notice when you REALLY retire for the 4th time"?

Did you ever stop to think that the Packers forced him to retire? You know whats really interesting is that nobody is talking about when the Packers hired McCarthy Favre was going to happily retire THEN. However Ted Thompson got on his knees and begged Favre to come to the Packers and continue his career and so Favre did Thompson a favor. Its very interesting when the team holds a press conference that Favre is going to retire before Favre announces his retirement. The writing is on the wall man the Packers made it clear that they were done with him. Favre is not the problem its the Packers. The Packers lied to Favre, and the other thing you don't ask a player right after the season, are you going to retire. Favre needs time to talk it over with his family. I'm sorry but I have been following this story so close and I am really pissed at the Packers, I will promise you that the Packers will regret trading Brett Favre.

That is absolutely insane ... and you've got some of your "facts" wrong

Fios wrote:The Jets (who, coincidentally, gave up 53 sacks last year, 4th worst in the NFL) are counting on the notion that, of the past three seasons for Favre, two of them were flukes and the most recent one was a truer measure of what he is capable of at this point in his career. Because if they get the Brett of '05 or '06 (47 INTs to 38 TDs, average passer rating of 72) they are going to regret having made this deal.

Well, keep in mind too that the Jets signed guard Alan Faneca and tackle Damien Woody this off season.

Also, I do recall hearing a lot of talk before this past year (the o7 season) that GB had been a young team that was just starting to get on a roll at the end of the 06 season. Looking at the team's statistics and Favre's statistics on profootball reference, I have to conclude that last year was a bit more than just a fluke.

Even watching him play last year (I think I saw something lke 5-6 games, between the NFC East matchups, Thanksgiving, and the playoffs) convinced me that he was still a legit player. Just my opinion, though.

hell yes they'll regret it!if they stink up the place like they did in 2006,thompson and mccarthy's ass is gonna be on the chopping block.aaron rodgers is gonna want to leave green bay so fast his head will swim.i'd hate to go down in history as the man who traded brett favre.

This entire thread is insane.
Truly, why does anyone care?
Doesn't the entire subject make people want to vomit? It does me.
The Redskins don't even play the Packers or the Jets this season.
Please, for the love of all that is pure and sacred in the universe, let this thread die.

the skins play them in preseason,not that it matters.i just hated to see a 1st ballott HOFer get teated like crap!

Irn-Bru wrote:

Fios wrote:The Jets (who, coincidentally, gave up 53 sacks last year, 4th worst in the NFL) are counting on the notion that, of the past three seasons for Favre, two of them were flukes and the most recent one was a truer measure of what he is capable of at this point in his career. Because if they get the Brett of '05 or '06 (47 INTs to 38 TDs, average passer rating of 72) they are going to regret having made this deal.

Well, keep in mind too that the Jets signed guard Alan Faneca and tackle Damien Woody this off season.

Also, I do recall hearing a lot of talk before this past year (the o7 season) that GB had been a young team that was just starting to get on a roll at the end of the 06 season. Looking at the team's statistics and Favre's statistics on profootball reference, I have to conclude that last year was a bit more than just a fluke.

Even watching him play last year (I think I saw something lke 5-6 games, between the NFC East matchups, Thanksgiving, and the playoffs) convinced me that he was still a legit player. Just my opinion, though.

As good as he looked last year -- and I agree he looked pretty damn good -- he looked equally horrible the preceding two seasons. I lived with a Packers fan for those two years, so we'd catch games when we could, it wasn't simply a question of youth or inexperience. Favre was making bad reads and awful throws. I did not know they had signed Faneca and Woody but, even if that cuts those sacks in half, that's still a precarious arrangement. Plus, Woody developed a bad rap last year for weight and health issues ... that may be a function of playing for a depressing franchise like the Lions but it's a bit of a red flag. This is not stunning news but if you go back through his career, his performance is very much relative to his ability to stay upright.
I still think the odds are against the Jets here ... I just can't see the Jets running 5 receiver sets and their running game is a middle-of-the-pack attack, it's not going to be enough to keep Favre upright, IMO. I think teams are just going to pin their ears back and come after Favre. I think ultimately the pressure will force him into bad decisions and we'll all be left thinking that he should have stayed retired.

skinsfan1963 wrote:the skins play them in preseason,not that it matters.i just hated to see a 1st ballott HOFer get teated like crap!

