Sunday, October 25, 2009

Did Injury Ultimately Do in The Ironman as a Packer?

It's no secret that one of the things that drove Favre to be such an ironman and continue to play week after week, even through some significant injuries was his innate fear of being replaced by someone because he was hurt. Being the guy who took over for Don Majkowski due to injury, it firmly planted the seed in Favre's mind. He commented on it several times throughout his career. He was a tough mother, no doubt, but sometimes to a fault (see his awful play during the the weeks with that thumb injury in 2003).

One idea that's rattled around in my brain for some time regarding the Packer's ultimate decision to let Favre continue his annual will-he-or-won't-he charade elsewhere was Rodgers' performance in the November 29th, 2007 Cowboy game. Recall that Favre started finging the ball all over the place. He finished 5 of 14 with 2 INTs before dinging his wing and leaving the game for Rodgers to take over. Thereafter, Rodgers went 18 of 26 for 201 yards, a TD and a few nice plays made with his feet for another 30 yards rushing.

It's hardly a stretch to consider the ramifications of that performance in a huge game and the Packers believing - rightly so - that Rodgers was ready to be a bonafide option behind center. Both teams had come in with 10-1 records and home field advantage on the line. The stakes were awfully high.

Don't get me wrong, it's well-documented the time the Packers gave Favre to make his decision following the 2007 season, his subsequent personal decision to retire, and the two attempts McCarthy and Thompson made to try and get Favre to return that were rebuffed. So, at first blush, though the Packers wanted Favre back, when it began to look less and less likely that he really wanted to return, they had to feel confident with the idea of giving the reins to Rodgers. I'm certainly not saying that one performance makes a career, nor does a season and a half to this point. But there are some very reasonable signs that point to the possibility that Rodgers might just be a very, very good quarterback for some time to come. 

How would things have been different had Favre not gotten hurt in that game? Who knows ... But it gave Rodgers an opportunity to showcase his talent in adverse circumstances, trying to come back from a deficit on the road against a very worthy opponent in front of a national audience.

And perhaps the ironman's fear was realized after all.



  1. Good point,but don't forget Rodgers was "out for the season" after that game. How confident could the Packers be of his "iron" credentials after getting hurt in his one brief appearance.

    I do agree (can you believe that?) that that game had a lot of significance. I think Brett knew from that day on that Management wanted to turn the page and that explains a lot of his uncertainty and the rumors he wanted to play elswhere(namely MN) way back then.

  2. He was "out for the season" because he was the backup. It was published in the week following that game that IF Rodgers was the starter, he would be playing.

    Oh, and your "out for the season" comment was after the pounding that New England gave the Packers in Lambeau. A game in which Rodgers played the entire second half on a broken foot.

  3. Like the warrior who limped off with an injury to precede Rodgers?

  4. Pat's comment reminds me of yet another barrel of crap spewed by the Minion of Favre....Rodgers is injury prone. Once again.....WRONG.

    He has endured 25 sacks in 6 games, played through a strained shoulder last year, and still played well. But I know lovers...once he gets to Favres record of starts...I know, I know.

    I finally figured all you "kneelers" hate Rodgers because he is:

    1. Successor to Favre
    2. Good
    3. Not injury prone
    4. has shown more class and leadership that bumpkin ever did.
    5. Rolls with supermodels and billionaire heiresses and not some po-dunk, hick, goldigging chick who grew up picking crawdads out of the mud and nooddlin'