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

Fios wrote: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.

Is it? Let's examine the scenarios.

If he IS still a quality quarterback
- He's pretty certainly better then a guy who's never started an NFL game and they are buffoons for picking the zero experience guy over the quality HOF bound QB we are assuming is a great quarterback.
- OK, they get some minor points for not letting him go to the direct competition, but that is dwarfed by their stupidity for letting him go at all.

If he IS NOT still a quality quarterback
- Who cares who he goes to and in fact his going to the direct competitors sounds like a GOOD thing.

The Packers insistence he not go to a NFC East team to the point of including the clause if the Jets trade him to the Vikings they get 3 #1s in fact seems to be an admission of their own insecurity, arrogance and mishandling of the situation.

What are the odds that Aaron Rogers is going to be a quality QB this year much less down the line? Given the number of QBs who go to the NFL and the # who end up being even solid, reliable QBs the odds are not high given that he's never started a game and they have no real data to go on, only evaluation and conjecture.

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).

If he was a detriment to the team, but played good those 60 minutes every week, I would still definitely consider letting him go. Cohesion is a HUGE thing in the NFL, look at what T.O. did to the Eagles.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

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).

If he was a detriment to the team, but played good those 60 minutes every week, I would still definitely consider letting him go. Cohesion is a HUGE thing in the NFL, look at what T.O. did to the Eagles.

Why is T.O. getting the whole blame for what happened with the Eagles? The Eagles are no Angels in this situation. They had a part in this as well.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

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).

If he was a detriment to the team, but played good those 60 minutes every week, I would still definitely consider letting him go. Cohesion is a HUGE thing in the NFL, look at what T.O. did to the Eagles.

As a team Owner / President / General Manager / Head Coach, I don't want to look like the bad guy in the deal, because long after Brett Favre's actually retired people will be thinking twice about playing for my organization. I want Brett Favre to dig his own grave. I think the Packers did, too, just not with their organization and not in their division. I think the non-division issue was as much to do with the four games a year as anything else. I think the Packers wanted Favre as far away as possible. The AFC qualifies. Two different schools of thought. I can understand both. Getting him out of the team's hair immediately is appealing, but so is making him look like the ass instead of your front office.

T.O. only did what he did to the Eagles because Jeffrey Lurie is a dumb-ass. Donovan McNabb should not have been second fiddle to T.O. Now, T.O. is getting paid in Dallas on a winning team, and McNabb is still getting blamed in Philly. Another front office faux pas. The Redskins have had more than their fair share of those, so I'm not pointing any fingers.
If someone doesn't want to shut up and play, the precedence set by John Elway and a few others have made it possible for one player to disrupt the entire team. That doesn't mean those players should be catered to.
They should be benched without pay, as per the terms of the CBA.

VetSkinsFan wrote:
Quote:
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).


If he was a detriment to the team, but played good those 60 minutes every week, I would still definitely consider letting him go. Cohesion is a HUGE thing in the NFL, look at what T.O. did to the Eagles.

Why do you say "if?" Was he or wasn't he? I find the comparison between Brett "I want attention" Favre to T "classless human being" O ludicrous. If you're saying it "is" the same then explain. If you're not saying that it's a non-point.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

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).

If he was a detriment to the team, but played good those 60 minutes every week, I would still definitely consider letting him go. Cohesion is a HUGE thing in the NFL, look at what T.O. did to the Eagles.

Why do you say "if?" Was he or wasn't he? I find the comparison between Brett "I want attention" Favre to T "classless human being" O ludicrous. If you're saying it "is" the same then explain. If you're not saying that it's a non-point.

It is in the fact that they were both distractions. Was one different than the other? Yes, but they both were the cause of direct distress on their respective teams. I did not intend on singling out T.O. with 100% of the blame, but his halo was no where present during that time.

VetSkinsFan wrote:If he was a detriment to the team, but played good those 60 minutes every week, I would still definitely consider letting him go. Cohesion is a HUGE thing in the NFL, look at what T.O. did to the Eagles.

Here's a question, you have two scenarios:

- Every year it takes one or two months for your future HOF QB to decide if he's playing another year or not. Once he does, he plays his heart out for 16 games + playoffs not having missed a start since what, 1992?

- You dump the aforementioned HOF bound QB for a guy who no matter how high you are on has never started an NFL game.

Now, which is a bigger "detriment to the team?"

Also, how exactly did Brett cause a lack of "cohesion" on the Packers? Have you heard any of the players blast him? I haven't. TO, a WR attacked his quarterback. You see irritating management as the same? The team can't work together if one of the players is bothering management? If that were true the strikes and lockouts would have destroyed the NFL. Every time a player held out it would make the team less "cohesive." None of those things happen.

Are you really arguing that management did the best thing for the Packers? You're throwing out "ifs" and comparing him to TO without saying it's the same, just that they were both distractions. How does what Packer management did help the Packers as an organization?

Here's a question, you have two scenarios:

- Every year it takes one or two months for your future HOF QB to decide if he's playing another year or not. Once he does, he plays his heart out for 16 games + playoffs not having missed a start since what, 1992?

- You dump the aforementioned HOF bound QB for a guy who no matter how high you are on has never started an NFL game.

Now, which is a bigger "detriment to the team?"

He retired this year. The team moved on, Aaron Rogers was named the starter, THEN he changes his mind. This is not an isolated incident in the "The Days of Favre's Life." Yes, this year, I dump him.

