I mean really.
GB drafted Rodgers in the 1st round to be the QB of the future. He sat behind Favre for 3 seasons making #1 pick money. Eventually, for salary reasons, Rodgers had to either play or be released. The Packers chose to cut ties with Favre in favor of Rodgers.
So, Packers fans, was GB supposed to keep Favre and let Rodgers continue holding the clipboard forever?
Eric S.
Favorite Answer
Actually, last year Rodgers had the ability to opt out of his original contract by the end of the season, and that appeared to be what was going to happen if the Packers had kept Favre. So the Packers were basically stuck in a bad situation. They could keep Favre and possibly lose both Favre and Rodgers at the end of the 2008 season and be stuck with no one, or they could trade Favre and keep the player they thought was the future on the roster.
So I mean really, what do you do? Because if they kept both, their was no scenerio in which they were going to be able to keep both beyond 2008.
spark342
I agree, its Favre's own fault for being indecisive, he said he was going to permanently retire 2 years ago, and the Packers were going to move on to Rodgers. Then Favre being the media hog that he is wants to come back not realizing the Packers have decided to develop under their new QB. Taking Favre would have been unfair for Rodgers who had been waiting in the wings for 3 years. If Favre never started the retirement nonsense, then by all means he should be the starter, but he just can't deny Rodgers of his opportunity by thinking he'll get special treatment, I commend Ted Thompson on staying firm
The Claymaker- Go Pack!
Most fans are not aware that Rodgers had a trade clause in his old contract. Rumor was Rodgers would have demanded a trade if TT kissed Favre's butt for 1 or 2 more seasons. I as every other Packer fan should be happy with TT's decision, cause the Packers would inevitably suck for the next decade if it wasn't for Ted Thompson.
Adam D
He made first round money, not #1 pick money... that went to Alex Smith who should have sat his first 3 seasons as well.
He was only supposed to sit 1-2 years. Favre was already going downhill, but they didn't need a replacement QB that quick. Aaron Rodgers fell into their laps, cuz the Niners thought he had "character issues." Those character issues, were that they thought he was going to ask for too much money, and they won't pay people what they are worth. If it's not close to fair value or in their favor, then they say "see ya", and that mentality has ruined the franchise.
Big E
They should have left Rodgers on the bench until Favre was officially done!!! Favre's last year they were 13-3 & a few plays away from the Superbowl. Takeout Favre, insert Aaron Rodgers same team & they go 6-10 & remember 2 of those victories were over the Lions!!! If Favre is there last year they are probably 10-6 & in playoff contention. This year they will be about the same 6-10, Rodgers is ok but he's not Favre & their WR's are average because they have an average QB throwning to them & their running game was average when Favre was their but his presence gave them more opportuinites to not have 8 in the box. Last years run game below average.
If Green Bay wanted to win then Rodgers should have sat on the bench until Favre was DONE!!!!!