http://www.madison.com/tct/blogs/lucas/433444
Seriously? These two situations are comparable?
1. Kurt Warner does not have a consecutive games played streak. Brett Favre was not coming back to compete for a job. His ego would not allow that. Anybody who suggests otherwise is delusional or disingenuous. Additionally, it would be unfair for the Packers to say to Brett, "Well, you've been our starting QB for 15 years, but now you have to compete for your job." It just doesn't work like that in the NFL.
2. Matt Leinart and Aaron Rodgers are in different situations. If the Pack had not played Rodgers this year they would, in all likelihood, have lost him to free agency. The same cannot be said of the Prince of LA.
3. The Packer's atrocious defense and spotty running game would not have improved with Brett at QB. The Pack missed the playoffs because of those inadequacies, not because of poor QB play.
So I ask myself the question, "Would the Packers have been in the same position as the Cardinals with Favre (as the starter) and Rodgers (as the backup), if they would have adhered to the same fundamental concept of competition, "We'll play the best players and the quarterback who gives us the best chance of having success in 2008"?
Ummmmmm, no.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Maybe if they played in the worst division in football, in the poshest conditions (a dome in Arizona?) possible --so Favre's old man balls wouldn't constrict like they did in the NFC championship game and late in the season for the Jets--, and they had a pretty decent offensive line, AND the best tandem of wide receivers in the league (no offense to Driver and Jennings), and a defensive coordinator with some creativity and flexibility. And if Favre had no ego, like Warner. Then, maybe.
But it seems like Rodgers loves playing and wants to prove himself. Leinart seems happy to go to the Tempe, pick up ASU co-eds, and pay his child support to his former college girlfriend.
Post a Comment