Thompson has made the point many times that depth at a position in August doesn’t always equal depth at that position in-season. That and mostly because it’s foolish to pass on a player who is clearly the BPA (although that rarely happens) because that player may become a difference maker is the reason for Thompson’s adherence to BVA. Favre’s iron-man status at the time of 2005 draft did not guarantee he wouldn’t incur a serious career-threatening injury, so of course there was a plan for Rodgers: Like other backups on the team he was to be ready to take over if the need arose. And if he fulfilled his potential, he would become a very good QB (at least).
The body of evidence indicates Thompson has never viewed the backup QB position in that way. Other than Brohm in the second round, Thompson has spent little on backup QBs for the young (and still young) Rodgers, and for good reason...the risk/reward proposition is poor when you have a young entrenched starter. This view is typical in the NFL; few GMs will expend a valuable first round pick for a backup that might never play. Had Favre been 30 years old and pre-serial-retirement threats, I doubt Rodgers would have been picked regardless of the board.
Career ending injuries among young QBs are relatively rare given the rules. As I've stated many times, the backup QB model when there is a youngish entrenched starter is to have a guy who can come in and give you a chance to win against poor-to-middling competition for a few games. That's exactly what we got out of Flynn which should serve as the prototype of the backup QB value proposition in the Thompson view, just as it is around the league.
As far as Brohm being an exception, it is worth noting that Rodgers had not yet started a game when that pick was made. That was a need pick...insurance against Rodgers being a bust, or to compete if Rodgers had turned out to be a mediocrity. After the 2008 season, when it could be reasonably judged that Rodgers was at least at the "quality starter" level with enough to flashes to suggest more upside, nothing has been spent to secure a reliable backup...until the Flynn rebound who, we should note, cost little.
Regarding them seizing the opportunity, remember less than one month after Favre’s tearful and embarrassing “retirement” press conference, Thompson was ready to welcome him back, only to have Favre change his mind yet again. Also, the Favre situation was unique: We saw the PR cluster schtoop involved with moving onto Rodgers. It would have been even worse if it came out that Favre quickly changed his mind and wanted to return in April and the Packers wouldn’t let him (and Favre’s camp would have made that known).
IMO the evidence is clear Rodgers was not picked to fill an immediate or critical need. Brandt’s “testimony” includes the fact (according to him) that Thompson did not attempt to trade up for Rodgers. I have yet to read an explanation from HRE or El Guapo of why Thompson didn’t make that attempt if he viewed the need at backup QB to be a priority. Certainly there was no guarantee Rodgers would last to #24, even at picks #17, #19, #21, etc. And to get a player at the most important position in football who was rated #1 or #2 (according to El Guapo) or IMO certainly top 5, by trading pick #24 and (for example) their third rounder would have been a no brainer had QB been viewed as a position of need.
The point I’ve been making is this: QB was not a high priority going into the 2005 draft. Thompson’s board didn’t tell him to select Rodgers, it screamed at him to do so. It is not hindsight to say Rodgers represented a HUGE value at pick #24. It was the rare occasion in which the BPA by far made him the BVA by far even though it was not at a position of perceived need at the time.
I don't think that view captures the essence of the situation.
First, important needs are not necessarily "immediate". In the NFL, the QB position is unique in this regard. With any other position, elite players can be secured on relatively short notice if one is willing to spend money in free agency. Franchise QBs are rarely available at any price, and when they are there is usually some considerable risk involved like advanced age and/or a broken neck. For succession planing to be successful, a multi-year view must be taken.
Second, Favre presented a unique risk in that he'd already been noodling about retirement prior to the 2005 draft while at the same time being a 35 year old guy with considerable game mileage, a history of durability not withstanding. Insurance would be of value and would be a perceived need. While the need was not "immediate", there was a need nonetheless; since it was not immediate one could wait for an opportunity to arise to meet the need and get the needed immediate insurance in the bargain. Rodgers happened to be an opportunity that does not come along every year matching up to the long term need and the need for risk mitigation with the mercurial Favre.
As far as "seizing the opportunity" to install Rodgers as the starter, while some lengths were taken to allow Favre to reverse his decision, I don't recall any extraordinary measures being taken to coax him back. There were expressions of "you're still our guy if you want to be" and borrowing a private jet for a face to face...but no offer of a pay bump, or a private locker room for that matter as the Jets provided, or any other ego-stroking perks.
Clearly they were not going to force him out for the obvious PR reasons and the fact he could still play. They were so concerned about the PR issues they later offered to pay him 8 figures to sit on the bench or to take some non-existent PR/marketing position. But I did not see any evidence of
begging him to play or deep regret once the die was cast. It looked like an opportunity seized, if perhaps earlier than expected, but one for which the organization was prepared.
And in the final analysis, does anybody think that Rodgers wasn't drafted with an expectation he'd be Favre's successor before his 5 year rookie deal was up at which point Favre would be 40 years old? And that (1) lining up that successor when the opportunity arose while (2) having insurance in the event Favre bailed before such time while (3) affording a "second shot" in the draft if Rodgers turned out to be a bust, was not filling a need?
I go back to New England's Garoppolo pick as a parallel example of a need pick. While Brady has not gestured retirement, he's 2 years older than Favre was at the time of the Rodgers pick, so I'll call that a wash. Brady will be going on 42 when Garoppolo's rookie deal is up. And if Garoppolo shows signs of being a bust by year 2, they'll still have time to take a second shot in the draft. Since this view is not affected by 20/20 hindsight, I think it helps to illustrate what long term planning for a long term need looks like.