Oh, you mean like Art Monk?

Come on. Yes, Favre is a good player but he's been around long enough to break most records by default. The only one left is George Blanda's age record and Favre will try to break that, too, if any team let's him play long enough. He's going to have to be told, "You don't have it anymore and nobody wants you" to get him to stay retired. As long as someone will pay him and the advertising dollars are there, he will keep playing these games both during the season and during the off-season. And the rest of the sports fans will be made to suffer by the likes of ESPN.

Update... the New York Bretts are tied with the Cleveland Browns 7-7 in the second quarter.

Fios wrote:The Jets (who, coincidentally, gave up 53 sacks last year, 4th worst in the NFL) are counting on the notion that, of the past three seasons for Favre, two of them were flukes and the most recent one was a truer measure of what he is capable of at this point in his career. Because if they get the Brett of '05 or '06 (47 INTs to 38 TDs, average passer rating of 72) they are going to regret having made this deal.

and it was our guy that picked off Fah-vray's pass to give him the most ints record

RayNAustin wrote:The important point no one is discussing is the impact of the trade itself on the Packers/Packer fans.

If I were a Packer fan, I'd be totally pissed off. How do you trade Favre after the career he;s had there, including just a play or two away from the Super Bowl last season? Especially since they have no "proven" replacement for him. It's not like he lost his starting job to a better player.

It just seems to me that the FO in Green Bay are smoking some wild stuff up there, and they are going to be hated by the fans, and crucified by the media if Rogers doesn't play like.....Brett Favre. It's a no win situation, because Rogers is unproven, yet the Packers are a legit contender.

Say what you will about Favre, but he could have left Green Bay anytime he wanted to over all these years. It just seems like the Franchise played this the wrong way....

I can only imagine what we'd be saying about Snyder if Favre was a Redskin all-time great.

I keep wondering this as well. I've heard a few background comments, but the most amazing part to me is, "Hello, Packers, you want Aaron Rogers who's never started a game over Brett Favre? Have you lost your ever loving mind? Have you gone completely insane? What is wrong with you!!!!"

And he's only 38, I believe he'll turn 39 shortly. That's not THAT old and as you pointed out he's not playing like it is that old. He had a great year last year until he froze (literally) in the sub zero weather. The Packers are just retarded. I totally agree the annual "is Brett playing next year" has to get old. But for Brett Favre it's worth it. It's not like an annual Chad Pennington vigil. There are good starting NFL QBs, but there aren't 32 of them. Here we're talking about one of the greatest ever. You just keep hoping for one more year and deal with it when the end comes. There will always be someone who hasn't started an NFL game you can try out when the end does come.

Irn-Bru wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:The important point no one is discussing is the impact of the trade itself on the Packers/Packer fans.

If I were a Packer fan, I'd be totally pissed off. How do you trade Favre after the career he;s had there, including just a play or two away from the Super Bowl last season? Especially since they have no "proven" replacement for him. It's not like he lost his starting job to a better player.

I thought I had heard that the last report was Favre was unhappy with an open competition for the QB starting job.

I think this is one of those statements that's literally true but misses some of the connotation. I think what he was upset about was them saying "No," then sort of backhandedly saying OK, you can TRY OUT for the job. I agree with him that attitude was there based on what I heard. I didn't take it that the job was competitive that was the issue so much as the "we don't want you but if you insist you can try out for it" was.

Now I'm not arguing that he shouldn't have said "Fine, I'll come in and win it," I'm just saying that his not wanting to compete for the job, period, doesn't really capture his issue. Again I'm explaining how I saw it, not arguing he was right.

Fios wrote:The Jets (who, coincidentally, gave up 53 sacks last year, 4th worst in the NFL) are counting on the notion that, of the past three seasons for Favre, two of them were flukes and the most recent one was a truer measure of what he is capable of at this point in his career. Because if they get the Brett of '05 or '06 (47 INTs to 38 TDs, average passer rating of 72) they are going to regret having made this deal.

