On Oozing Rashes

Brett Favre’s pesky “itch” to return to the NFL has developed into a festering, puss-spewing infection afflicting the Packers’ standing with their supporters, Favre’s remembrance (perhaps), and presumably Aaron Rodgers’ psyche. While ESPN’s degreeless, English-butchering “analysts” continue to debate the situation daily by mulling the same concerns of who’s being unfair to whom and the significance of Favre’s catharsis to Greta Van Susteren, two critical issues remain unconsidered by the professionals thinkers.

As with any decision between options, it is imperative to consider both the short-term and long-term impacts of the available options at hand. In the short-run it is unknown who is the better player, Favre or Rodgers. Favre played terrifically last year, playoff game-losing interceptions notwithstanding. However, each of the two years prior Favre played horribly. So, weighting each of the last three seasons equally, there is a 33.3% chance that Favre will be even a capable player this year. Weighting last season more because it’s more recent, there’s about a 50% chance he’ll be good again. Rodgers, meanwhile, played very well in the one game he saw considerable time last year, and even though it was also against a very good team, it would be irresponsible to assume his performance from less than one full game is representative of his performance over the same period. In the short-run, the benefits of the performance of Favre relative to that of Rodgers are uncertain, if unlikely. There are also the well-documented costs to the Packers of being perceived by their fans as having dissed one of the franchise's best players ever.

Most importantly, though, – and this is what has been completely absent from the discussion – are the long-term implications if the Packers decided to retain Favre as their starter. If Favre were to return as the team’s starter, Rodgers would spend the fourth year of his five-year contract as the team’s backup quarterback. Assuming Rodgers were to start the following year, the final year of his contract, the Packers will have invested five years of a first-round pick’s salary in Rodgers, and their return would be one season of production as a starter. (Of course, this were to depend on Favre abdicating after this season, a big contingency if he had his way.) Even worse than that, they would have only his production from his first season as a starter on which to base their decision of whether to offer him a contract the following year – and for how much and for how long. What if Rodgers got hurt in preseason next year? How would they decide on his career? Even if he stayed healthy, though, how many quarterbacks impress in their first year as a starter? How different would the career paths be of so many quarterbacks – and the successes of so many teams – be if teams had to make a long-term financial commitment to a player after just his first season? Troy Aikman and John Elway might have been cut from the Cowboys and Broncos. Worse yet! Vince Young might have landed an even greater commitment from the Titans.

Further still, how many quarterbacks, after three years as a starter would have merited a different outcome than ultimately happened? Byron Leftwich probably would still have a starting job in Jacksonville. (And he’d be successful.) And David Carr would still be holding back the Texans.

If the Packers’ dilemma is an issue of fairness, consider how dreadfully unfair it would be to Aaron Rodgers to allow him to enter free agency in what would be the beginning of the prime of his career without having had the opportunity to prove his abilities to potential employers. Any contract offer he would receive would be diluted with caution and uncertainty. Not allowing Rodgers to capitalize on his professional talents at the peak of their value in the labor market, out of deference for the dithering desires of another washed up player, would truly be what is unfair here.

It isn’t an issue of fairness, though. It’s one of what is in the Packers’ best interest. And the Packers need to be able to know if Rodgers should be the team’s long-term quarterback. That requires that Rodgers be the team’s starting quarterback for at least two seasons, of which this year will be the first.

So the Packers should let Favre’s itch and hurt feelings fester all they want. They’re making the prudent decision to kick him to the curb, even if most haven’t yet realized why.