Ted Thompson plays hard ball

Ted Thompson hasn't ruled out the possibility of Brett Favre playing for the Green Bay Packers this season, but in what he described as a messy situation the general manager remained loyal to Aaron Rodgers as the team's starting quarterback.
-- Tom Silverstein, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

And people say Brett Favre doesn't like this guy! Thompson sounds like quite the charmer.

If you had "benched for an inferior player" in your "How does Favre's consecutive game streak end?" pool, you might be in for some big bucks.

But although this is the way the story is being reported, let's not take it seriously for a minute. There is absolutely no way Favre comes back as a back-up for Aaron Rodgers. That's just silly.

So what's the point of this? To show Brett who has the hammer. And maybe, if they are exploring the possibility of trading Rodgers, it keeps his value up, at least a little. From Favre's point of view, it gives him the opportunity to say, "I'm still a good guy, I'll do what's best for the team." I'm sure his agent will play that card today or tomorrow. Even if Favre wants to be on another team, he has to do some rehab to his reputation. "Aw shucks I just wanna play football, I'll play linebacker if they need me to do that" is what everyone wants to hear.

But this may work itself out before too long anyway. Rodgers has made Nick Johnson look like Lou Gehrig, with a broken foot in 2006 and a pulled hamstring in 2007. Remember, this guy has never started a game. He's had 59 attempts in four years, almost half of those coming in the Cowboys game, and he's been hurt twice. (Both times oddly coming in weeks after Favre got hurt and was doubtful the following week.)

Would anyone be surprised if the Packers start training camp with Favre and Rodgers "sharing reps," but then Rodgers goes down with a strained oblique or a tweaked groin or Nintendo thumb? Then Peter King can do his huzzahs to the Iron Man and we won't have to hear about Rodgers again until next spring.

Not that I hate Rodgers or anything -- I really don't. I was "on board" when Favre was retired. But if my choice is the grizzle or the 'stache, I'll take the grizzle.

What to do about Brett

For the third straight season, Brett Favre has toyed with the emotions of Packer fans everywhere. Oh, Brett. I don't know how to quit you!

So, what to do in 2008? Frankly, I don't understand this argument that the Packers "owe" the starting job to Aaron Rodgers. Why do we owe anything to A-Rodge? He made a hell of a lot more money than I have since 2005, and we've started the same number of games. As I recall, some people thought Rodgers might go No. 1 in the 2005 draft, other mock drafts had him going anywhere from No. 3 to No. 5 to No. 8. Instead, after a few awkward hours of standing there like the kid picked last in kickball, he went 24th to the Packers. After three years of standing around in a baseball cap (when he wasn't on the trainer's table) and one good relief appearance in a blowout against the Cowboys last year, and now we owe him... what, exactly? Somehow more than we owe Favre?

Also, Aaron's comment about Packer fans -- "I don't think I need to sell myself to the fans. They need to get on board now or keep their mouths shut" -- didn't earn him a lot of points, either.

But then there's Favre. He obviously wants to play in the NFL for one more season (at least). But does he really want to be in Green Bay? Or has this been his plan all along, to retire and then unretire as a free agent?

There's two possibilities:

1) Brett wants out of Green Bay and nothing the Packers will do or say will get him to stay and be happy.

2) Brett will come back to the Packers, in which case you have to say screw Aaron Rodgers.

Let's explore Option 1. Can we all agree that in a Favre-less NFL, the Packers are the favorites to repeat as NFC North champs? Yes, we don't know what we have with Rodgers as our QB, but we know the Lions have Jon Kitna, the Bears have Rex Grossman and the Vikings have Tarvaris Jackson. All three of those guys had more INTs than TDs last year.

But if you put Favre on the Bears -- with Devin Hester and their defense -- and they're the division champs. Put him on the Vikings with Adrian Peterson, and they are. (You'd have to get the 1996 version of Favre to help the Lions.)

So I don't see how you let Favre just walk. He's a valuable commodity, first off, and secondly if you let him walk he very likely walks to a rival and maybe takes the NFC North title with him. If it's Option 1 and Brett won't come back, you have to trade him -- the Jets, the Texans, the Panthers, wherever. Favre has a no-trade clause, but the Packers have the hammer -- either agree to the trade, report to Packer camp, or stay retired.

If it's Option 2, and Favre can be convinced to stay in Green Bay for one more season, the answer is obvious: You trade Rodgers.

He's in the fourth year of a five-year contract, so if you bench him in 2008 to sit behind Favre, you figure he's going to be pissed -- and will walk after the 2009 season.

On the other hand, the Packers just drafted Brian Brohm, a guy some people thought would have been the first pick overall if he came out as a junior in 2007. Instead he stays an extra year in college and goes in the second round to the Pack. Now he gets a year of sitting behind Brett and gets thrown into the fire in 2009. Is there any evidence to suggest he'll be that much worse than Rodgers anyway?

Option 2: Favre starts, Brohm learns, Rodgers goes.

Here's hoping.