That's just asinine logic, Mags. If Favre were 26, then it would have been a horrible move to let him go. As it is, Favre is 39 and isn't near the QB he once was. You seem to have a difficult time separating the concept of "hating Favre" and "recognizing that he's not the player he was a decade ago." I'm not even a Packer fan and I loved watching Favre when I was growing up in Wisconsin. But Thompson absolutely made the right decision, and it has nothing to do with hating Favre or thinking Rodgers' career will match Favre's. It is because Rodgers is the better option, and this is a move that will pay dividends in the upcoming years for that team.
BJ - I don't disagree that Rodgers is the future for this team.
Where I do disagree is with the timing - this team was 13-3 last year. This was not the time to bring in a rookie QB, lacking in leadership and end of the game skills, to lead a very good team.
Now, if the Packers were 6-10 in 2007 (as they will likely be this year), then I would have said "yes, the time is come, we are rebuilding so lets make the change now".
I just don't think, when coming off a 13-3 year, that you give away a QB coming off a Pro Bowl season, who is one of the best of all time, to give the job to basically a rookie.
TT basically threw in the towel before the season started by giving away Favre and refusing to sign any veteran help for this team. It is very disappointing. While Rodgers has played well for a 1st year QB, putting him in that position basically guaranteed a non playoff year.
And yes, I do believe the intangibles of playing with a true leader, an NFL legend, does affect the players around him, even if Favre himself doesn't play as well as he used to (although he was great in 2007). That is evident in NY. While Favre isn't the only reason they had such a huge turnaround in one year, he is certainly a large part of what has gone on there.
TT made this move 1 year too early - after this year, assuming that the team would have been terrible with Favre (which I don't think would have been the case), then it would have been the perfect time. But then you don't trade him under any circumstances. You "force" him to retire. The Packers wouldn't be in this mess if they just hung on to him, and let him compete for the job in training camp. If Rodgers was the better QB in camp, then I'm sure he'd have gotten the job.
You didn't see the Bulls trading away Michael Jordan after a playoff run, did you?
There are certain guys you don't trade. Ripken, Jeter, Jordan, Favre, Marino, W. Payton, B. Sanders, etc. Legends are untradable in my opinion.
