Should the Redskins take a run at Favre?

GTripp, I disagree greatly. Favre is better than 90% of all QBs in this league, even at his age. But to say few places would let him start? MN, Chicago, Tampa, Carolina (depending on Delhomme health, but hes better than Delhomme if both are healthy), Miami, Baltimore, Atlanta, San Fran are all places I could see him waltz in as the starter.

I fully expect him to be released so he's going to take the best situation for him. GB is bluffing saying they'd accept him as a backup. They won't pay him 12.5Mil to sit on the bench.

What if, just what if, he did come here for one year and miracle of miracles he led us to a Super Bowl win. But then he retires and we go back to Campbell (who would have just missed another year of playing experience)?

Would you be happy that we won the Super Bowl, or frustrated that "what was it all worth if we just potentially sacrificed a year in growing the team for long-term success?"

That's an "if" so big it's not even worth discussing on a hypothetical level. You can't look at it that way. You're approaching a cost/benefit analysis as if the benefit is already in hand.

You have to evaluate the chances you'll gain said benefit against the chances you'll end up with said costs. The costs are high (Campbell's development, confidence) and the chances of said benefit (Super Bowl) are infinetesimal.

Brett Favre in recent "first years" in a new offensive system:

Mike Sherman, 2000
3812 yards, 20 TDs, 16 INTs, 58.3%, 78.0 QB rating

Mike McCarthy, 2006
3885 yards, 18 TD, 18 INT, 56.0%, 72.7 QB rating

Average performance. In a new system, the QB HARDLY EVER has a great season. Why do so many on this site want to just ignore this hard fact?? If our QB, whether Favre or Campbell or GTripp for crying out loud, has a high chance of having a rough season, why make it a guy who's likely to retire in one year when you could have the guy who needs to learn do it?

I can't believe this conversation is actually taking place. Maybe you mods are just trying to stir up some real conversation since we've been so lacking of it recently. But jeez, it's like you guys have lost your minds.

You're approaching a cost/benefit analysis as if the benefit is already in hand.

Good post. Speaking of cost/benefit, GTripp mentioned that cap wouldn't be a problem. I'm of the opinion that it would.

The latest update on March 27 has us at about 7.8M under the cap before rookie signings. Estimating 400K a piece for our 4-7 picks and 650K for Thomas, Kelly, Davis and Rinehart that puts us at about 3.6M under. Unless we do a ridiculous restructure or two, I don't see Favre signing for $ 3.6M when several of the teams Daseal mentioned are well under the cap. Should I lay off the booze or am I on target here?

Good post. Speaking of cost/benefit, GTripp mentioned that cap wouldn't be a problem. I'm of the opinion that it would.

The latest update on March 27 has us at about 7.8M under the cap before rookie signings. Estimating 400K a piece for our 4-7 picks and 650K for Thomas, Kelly, Davis and Rinehart that puts us at about 3.6M under. Unless we do a ridiculous restructure or two, I don't see Favre signing for $ 3.6M when several of the teams Daseal mentioned are well under the cap. Should I lay off the booze or am I on target here?

I think you're about right, though it's tough to say. If you're asking what Brett Favre's market value is in a one-year deal, then I'd say it's well north of 3.6 million. Then again, he may be at the point where he can say I've made all the money I need, I just want to play. In that case, he could choose to sign for a couple mill, who knows.

But after review of the 'Skins cap situation, it appears they are traveling on a course with one eye on the potential uncapped season, which could completely dismantle the team if they're not careful. After the release of Brandon Lloyd, the Skins have about $8 million in cap space. Their rookie pool allotment is $4.5 million this season, leaving them with approximately $3-4 million in space. They clearly intended to use all this space on acquiring Chad Johnson, but when that didn't happen I think they turned their attention towards using LTBE incentives (the Portis restructure) to raise their cap limit in 2009, thereby creating more space next season.

Signing Favre at this point, even if they could get him under market value, would foil those long term plans. Given the approach the team took in the draft this past April (trading for 2nd rounders = cheap contracts), I think they're preparing to weather the financial storm that labor strife will bring. They plan to keep the team's nucleus together through anything. Favre would disrupt that plan.

Can't see it.

Besides, the biggest point in all of this...

The Packers say they will not release Brett Favre. That means you can trade for him, or he won't be on your team. If people start suggesting we actually trade for him, please turn in your fan license.

That's an "if" so big it's not even worth discussing on a hypothetical level. You can't look at it that way. You're approaching a cost/benefit analysis as if the benefit is already in hand.

You have to evaluate the chances you'll gain said benefit against the chances you'll end up with said costs. The costs are high (Campbell's development, confidence) and the chances of said benefit (Super Bowl) are infinetesimal.

Brett Favre in recent "first years" in a new offensive system:

Mike Sherman, 2000
3812 yards, 20 TDs, 16 INTs, 58.3%, 78.0 QB rating

Mike McCarthy, 2006
3885 yards, 18 TD, 18 INT, 56.0%, 72.7 QB rating

Average performance. In a new system, the QB HARDLY EVER has a great season. Why do so many on this site want to just ignore this hard fact?? If our QB, whether Favre or Campbell or GTripp for crying out loud, has a high chance of having a rough season, why make it a guy who's likely to retire in one year when you could have the guy who needs to learn do it?

I can't believe this conversation is actually taking place. Maybe you mods are just trying to stir up some real conversation since we've been so lacking of it recently. But jeez, it's like you guys have lost your minds.