Also, how exactly did Brett cause a lack of "cohesion" on the Packers? Have you heard any of the players blast him? I haven't. TO, a WR attacked his quarterback. You see irritating management as the same? The team can't work together if one of the players is bothering management? If that were true the strikes and lockouts would have destroyed the NFL. Every time a player held out it would make the team less "cohesive." None of those things happen.

Whatever is being built up with Aaron Rogers gets stripped away every year. Breaking down the confidence of the QB and the team due to the team not knowing wtf Favre's doing.

Are you really arguing that management did the best thing for the Packers?

Yes

You're throwing out "ifs" and comparing him to TO without saying it's the same, just that they were both distractions. How does what Packer management did help the Packers as an organization?

I'm saying that both sets of actions are similar. It helps them move on. The soap opera that is Favre is now done in the green and yellow and I, for one, am glad.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Are you really arguing that management did the best thing for the Packers?

Yes

Because it makes them a better team or a different reason? I MEANT does this make the Packers a better team. I realize I didn't define it which is why I'm coming back to do that. How on earth could this make them a better team and if it doesn't how on earth could it be the best thing for the Packers? This is a team that went 13-3 and almost went to the Super Bowl last year. Sure Favre's INT stopped them but he also won 14 games to get in the position to go. Now they have a QB who hasn't started a game, their prospects of SB this year are pretty much zero. And you think this is good for the Packers?

I honestly think Green Bay will be cursed for the next ten years for treating there legend like that.

The curse of the Farvino. Honestly why would you treat your all time greatest QB the way they did.

Yes he changed his mind a week before training camp. So what he is human and has a right to change his mind. Not to mention he is the freakin greatest QB in Packers history. The guy has had one losing season his whole career. He brought a SuperBowl to a franchise that had not seen one in thirty something years.

Aaron Rogers better be the next great one. Or else I think the people of Green Bay will burn the front office at the alter.

Here is to the curse of the Farvino!

HEROHAMO wrote:I honestly think Green Bay will be cursed for the next ten years for treating there legend like that.

The curse of the Farvino. Honestly why would you treat your all time greatest QB the way they did.

Yes he changed his mind a week before training camp. So what he is human and has a right to change his mind. Not to mention he is the freakin greatest QB in Packers history. The guy has had one losing season his whole career. He brought a SuperBowl to a franchise that had not seen one in thirty something years.

Aaron Rogers better be the next great one. Or else I think the people of Green Bay will burn the front office at the alter.

Here is to the curse of the Farvino!

What will the Packers/Jets/Farve fans think of the Redskins if Favre is injured next week

1niksder wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:I honestly think Green Bay will be cursed for the next ten years for treating there legend like that.

The curse of the Farvino. Honestly why would you treat your all time greatest QB the way they did.

Yes he changed his mind a week before training camp. So what he is human and has a right to change his mind. Not to mention he is the freakin greatest QB in Packers history. The guy has had one losing season his whole career. He brought a SuperBowl to a franchise that had not seen one in thirty something years.

Aaron Rogers better be the next great one. Or else I think the people of Green Bay will burn the front office at the alter.

Here is to the curse of the Farvino!

What will the Packers/Jets/Farve fans think of the Redskins if Favre is injured next week

Who cares what they think? If they aren't Redskins fans, they don't matter!

I am actually pulling for Brett to win his division. I hope he can at least split the meetings between the Patriots. Unlikely but still can be hoped for.

As far as the pre season game goes. I am looking out mostly for the rookies and to see what they can do. Our offense looks very sharp. Zorn has the Qbs on point.

Ok..I am happy most of you liked my first post and yes I do like to talk in the 3rd person so here is Scott Cacciatore on the J-E-T-S jets jets jets.

This was obviously a great trade for the Jets...the only way they can lose a 1st round pick is if they make it to the Super Bowl and I think they wouldnt mind giving up their 1st round pick for a Super Bowl trip. I have a feeling that Brett Favre is going to be very motivated to prove to the Packers that they made a big mistake letting him go. The Jets have really improved their team this season. They added Kris Jenkins who is in shape in camp and ready to have a pro bowl season. They added Woody and Faneca on the O-Line teaming up with 1st round picks Mangold and D Brick. They added Dustin Keller in the draft along with Bubba Franks. They added Calvin Pace and 1st round pick Vernon Gholston to rush the passer and 1st and 2nd round picks from last year David Harris and D Revis are future stars. They also have Kerry Rhodes who should be a pro bowl fixture for years. This is a very very talented team and the Patriots are older and have lost alot this offseason. The Jets almost beat them last year and now the Jets talent level is much higher. I have a feeling if Favre can learn the offense quick enough that the Jets are going to surprise everyone this year and win the AFC East. While the Pats have a very easy schedule, the Jets schedule is just as easy. Dont sleep on Jet Favre this year. Scott Cacciatore sees a Skins-Jets Super Bowl!! Hey why not..this is the NFL and as we saw last year..any team can win a Super Bowl.

I wanna know what scott is smokin and if we can get some here in my neck of the wood. We already have superbowl predictions before 1st cuts!!

VetSkinsFan wrote:I wanna know what scott is smokin and if we can get some here in my neck of the wood. We already have superbowl predictions before 1st cuts!!

Hey its a prediction who cares. I'm just glad that out of some predictions the Redskins are in there. I have Lindy's Football magazine and Athlon Football and the Redskins in both magazine are picked last. There is not way we will be in last place. You can bet on that. I like the prediction Redskins and Jets. That would be pretty sweet.