Should the Redskins take a run at Favre?

[SkinzzFan]

I really hope Danny Boy resists. Didn't he bring in Zorn specifically to help Campbell? Signing (or trading for) Favre won't help. Maybe the Skins win a few more games upfront with #4 but I don't think the Skins are legitimate Superbowl contenders even with Favre. That's exactly why we stay the course with Campbell and let him grow into the role with the players we now have (Moss, Cooley, Randle El, Thomas, Kelly, etc.). It's all about chemistry and continuity and we can't get that if the Oompa Loompa (Snyder) keeps jacking it up with spending and signing just for the sake of making a splash. I've had enough false hope in the Snyder era, it's time for the Skins to get back to being perennial contenders. Danny needs to just sit on his booster seat up in his luxury box and enjoy the games like a fan (with a ton of money!).

[Giantone]

Ok, as a fan of another team may I just say I would love for the Skins to get Farve.Please bring him in ...better yet trade for him really make it a 3 ring circus and lets not forget what it would do to JC to be "benched"..........wait ,did you think Farve would sit on the bench and be a back up?Yes the Skins need him.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Hell no! I'd honestly rather talk about Mark Brunell, Lavar Arrington or Patrick Ramsey then Farve. I can't believe you would even waste time on this subject. But you're a mod and you can do what ever the hell you want.

Favre would be almost impossible to fit under the cap . If he did come here , we would probably look to trade JC , and I doubt the skins would go that route . As far as MB , Ramsey and LA , they are washed up , Favre would give us a shot at a championship if we got some breaks . For one , I hope he stays in GB and JC becomes our best QB since J. Theismann .

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If Brett Favre came out and says "I want to play for the Washington Redskins," I think this becomes a very interesting story.

I mean, it wouldn't retard Jason Campbell's development at all to sit for half a season or so and slow some things down, but I don't even think its a certainty that Favre would win a QB competition if he came here.

This would be devastating to not only Campbell's development but also his timing with the WRs in Zorn's offense. Favre certainly isn't going anywhere to be a back-up. Look at the headaches he's created for GB, imagine what a nightmare putting him on the bench would create. The local media and ESPN would be foaming at the mouth.

Additionally, he's 39, and the attrition rate for 39 year old QBs is through the roof (or floor, depending on how you picture it). QBs tend to stay pretty good into their late 30's (see: Brunell, Mark), but once 40 years old starts breathing down their neck, their game could fall off the map at any time (see: Brunell, Mark or Testeverde, Vincent).

Mark Brunell is not a good example of a QB who played "pretty good" in his late 30s. He was done at 36 and while statistically solid in 2005, I don't think anyone would argue his arm strength was shot when he got here.

Bringing in Favre would be a terrible mistake. SS mentioned Favre is less of a gunslinger. He was last year, but who's to say without McCarthy (he did do a great job with Favre BTW) he won't revert to his 2005 or 2006 form when he threw 29 & 18 INTs respectively. He's also had some pretty untimely INTs in the playoffs in 2004 & 2007. From a cap perspective, I know the front office folks are cap wizards, but I'm not sure even they could make this work anyway.

[Rooster]

The Overwhelming amount of no votes suggests to me that members of this site have a high football IQ. Signing Favre would do nothing but set this franchise back. While it does make sense in some regards (Snyder loves big names, Zorn learned from Holmgren who coached Favre, Favre knows the West coast offense) it would only hurt the team in the long run. Favre would get a big fat 2 year deal and possibly take us to the playoffs. By the time he retired…again, Campbell probably would have moved on and we would once again be looking for another QB. That would be our 18th quarterback in 16 seasons mind you. So the 5 years spent grooming Campbell is a waist and unless we think that Colt Brennan is our future it is a bad move. However, I would not be surprised at all if Snyder pursued this. I wrote a post on my blog explaining why Snyder might take a shot at signing Favre.

[SmootSmack]

What if, just what if, he did come here for one year and miracle of miracles he led us to a Super Bowl win. But then he retires and we go back to Campbell (who would have just missed another year of playing experience)?

Would you be happy that we won the Super Bowl, or frustrated that "what was it all worth if we just potentially sacrificed a year in growing the team for long-term success?"

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What if, just what if, he did come here for one year and miracle of miracles he led us to a Super Bowl win. But then he retires and we go back to Campbell (who would have just missed another year of playing experience)?

Would you be happy that we won the Super Bowl, or frustrated that "what was it all worth if we just potentially sacrificed a year in growing the team for long-term success?"

I'll bet that sounds alot like the talk that was going around about "Gibbs" coming out of retirment.............."What If".................,how did that work out and please understand I'm just saying let JC play and forget Farve ...move on.

