When your life depends on it, you want a seasoned surgeon holding the scalpel. If you have to choose, you take experience over energy; proof over potential.
So tell me again, please, why the Green Bay Packers are clinging to Aaron Rodgers at the expense of Brett Favre.
Remind me why a football team would anoint an unproven quarterback as its starter and not waver so much as a whit when his record-setting predecessor reconsiders retirement. Explain how an unknown quarterbacking quantity can be presumed superior to a Canton-caliber commodity such as Favre.
Then kindly provide me the name of the intern you want performing your heart bypass.
Several reasonable arguments can be advanced to justify the Packers' decision to part ways with the most prolific passer in pro football history – youth, expense, long-term commitment – but has anyone heard anyone suggest that Aaron Rodgers gives Green Bay its best chance at Super Bowl XLIII?
Did I miss the memo invalidating Vince Lombardi's credo: “Winning is not everything; it's the only thing”?
Didn't think so.
“If you know football and you know statistics, the chances of Rodgers coming in there and giving them what Brett Favre gives them just ain't there,” Chargers safety Clinton Hart said yesterday. “In a couple of years, yeah, but right now I don't see it being a huge plus for them.
“If they're trying to develop their team for the future and progress later on, maybe so, but if they want to win right now, I think personally that Brett Favre gives them a better chance.”
Among the most consistent sources of friction in professional sports is the athlete's desire for instant gratification versus management's interest in implementing a coherent longer-term strategy.
When the player at issue is the starting quarterback, there's usually enough friction to start a fire.
Favre's March retirement announcement afforded Packers General Manager Ted Thompson the opportunity to enact plans that have been percolating for years. Favre's decision to seek reinstatement, formally faxed to Commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday, has shoved Thompson into an intensely uncomfortable corner.
Favre's return would bring bedlam to the Packers' training camp. Cutting Favre loose would likely result in a competitive windfall for a division rival, either the Minnesota Vikings or the (unthinkable) Chicago Bears. Efforts to trade Favre have reportedly been undercut by the quarterback's unwillingness to communicate with unsolicited suitors.
Packers President Mark Murphy met with Favre and his agent yesterday in Mississippi, presumably to postpone the circus for a few more days, reportedly to offer Favre more money to stay retired. Goodell, recognizing his cue to oblige ownership, temporarily tabled Favre's application for reinstatement to provide the parties “an appropriate amount of time to make decisions.”
Agent James “Bus” Cook says Favre could be in the Packers' camp as soon as tomorrow. Though Packers coach Mike McCarthy says Favre “absolutely” would be welcome, wouldn't No. 4 have been there by now if he were wanted?
“Really, the only comment I can give is I hate to see it be this way,” Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers said. “That's not picking any sides. I hate to see it stirred up in such a negative way for something that's been so good for so long . . .
“Every throw (Rodgers makes) is already going to be overanalyzed. Now, it's really going to be overanalyzed.”
Rivers endured similar scrutiny when he replaced Pro Bowler Drew Brees in 2006, but Brees had been a free agent, fresh from shoulder surgery, and his body of work then was barely a blip compared with the monument Favre has made.
The most striking similarity between the two cases is a football executive daring enough to entrust a novice to execute his vision.
“You've got two choices here,” Chargers General Manager A.J. Smith said. “You can live on a year-to-year basis or (you can say), 'We have a plan here. I don't want to go year-to-year anymore. We're going to make a break. We're going to go in another direction. And that's now.'
“You go with your strong convictions. You believe in your abilities. You have a plan. You try to execute those plans.”
Either way, there are risks. Either Favre (38) or Rodgers (24) could show his age. Letting the two quarterbacks compete for a job could compromise team chemistry. Asking Favre to carry a clipboard would be slightly ridiculous. Allowing Favre to play for another team could lead to unflattering comparisons and/or devastating defeats.
“I think he's just relentless,” Hart said of Favre. “You hit him, you hit him, you hit him, and he gets up. I don't care how old he is, he gets up and he makes plays. He has more zip on his ball than most young guys. You really underestimate his ability because of his age. Then you get out there and, 'Wow, this guy has a rocket.' ”
There's no disputing that Brett Favre's indecision has placed the Packers in a tough spot. There's little doubt his talent gives them their best chance.
Tim Sullivan: (619) 293-1033; tim.sullivan@uniontrib.com
