Should the Redskins take a run at Favre?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

That's an "if" so big it's not even worth discussing on a hypothetical level. You can't look at it that way. You're approaching a cost/benefit analysis as if the benefit is already in hand.

You have to evaluate the chances you'll gain said benefit against the chances you'll end up with said costs. The costs are high (Campbell's development, confidence) and the chances of said benefit (Super Bowl) are infinetesimal.

Brett Favre in recent "first years" in a new offensive system:

Mike Sherman, 2000
3812 yards, 20 TDs, 16 INTs, 58.3%, 78.0 QB rating

Mike McCarthy, 2006
3885 yards, 18 TD, 18 INT, 56.0%, 72.7 QB rating

Average performance. In a new system, the QB HARDLY EVER has a great season. Why do so many on this site want to just ignore this hard fact?? If our QB, whether Favre or Campbell or GTripp for crying out loud, has a high chance of having a rough season, why make it a guy who's likely to retire in one year when you could have the guy who needs to learn do it?

I can't believe this conversation is actually taking place. Maybe you mods are just trying to stir up some real conversation since we've been so lacking of it recently. But jeez, it's like you guys have lost your minds.

To be clear, I don't want him here and I undoubtedly realize it's a huge "if" that he'd win us a Super Bowl. However, it's not often a Brett Favre becomes potentially available so the question is probably worth asking and I was simply asking what the "opportunity cost" of winning a SB now would be for everyone.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Besides, the biggest point in all of this...

The Packers say they will not release Brett Favre. That means you can trade for him, or he won't be on your team. If people start suggesting we actually trade for him, please turn in your fan license.

Yeah, I was considering going on a big rant about the shortsightedness of signing him, the negative long-term financial impact on the team, the affect on Campbell, etc, etc...

But the fact that he's due $39M the next three years and won't be released means we'd not only have to give too steep a price to get him, but we'd also have to eat his contract. And he's 39. No way. Rolling the dice on the (way way) off chance that he'd lead us to a Super Bowl with a rookie head coach would be foolish. Plus it would send the wrong message to a good core of players.

To answer your question SS, the opportunity cost I would expend to win one Super Bowl is pretty high. It's a Super Bowl. There are a bunch of teams out there that have NEVER tasted it. It's damn near priceless. If we were a team that was right there, on the cusp, everything in place, and just needed an extra bump up at QB, you know, that "one missing piece" type of scenario... then MAYBE I trade for a Favre. But we've got a rookie head coach, some new assistants, and few question marks on Def, Off, and ST. IMO, the chances are much greater Favre would be a wrench in the gears of our plans/goals beyond 2008 than he would be a Super Bowl champ as a Redskin.

[Rajmahal33]

The way i look at it is...

Can Brett Favre do with the 08 Redskins what he did with the 07 Packers?
If so then it is a no brainer that we should try to get him here for a short term deal with numbers that make sense...

The NFC east is a much a tougher division, so getting to a SB with that competition will be tougher: Adv. - 07 Packers

The Redskins have a better Offensive line that if healthy could provide a veteran like Brett Favre with more time than he needs...This year <knock on wood> we should be healthier and the unit should be the strength of our team: Adv - 08 Skins

The Skins have a slightly better defense that would have been better in 07 had they had a more consistent offense. It is centered around controlling time of possession which ,for the most part, Favre-led offenses usually dominate.: Slight Adv - 08 Skins

The Skins specialty players are as a group more talented than the packers (Portis, Cooley, Moss, ARE, a solid core of young WR). If Brett can do what he did last year with a bunch of inexperienced WR's, then with a solid running game and WR's out the wazoo he can be a surgeon. Imagine Favre to Cooley it strikes up memories of Favre to Chmura - Adv. - 08 Skins


Of the 7 games the Skins lost in 07, 5 of them were decided by 7 points or less. The skins allowed 19.4 ppg and scored 20.7. Brett's packers scored 27.2 ppg (2nd in the NFL). If you say that adding Favre (over JC in 08) may give you an extra TD in a game, it could potentially result in the difference between a mediocre season and a dominating one. Not to knock JC but if we had a QB last year (or any year in recent memory) with a 90+ QB rating like Favre had, we could have very well won the whole thing - Adv. - 08 Skins

I realize this is a highly hypothetical scenario but my point is that the skins needed any help they could get on offense last year and even the slightest improvement would have been a difference maker. Still winning a SB is a huge long shot every season and you always take the chances of the field over any given team. Picking up Favre over JC would mortgage our future and it would prove that as an organization we haven't learned from the mistakes of our past. As scary as #4 would look in burgundy and gold, I would have to pass.