Here's the thing having lived in the NY area most of the last decade. Pennington's a roll of the dice too and everyone there knows that. Agreed that Favre is as well, but given the tiered deal I really can't see it as a worse gamble then Pennington. And at least Favre has started 10,000 games in a row. For Pennington you have the gamble if he'll be healthy enough to play and then the gamble if he'll suck when he does. But Pennington when healthy and not sucking can be a great QB, no doubt about it.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:The important point no one is discussing is the impact of the trade itself on the Packers/Packer fans.

If I were a Packer fan, I'd be totally pissed off. How do you trade Favre after the career he;s had there, including just a play or two away from the Super Bowl last season? Especially since they have no "proven" replacement for him. It's not like he lost his starting job to a better player.

I thought I had heard that the last report was Favre was unhappy with an open competition for the QB starting job.

I think this is one of those statements that's literally true but misses some of the connotation. I think what he was upset about was them saying "No," then sort of backhandedly saying OK, you can TRY OUT for the job. I agree with him that attitude was there based on what I heard. I didn't take it that the job was competitive that was the issue so much as the "we don't want you but if you insist you can try out for it" was.

Now I'm not arguing that he shouldn't have said "Fine, I'll come in and win it," I'm just saying that his not wanting to compete for the job, period, doesn't really capture his issue. Again I'm explaining how I saw it, not arguing he was right.

I can see it form both sides. From Favre's side, he's thinking "look at the year I had.. why would you even question me?!"

On the other side of the fence (which is where I'm sitting) is the drama ain't worth it. Granted, the Pack may never have anyone of his caliber in our lifetimes, but the soap opera has got to stop. It's distracting for the team, the coaching staff, but more importantly, for Aaron Rogers. If he's supposed to take the reigns when Favre finally spllits, this every off season waiting game has got to get old and wear on his confidence. The FO finally got tored of 'The Days of Favre's Life' and moved on and I commend the FO reaching down, grabbing their sack, and making that call!

VetSkinsFan wrote:On the other side of the fence (which is where I'm sitting) is the drama ain't worth it. Granted, the Pack may never have anyone of his caliber in our lifetimes, but the soap opera has got to stop. It's distracting for the team, the coaching staff, but more importantly, for Aaron Rogers. If he's supposed to take the reigns when Favre finally spllits, this every off season waiting game has got to get old and wear on his confidence. The FO finally got tored of 'The Days of Favre's Life' and moved on and I commend the FO reaching down, grabbing their sack, and making that call!

Keep in mind the Packers ALWAYS had the power to end it. They could have cut him at any time and had no Brett, no drama, no controversy. The drama was because they did not want to cut Brett, they wanted him to retire, then they wanted compensation for him and they didn't want him to play for a rival. Odd given they were saying he couldn't start for them. If their assessment was he wasn't the answer, wouldn't they WANT him to play for a rival?

BTW, no doubt Brett's been a prima donna through this and each and every year in the past. The thing I disagree with you on though is that he's not worth it. Even good QBs are so hard to find. SF was spoiled for so long on Montana then Young and how long have they been in the wilderness since they both retired? How long have we been in the wilderness since we've had a reliable starting QB we could count on year after year? Then you ratchet that up to one of the great all times. I'd rather deal with a prima donna ego then suck for 15 years as happens so often when teams that forget what it's like trying to find even just a good, reliable quarterback is like.

Cutting Favre was never a good option for the Packers, they had to control his destination, seeing him wind up with the Vikings (which is where he would have gone) would have been the worst possible outcome for them.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:On the other side of the fence (which is where I'm sitting) is the drama ain't worth it. Granted, the Pack may never have anyone of his caliber in our lifetimes, but the soap opera has got to stop. It's distracting for the team, the coaching staff, but more importantly, for Aaron Rogers. If he's supposed to take the reigns when Favre finally spllits, this every off season waiting game has got to get old and wear on his confidence. The FO finally got tored of 'The Days of Favre's Life' and moved on and I commend the FO reaching down, grabbing their sack, and making that call!