[vallin21]

Im not sold on JC and I want to win now. With that said Farve is very very very risky. Hes been a high risk/ high reward player his whole career. So I want to say no to the idea but with Synder you never know what can happen.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What if, just what if, he did come here for one year and miracle of miracles he led us to a Super Bowl win. But then he retires and we go back to Campbell (who would have just missed another year of playing experience)?

Would you be happy that we won the Super Bowl, or frustrated that "what was it all worth if we just potentially sacrificed a year in growing the team for long-term success?"

IF we could look into the crystal ball and know he'd bring us a SB, no brainer, of course we bring him in and get the SB.

However, absent the crystal ball I don't think we take the risk on him as the percentages are much less IMO that he could take us there. That chance is not worth the risk of losing a year of development for Campbell and the entire offense. Plus it also puts us into Campbell's final contract year (2009) without having a good read on where he ultimately is and do we invest long-term in him.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

This would be devastating to not only Campbell's development but also his timing with the WRs in Zorn's offense. Favre certainly isn't going anywhere to be a back-up. Look at the headaches he's created for GB, imagine what a nightmare putting him on the bench would create. The local media and ESPN would be foaming at the mouth.

If Brett Favre isn't willing to compete for the No. 1 job, there's really no chance he comes back anyway. There is nowhere (save Oakland and maybe Tampa) where he could come in at this point in the year and be named the starter as soon as he signs.

Peter King thinks he wants to play in Minnesota, but what if Brad Childress decides that Tavaris Jackson should get the first shot? Then Favre has to wait his turn...which he would have to do in Green Bay.

I still don't think he's actually going to come back, and this is only an issue if he decides that he wants to play for the Redskins.

Bringing in Favre would be a terrible mistake. SS mentioned Favre is less of a gunslinger. He was last year, but who's to say without McCarthy (he did do a great job with Favre BTW) he won't revert to his 2005 or 2006 form when he threw 29 & 18 INTs respectively. He's also had some pretty untimely INTs in the playoffs in 2004 & 2007. From a cap perspective, I know the front office folks are cap wizards, but I'm not sure even they could make this work anyway.

Cap won't be an issue, and I think he's a pretty safe bet to revert back to 2006 levels (18 INTs) no matter where he plays.

But Campbell's development wouldn't get destroyed by having to sit a few games (not even a whole season) behind Favre. I don't think Favre would be an on field improvement over Campbell at his age, but if Favre wants to come here (and there is zero evidence to support this), it makes sense to at least give him an ear.

[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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What if, just what if, he did come here for one year and miracle of miracles he led us to a Super Bowl win. But then he retires and we go back to Campbell (who would have just missed another year of playing experience)?

Would you be happy that we won the Super Bowl, or frustrated that "what was it all worth if we just potentially sacrificed a year in growing the team for long-term success?"

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

You're approaching a cost/benefit analysis as if the benefit is already in hand.

Good post. Speaking of cost/benefit, GTripp mentioned that cap wouldn't be a problem. I'm of the opinion that it would.

The latest update on March 27 has us at about 7.8M under the cap before rookie signings. Estimating 400K a piece for our 4-7 picks and 650K for Thomas, Kelly, Davis and Rinehart that puts us at about 3.6M under. Unless we do a ridiculous restructure or two, I don't see Favre signing for $ 3.6M when several of the teams Daseal mentioned are well under the cap. Should I lay off the booze or am I on target here?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Good post. Speaking of cost/benefit, GTripp mentioned that cap wouldn't be a problem. I'm of the opinion that it would.

The latest update on March 27 has us at about 7.8M under the cap before rookie signings. Estimating 400K a piece for our 4-7 picks and 650K for Thomas, Kelly, Davis and Rinehart that puts us at about 3.6M under. Unless we do a ridiculous restructure or two, I don't see Favre signing for $ 3.6M when several of the teams Daseal mentioned are well under the cap. Should I lay off the booze or am I on target here?

I think you're about right, though it's tough to say. If you're asking what Brett Favre's market value is in a one-year deal, then I'd say it's well north of 3.6 million. Then again, he may be at the point where he can say I've made all the money I need, I just want to play. In that case, he could choose to sign for a couple mill, who knows.

But after review of the 'Skins cap situation, it appears they are traveling on a course with one eye on the potential uncapped season, which could completely dismantle the team if they're not careful. After the release of Brandon Lloyd, the Skins have about $8 million in cap space. Their rookie pool allotment is $4.5 million this season, leaving them with approximately $3-4 million in space. They clearly intended to use all this space on acquiring Chad Johnson, but when that didn't happen I think they turned their attention towards using LTBE incentives (the Portis restructure) to raise their cap limit in 2009, thereby creating more space next season.

Signing Favre at this point, even if they could get him under market value, would foil those long term plans. Given the approach the team took in the draft this past April (trading for 2nd rounders = cheap contracts), I think they're preparing to weather the financial storm that labor strife will bring. They plan to keep the team's nucleus together through anything. Favre would disrupt that plan.

Can't see it.

[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.