[Daseal]

Schneed -- Teams say lots of things. The Packers are able to cut him and not pay 12.5 Mil for a backup QB. They're bluffing hoping he stays retired. If he comes back, they may attempt a trade to keep him out of the division.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Daseal

GTripp, I disagree greatly. Favre is better than 90% of all QBs in this league, even at his age. But to say few places would let him start? MN, Chicago, Tampa, Carolina (depending on Delhomme health, but hes better than Delhomme if both are healthy), Miami, Baltimore, Atlanta, San Fran are all places I could see him waltz in as the starter.

I fully expect him to be released so he's going to take the best situation for him. GB is bluffing saying they'd accept him as a backup. They won't pay him 12.5Mil to sit on the bench.

I think that you are basing your opinion off of only his 2007 season, which is a mistake, IMO.

A player is never really as good as his best season in recent memory (That's free fantasy advice if anyone is thinking about grabbing Brady with one of the first three picks).

Favre is going to be 39 years old in October, and the track record of guys who had reasonable success after that age is limited to George Blanda...who really wasnt all that good throughout his career anyway.

Even supposing that Brett Favre was on the free market right now, I think he'd be the 3rd best QB available (with Culpepper and Leftwich more valuable). My only pro Favre point -- that if he said specifically that he wanted to be a Redskin, I would listen to his contract demands, still holds true.

I think it's buyer beware on Favre, and the Packers as an organization since Ted Thompson took over have been one of the very best organizations in the entire league, and they are handling this the right way.

With Culpepper and Leftwich unable to find a job right now, it's really clear that there is no market for Favre's services. I think all the teams you named Daseal, wouldn't be any worse off with Favre at QB than the guy they currently have. But by this point in the season every GM in the league is convinced that his guy is the next big think at QB, be it Grossman/Orton, Shaun Hill/Alex Smith, Tavaris Jackson, Jake Delhomme, John Beck/Josh McCown, Jeff Garcia/Luke McCown or whoever all NFL personnel guys are too arrogant to think that the players they have worked so hard to acquire might not be as good as a 39yr old Brett Favre.

Therefore, no market for Favre's services, so he's going to have to be a backup somewhere if he wants to play again.

I say, if he wants to come in here and compete, why the heck not? Just don't get into a bidding war for a player we clearly don't need.

[GTripp0012]

I think that ultimately, once Favre sees that no one in any other organization will bend over and kiss his feet to get him to come play for them, he's not actually going to come back.

I also don't think he has any desire to compete for the Redskins' QB job compared to any other team.

So that makes all my points (and most of anyone elses) purely hypothetical. The guy wants to play, but probably not bad enough to be a backup...end of discussion.

[MTK]

Gtripp, you really don't think there's a market for Favre as a starter??

I really don't see where scrubs like Culpepper and Leftwich play into this.

I think there's a handful of teams that would gladly plug him in as their starter. If you want to take a shot at winning it all this year, Favre is your guy.

[724Skinsfan]

Don't forget that it's fairly possible that a starting QB will get injured during pre-season. At that point, I can see Favre's stock shoot straight to the top. I guess I still don't want him even if Campbell were to get injured primarily because of salary concerns.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Schneed -- Teams say lots of things. The Packers are able to cut him and not pay 12.5 Mil for a backup QB. They're bluffing hoping he stays retired. If he comes back, they may attempt a trade to keep him out of the division.

Why would they care about his salary?

1) If he doesn't play for them, they don't have to pay him $12.5 million.

2) That is not a team hurting for money. So even if he does come back and play, there are no budget constraints, and there's no salary cap problem. What, is the team going to somehow put that $12.5 million in cap space to other good use at this point? Who exactly are they going to go out and sign with all that space? Vinny Testaverde?

His pay is a non issue to the Packers.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Don't forget that it's fairly possible that a starting QB will get injured during pre-season. At that point, I can see Favre's stock shoot straight to the top. I guess I still don't want him even if Campbell were to get injured primarily because of salary concerns.

If the Pack actually released him, and he stayed on the market long enough to see Campbell tear an ACL in camp, then I'd say go for it. But that's so ridiculous because the Pack is saying they won't release him, and he's due to be paid $12.5 million this season. So trading for him is an IMPOSSIBILITY for us given we have about $3.6 million in space to play with.