Keep in mind the Packers ALWAYS had the power to end it. They could have cut him at any time and had no Brett, no drama, no controversy. The drama was because they did not want to cut Brett, they wanted him to retire, then they wanted compensation for him and they didn't want him to play for a rival. Odd given they were saying he couldn't start for them. If their assessment was he wasn't the answer, wouldn't they WANT him to play for a rival?

BTW, no doubt Brett's been a prima donna through this and each and every year in the past. The thing I disagree with you on though is that he's not worth it. Even good QBs are so hard to find. SF was spoiled for so long on Montana then Young and how long have they been in the wilderness since they both retired? How long have we been in the wilderness since we've had a reliable starting QB we could count on year after year? Then you ratchet that up to one of the great all times. I'd rather deal with a prima donna ego then suck for 15 years as happens so often when teams that forget what it's like trying to find even just a good, reliable quarterback is like.

If you're not careful, though, this will destroy the respect a team has for hte FO and coach. They see Favre getting away with it and then more boundaries are tested. Not that it definitely would have went that way, but it's a quite possible scenario. I guess my PoV comes form my hard nosed military experience....

Fios wrote:

jeremyroyce wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Yea man, pretty much it was Favre who was doing all the beefing. He cried saying he wanted to retire, changed his mind and tried to put it on the Packers; that's not cool. He expects them to say "ok Bret, its yours again but can you give us a year notice when you REALLY retire for the 4th time"?

Did you ever stop to think that the Packers forced him to retire? You know whats really interesting is that nobody is talking about when the Packers hired McCarthy Favre was going to happily retire THEN. However Ted Thompson got on his knees and begged Favre to come to the Packers and continue his career and so Favre did Thompson a favor. Its very interesting when the team holds a press conference that Favre is going to retire before Favre announces his retirement. The writing is on the wall man the Packers made it clear that they were done with him. Favre is not the problem its the Packers. The Packers lied to Favre, and the other thing you don't ask a player right after the season, are you going to retire. Favre needs time to talk it over with his family. I'm sorry but I have been following this story so close and I am really pissed at the Packers, I will promise you that the Packers will regret trading Brett Favre.

That is absolutely insane ... and you've got some of your "facts" wrong

Oh really? You had your chance to challenge me on this Brett Favre thing and I think it amazing that you could only come up with that That is absolutely insane, and that I have some of my facts wrong when its been well known the facts that I stated are true. You need to get YOUR facts straight before you make an insane remark to me. Listen man just because I'm not on the staff doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. You don't know anything about this because if you did you would have backed up your statement, and don't try and tell me now because if you did I wouldn't believe you. And this article that you had me read thats one writer over a dozen that I have listened to speak on this and not only writers but people in the studio speak on this issue thats alot more knowledgeable about this then I am or you are. Thankyou for the article but its pure garbage

Quick Thoughts:

If the Packers had been through as many Quarterbacks as the Redskins have in the last decade, they would never let Brett Favre go, regardless of the reason(s).

Football Front Offices love to use the phrase, "So and So gives us the best chance to win." Brett Favre gives the Packers the best chance to win, so there has to be something beyond the usual, "We want to go in a different direction" because the only direction the Packers are going in now is backwards.

Favre probably said "If I'm not starting, then trade me." Thompson probably said, "I make the decisions around here." Favre probably said, "The Packers owe me." Thompson probably said, "We owe you nothing." Favre probably said, "And that's what you'll get from me. Nothing." And then there was a trade to the Jets.

One big whizzing contest with no winners, just whiners.

Please, Sports Gods, give us something else, anything else to discuss.

VetSkinsFan wrote:If you're not careful, though, this will destroy the respect a team has for hte FO and coach

Well, it's hard to imagine having any less respect for them then the way they played it. But supposed they "lived with" the annual "will he play next year or not" drama. Was that really so bad for management? I mean sure, they'd like to know sooner. But does it really "destroy the respect a team has for the FO and coach" for them to find out at the end of each year whether they have a HOF bound QB or they are starting over?