A compromise?

Well I woke up this morning and had a thought - right now the Favre-firsters (?) argue that Favre gives them the best chance to win now, while the general premise is that pro-Rodgers supporters want to see what they have in their 4 year investment.

Well, why not split time between the two QBs? Not something a bit ludicrous like in Arizona, but something like this:

In most games, Favre will start and play roughly 3 quarters. Rodgers gets experience playing in about a quarter worth.

In easy games or if a rout is looking likely, play Favre for a quarter and change, and have Rodgers take care of the rest of the game.

This will allow Favre to scratch his itch and allows Rodgers to gain some experience for his appointment onto the throne of Packers starting QB in the following season.

how about FAVRE JUST COMPETES FOR THE STARTING JOB

Because, although I am of the opinion that Rodgers should be starting, paying for a $12 million backup goes against TT's frugal ways and I don't believe that would be in the best interests of the organisation.

And if Favre's to win, also wouldn't like Rodgers sitting the bench for the whole year.

The sole purpose of the existance of the Green Bay Packers (along with every other team in the league) is to win championships, not to stroke the ego of Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre or Ted Thompson. Ted Thompson should make it clear that if Favre wants to return, let him battle it out with Rodgers for the starting position, and the Packers will start the best man. This gives them the best opportunity to win a champioship TODAY.

This ridiculous 4-5 year timeline you speak of is the same one Detroit has been using since gods know when, and look how far it has got them.

I agree and Brett will give them the chance to win now...but I also agree A-Rod will help in the long run. I dont like them splitting the job, they should compete for it, but the other still should get reps (when neccesary of course).

I don't see how allowing both QBs to play automatically stunts the Packers' potential to win a superbowl next year. If anything, there'll be a greater chance to win, because if one QB isn't playing well in a game, the other could take over and hopefully perform better.

Tell me, if we're up 30something points heading into the 3rd quarter, why not let Rodgers take over to finish off the game? A win's a win, wouldn't you agree?

I thought that was what they were doing already.....?

Yes, but now they could also put a bit more workload on Rodgers instead of just rout games or injury, as per my suggestion.

I have no problem with that at all, as long as splitting the responsibility doesn't start to impact their ability to win games.

whats the saying, "If you have 2 quarterbacks, you don't have any." or something. How does it go?

It it a wonderful thought. But, it would not be acceptable to Brett.

That would like back in 1980 asking Pamela Anderson to only get "One" breast augmentation. Or asking Trom to be the "Facial Expression Film Double" for Ron Jeremy.

Pamela, Trom, and Brett would all want the whole package or none at all.

Eggs, meet basket

If Rodgers displays nothing in his playing time, you can throttle it back. If Favre shows that his last year was extraordinary, then you can bump up Rodgers' playing time. Either way, you give the Packers the best chance to win. If you stick to one QB, you'd never know how the other might play.

I am old enough to remember the Craig Morton/Roger Staubach quarterback controversy in Dallas. The year was 1971. Landry decided to start Morton and Staubach in alternating games. Then, in the ninth game against the Chicago Bears, during the days when coaches did not have radio contact with quarterbacks and shuttled plays into the huddle through players, Landry actually alternated quarterbacks on each play. The Cowboys lost that game and were 5-4 at the time. Landry then decided to go with Staubach, and the team went on a 5-game winning streak to finish out the season and beat Miami in the Super Bowl.

The alternating quarterback routine might work for a team on the downward slide or in rebuilding mode. But it would be hard to manage on a contending team, except in obvious situations (injury, big lead, big deficit, meaningless end of year game, season lost for whatever reason).

FAVRE 2QTS and AARON 2 QTRS. sounds fair to me....

You mean like the Montana/Young years in San Francisco?

"you mean"?

I didn't create that statement. Good try.

Compromise and having two Quarterback share duties in a NFL game. I t has been tried many times here in Green Bay . In 1950's under Packers Head Coaches with losing Career records with Green Bay. Namely ex Packer Head Coaches Ronzani, Blackborne and McLean. 1948 thru 1958 produced very bad losing Packer teams in that era. Including the Packer team with the worst season record in Packer history--1-10-1.

In 1973 and 1974, ex Packer HC/GM Dan Devine tried "to play musical chairs" "with the Packer Quarterbacks. Dan never could settle on one Quarterback. In fact in 1973 & 1974 , Dan Devine tried to use three Quarterbacks. This got the Packers two losing seasons, in 1973 (5-7-2) and in 1974(6-8 ).

"And of coarse, every Packer fan knows what Brett Favre acccomplished, as the sole starting QB for the Packers from 1992-the present.

And before him. QB Bart Starr accomplished as sole starting QB with the "Glory years Packer teams" coached by Vince Lombardi in 1960's-- 5 NFL titles in 8 years from 1961-1967.

Bart Starr is a Pro Football Hall of Famer. And Brett Favre is sure Pro Football Hall of Famer, when he decides to retire..

Forget sharing QB duties - Bad idea!! Been tried too times. Produced too many losing season for the Packers.

PWT36 -pf.com site historian.

see "da bears" the past several seasons...YIKES!!!!

OK, this is fine IF Favre is still better than Rodgers. Assuming Favre is still better than Rodgers, Favre should start, but Rodgers needs to get as much playing time as possible.

If Favre starts and Rodgers ends the season with under 100 attempts, I'm going to be pissed.

Personally, I hope Favre comes back because I think he still has it. But Rodgers has come a long way and if Rodgers wants to be traded if Favre comes back, then we have a serious problem.

For sure. I'm excited to see Rodgers play this season. I agree that he's come a long way from year one and I'd be upset if he requested a trade due to this fiasco. Then it becomes the Brohm training era and we start all over again :|

Yes, and we lose 2-3 years training Brohm. Not good for the Packers team.