[diehardskin2982]

I see him going back to Atlanta

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

I see him going back to Atlanta

That would actually be pretty cool, but I think even with Favre they'd be around a 6 win team. If he signs with the likes of Miami, Atlanta, or KC it will be pretty obvious his sole motivation is money.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[smoot27]

Originally Posted by Daseal

NFL Radio has brought this up a lot. There are a lot of connections that could lead someone to see Favre here. The type of West Coast system we'll be running is one Favre has seen a lot since it's going to basically be just like the Holmgren system.

Secondly, we don't have an entrenched QB. Not only is Jason Campbell still young and fairly unproven. But he's also not Zorn's "guy." While Zorn may like his future, he's not attached to him like coaches that use first round picks on QBs typically are.

Finally, we're a playoff team with a decent amount of talent. Favre will be looking for someone that has a chance.

Anyhow, Im torn on the issue. Favre is better than Jason Campbell, and it is a new offense for the young guy (yet again) letting him get a grasp on the playbook for a year or two. At the same time, I'm kinda ready for the Jason Campbell era. Time to see him sink or swim. If we go after him, I'll support the decision. If we don't, then I won't be upset in the least. Just trying to say, there are many reasons why Favre could at least be rumored to show up in DC.

Amen.

Thats the thing i'm trying to say also, Zorn likes JC but also likes Brennan 2 X's better. However Zorn does wan't to find JC to stay here and Favre make JC that ultamate weapon. If not JC than Favre and Zorn can work on Brennan for sure.

I don't want to sound like an peice of crap but JC is 26 now and Brannan could probably out play JC and Brannan is 24 years younger.

Back to my point have JC benched for one year and maybe actully have an pro-bowl year cause again Zorn said he is gonna run the ball"Alot" which means the passing is still not close to being great. While we get Favre it could speed things up and teach JC alot i mean alot say this would ruin JC progress but how? JC would be 27 while Romo was on bench for 2 years and ended up an pro-bowler.

I say Yes to Favre for one year, i mean to be honest our O sounds bad (besides Portis) every time an interview with Zorn he always saids" the D stop the skins all the time in the goal line and int alot of passes. I mean is our O gonna be good? or is the D just ruthless.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by smoot27

Amen.

Thats the thing i'm trying to say also, Zorn likes JC but also likes Brennan 2 X's better. However Zorn does wan't to find JC to stay here and Favre make JC that ultamate weapon. If not JC than Favre and Zorn can work on Brennan for sure.

I don't want to sound like an peice of crap but JC is 26 now and Brannan could probably out play JC and Brannan is 24 years younger.

Back to my point have JC benched for one year and maybe actully have an pro-bowl year cause again Zorn said he is gonna run the ball"Alot" which means the passing is still not close to being great. While we get Favre it could speed things up and teach JC alot i mean alot say this would ruin JC progress but how? JC would be 27 while Romo was on bench for 2 years and ended up an pro-bowler.

I say Yes to Favre for one year, i mean to be honest our O sounds bad (besides Portis) every time an interview with Zorn he always saids" the D stop the skins all the time in the goal line and int alot of passes. I mean is our O gonna be good? or is the D just ruthless.

Brannan (or Brennan) is 24 years younger than Campbell? Wow!

I really don't know what Favre will teach Campbell

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by smoot27

Amen.

Thats the thing i'm trying to say also, Zorn likes JC but also likes Brennan 2 X's better. However Zorn does wan't to find JC to stay here and Favre make JC that ultamate weapon. If not JC than Favre and Zorn can work on Brennan for sure.

I don't want to sound like an peice of crap but JC is 26 now and Brannan could probably out play JC and Brannan is 24 years younger.

Back to my point have JC benched for one year and maybe actully have an pro-bowl year cause again Zorn said he is gonna run the ball"Alot" which means the passing is still not close to being great. While we get Favre it could speed things up and teach JC alot i mean alot say this would ruin JC progress but how? JC would be 27 while Romo was on bench for 2 years and ended up an pro-bowler.

I say Yes to Favre for one year, i mean to be honest our O sounds bad (besides Portis) every time an interview with Zorn he always saids" the D stop the skins all the time in the goal line and int alot of passes. I mean is our O gonna be good? or is the D just ruthless.

Goodbye, credibility.

When you say Zorn likes Brennan better, exactly what are you basing that on??