To be clear, I don't want him here and I undoubtedly realize it's a huge "if" that he'd win us a Super Bowl. However, it's not often a Brett Favre becomes potentially available so the question is probably worth asking and I was simply asking what the "opportunity cost" of winning a SB now would be for everyone.

Besides, the biggest point in all of this...

The Packers say they will not release Brett Favre. That means you can trade for him, or he won't be on your team. If people start suggesting we actually trade for him, please turn in your fan license.

Yeah, I was considering going on a big rant about the shortsightedness of signing him, the negative long-term financial impact on the team, the affect on Campbell, etc, etc...

But the fact that he's due $39M the next three years and won't be released means we'd not only have to give too steep a price to get him, but we'd also have to eat his contract. And he's 39. No way. Rolling the dice on the (way way) off chance that he'd lead us to a Super Bowl with a rookie head coach would be foolish. Plus it would send the wrong message to a good core of players.

To answer your question SS, the opportunity cost I would expend to win one Super Bowl is pretty high. It's a Super Bowl. There are a bunch of teams out there that have NEVER tasted it. It's damn near priceless. If we were a team that was right there, on the cusp, everything in place, and just needed an extra bump up at QB, you know, that "one missing piece" type of scenario... then MAYBE I trade for a Favre. But we've got a rookie head coach, some new assistants, and few question marks on Def, Off, and ST. IMO, the chances are much greater Favre would be a wrench in the gears of our plans/goals beyond 2008 than he would be a Super Bowl champ as a Redskin.

The way i look at it is...

Can Brett Favre do with the 08 Redskins what he did with the 07 Packers?
If so then it is a no brainer that we should try to get him here for a short term deal with numbers that make sense...

The NFC east is a much a tougher division, so getting to a SB with that competition will be tougher: Adv. - 07 Packers

The Redskins have a better Offensive line that if healthy could provide a veteran like Brett Favre with more time than he needs...This year <knock on wood> we should be healthier and the unit should be the strength of our team: Adv - 08 Skins

The Skins have a slightly better defense that would have been better in 07 had they had a more consistent offense. It is centered around controlling time of possession which ,for the most part, Favre-led offenses usually dominate.: Slight Adv - 08 Skins

The Skins specialty players are as a group more talented than the packers (Portis, Cooley, Moss, ARE, a solid core of young WR). If Brett can do what he did last year with a bunch of inexperienced WR's, then with a solid running game and WR's out the wazoo he can be a surgeon. Imagine Favre to Cooley it strikes up memories of Favre to Chmura - Adv. - 08 Skins


Of the 7 games the Skins lost in 07, 5 of them were decided by 7 points or less. The skins allowed 19.4 ppg and scored 20.7. Brett's packers scored 27.2 ppg (2nd in the NFL). If you say that adding Favre (over JC in 08) may give you an extra TD in a game, it could potentially result in the difference between a mediocre season and a dominating one. Not to knock JC but if we had a QB last year (or any year in recent memory) with a 90+ QB rating like Favre had, we could have very well won the whole thing - Adv. - 08 Skins

I realize this is a highly hypothetical scenario but my point is that the skins needed any help they could get on offense last year and even the slightest improvement would have been a difference maker. Still winning a SB is a huge long shot every season and you always take the chances of the field over any given team. Picking up Favre over JC would mortgage our future and it would prove that as an organization we haven't learned from the mistakes of our past. As scary as #4 would look in burgundy and gold, I would have to pass.

Schneed -- Teams say lots of things. The Packers are able to cut him and not pay 12.5 Mil for a backup QB. They're bluffing hoping he stays retired. If he comes back, they may attempt a trade to keep him out of the division.

GTripp, I disagree greatly. Favre is better than 90% of all QBs in this league, even at his age. But to say few places would let him start? MN, Chicago, Tampa, Carolina (depending on Delhomme health, but hes better than Delhomme if both are healthy), Miami, Baltimore, Atlanta, San Fran are all places I could see him waltz in as the starter.

I fully expect him to be released so he's going to take the best situation for him. GB is bluffing saying they'd accept him as a backup. They won't pay him 12.5Mil to sit on the bench.I think that you are basing your opinion off of only his 2007 season, which is a mistake, IMO.

A player is never really as good as his best season in recent memory (That's free fantasy advice if anyone is thinking about grabbing Brady with one of the first three picks).

Favre is going to be 39 years old in October, and the track record of guys who had reasonable success after that age is limited to George Blanda...who really wasnt all that good throughout his career anyway.

Even supposing that Brett Favre was on the free market right now, I think he'd be the 3rd best QB available (with Culpepper and Leftwich more valuable). My only pro Favre point -- that if he said specifically that he wanted to be a Redskin, I would listen to his contract demands, still holds true.

I think it's buyer beware on Favre, and the Packers as an organization since Ted Thompson took over have been one of the very best organizations in the entire league, and they are handling this the right way.

With Culpepper and Leftwich unable to find a job right now, it's really clear that there is no market for Favre's services. I think all the teams you named Daseal, wouldn't be any worse off with Favre at QB than the guy they currently have. But by this point in the season every GM in the league is convinced that his guy is the next big think at QB, be it Grossman/Orton, Shaun Hill/Alex Smith, Tavaris Jackson, Jake Delhomme, John Beck/Josh McCown, Jeff Garcia/Luke McCown or whoever all NFL personnel guys are too arrogant to think that the players they have worked so hard to acquire might not be as good as a 39yr old Brett Favre.

Therefore, no market for Favre's services, so he's going to have to be a backup somewhere if he wants to play again.

I say, if he wants to come in here and compete, why the heck not? Just don't get into a bidding war for a player we clearly don't need.