Brady Replacing Bledsoe

Peter King, in comparing the Patriot situation now, with Matt Cassell replacing Tom Brady, with their situation in 2001, with Tom Brady replacing Matt Cassell, makes a rather strange argument:

Is this the same situation as when the unknown Tom Brady stepped in seven years ago? The temptation is to say yes. The reality is it isn't. Brady had 25 starts at Michigan; Cassel had zero at USC. In 2001, New England actually didn't mind playing Brady, even though it came about in a horrible way, with Bledsoe sustaining internal injuries on the hit by Mo Lewis against the Jets.

The Patriots had grown tired of Bledsoe in 2001, thinking he was too much of a signal-calling maverick rather than going with the flow of what the team had game-planned for all week. Fast-forward to today. Brady is the perfect extension of Belichick on the field, and he's eminently coachable, and he's the perfect leader. My feeling is the Patriots knew they were eventually going to move Bledsoe by early in 2001, and so playing Brady early that year was not so painful. They want Brady to play for the next 10 years, so it's totally different now that Cassel HAS to play.

The Patriots were tired of Bledsoe in 2001? The coaching staff might have been. But King seemingly forgets that a few months before the 2001 season began, they gave Bledsoe a record $100 million contract which would have made him a Patriot for life. Just as they want Brady to play for 10 years now, they wanted Bledsoe to be their star for 10 years in 2001. Brady just made them change their minds.

The situations are not the same for the simple reason that there's only one Tom Brady. Granted, no one knew what Brady would become when he took over in 2001 and was about as unknown as Cassell is now. But no one can expect Cassell to do what Brady did, and that's what makes this situation different. If Brady had come in in 2001 and been nothing more than a somewhat capable backup, the situations might be similar. But he didn't.

Let It Go, Brett

Four months after his tearful retirement, Brett Favre is, apparently, looking to return to the NFL. This is really unfortunate because it puts the Packers in a very tough spot. The team has moved on from Favre and has Aaron Rodgers firmly installed as the starting quarterback. And the team drafted not one but two quarterbacks in April to fill out the depth chart. So there's really no room for Favre now. If they bump Rodgers back to backup and bring Favre back, then they can pretty much write off Rodgers in the long term, leaving all the planning and preparation the Packers have done for a life after Favre up in smoke. That's obviously very bad for the long-term health of the franchise.

If they can't bring him back, what can they do? Would any of the Packer brass really have the cajones to either trade or cut Brett? Ted Thompson would quite possibly never live it down if he did either, but he really has no choice and has to assert his leadership over the franchise. Favre may be a living legend and arguably the greatest player to ever don the uniform, but it is not his team and he cannot hold it hostage.

The Packers are not the first team to have to deal with this. Jerry Jones tried desperately to get Emmit Smith to retire, but when he insisted on continuing to play did what he had to do for the Cowboys and shipped him off to Arizona (where Smith later played against the Cowboys). Miami did the same thing with Dan Marino, telling him he was not in their plans and if he continued to play it would not be for the Dolphins. That lead to Marino's decision to retire. The 49ers had to ship off Joe Montana, arguably the greatest quarterback ever, to make room for Steve Young. Now those situations are all a bit different than what Thompson faces in Green Bay. Smith was a shadow of himself by that point in his illustrious career, as was Marino, and Young had already firmly established himself as the starting quarterback for the 49ers. Favre, on the other hand, is coming off a stellar season, and Rodgers has yet to start a game. (And the chances he'll be a Hall of Famer like Young are fairly slim, as they are for any player.) So while many commentators will draw comparisons with those earlier situations, they aren't all that appropriate.

The Packers would have to get rid of Favre. As already pointed out, the long term health of the franchise requires that Rodgers be given an adequate chance to prove himself as a starter before his current contract expires after the 2009 season. That leaves only two seasons. That has to factor in as one of the top considerations for both Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson.

Beyond that, one has to look beyond last season. Yes, 2007 was a great year for Favre. But that doesn't erase 2005 and 2006 when he was dismal, so much so that had he been just about anyone else he would likely have been benched. Need anyone be reminded of the 29 interceptions in 2005? The QB ratings around 70? The fact of the matter is, 2007 was quite possibly an anomaly, a last gasp of greatness from a player in his twilight years.

Even in 2007, we saw glimpses of the less than stellar Favre. Brett's problem is that when things aren't going smoothly and he decides he has to personally make something happen, he gets reckless and makes stupid decisions that often cost his team games. Look at the Dallas game last year. The big Packer story coming out of that game was how well Rodgers played once Favre went out and how almost brought them back. What's forgotten is that they were in the hole they were in because the running game wasn't doing much and Favre started forcing things and making the kinds of plays he made in 2005 en route to those infamous 29 interceptions.

I love Brett Favre. I've been a fan of his since about 1994. But it's over. He got the chance that Elway got, going out on a high note, playing at a high level that made people forget the latter years of his career when he was no longer who he had once been. Coming back, he risks exchanging an Elway-like exit for the Marino-like exit he looked to be heading for, getting whipped in an embarrassment of a game that proved just how far he had fallen.

The Packers' brass should show the strength and leadership to put the franchise ahead of one player, and let Favre go should he try to play another season. If that means Favre joins another team and ends up playing against the Packers in 2008, so be it. San Francisco survived playing against (and losing to) a Joe Montana-lead Chiefs team. I think Green Bay will survive as well.