[MGGPackerFan]

For me, the biggest issues don't include whether or not Aaron Rodgers is ready to start. Don't get me wrong, it is an important issue. The most important issues, for starters, is whether or not Aaron Rodgers is given the fair chance to prove whether or not he's ready. Rodgers hasn't been given that chance. Also, Favre made the decision to retire, and once he has made that decision, the Packers needed to and did move on.

Most importantly, I tend to view this issue through the mind of a good politician. What does a good politician always do to insure that he/she has a chance to keep his/her position? Among many things, he/she does as little damage as possible to alienate his/her core supporters, his/her base. The Packers' organization knows that they cannot alienate the players(i.e. part of the administration), and they cannot alienate the Packers' fans(i.e. the people). Having said that, I know we're dealing with a double-edged sword. In some players' minds, such as Al Harris, the 33 year old veteran, certainly DD, who is also 33 years old, and the rest of the receiving corps, they'd love for Brett to return. But the Packers are the youngest football team in the league, and Ted Thompson knows what he's doing. I think about defensive players, young players who haven't spent much time around Brett. Then I think about the rookie class, including QB Brian Brohm, who don't know Brett Favre at all. Then I think about the defensive players who may dwell his final interception, much like some Packer fans. I can't get inside the players' heads, but I think it's fair for me to say that Brett's return could cause some serious division, whether is be the offense, the defense, coaches, or salary. So, politically, the Packers have to do what's "in the best interest of the team." They have to convince the team and the fans that Favre is a potential threat, an enemy to the team, and then they have to release him with assurances that he doesn't end up playing within the division. I'm willing to bet that the Packers Organization have been preparing for this potential problem for quite some time, just in case it actually happened.

Also, I can't speak for every Packer fan, just myself. As a Packer fan, a part of me would love to have Brett Favre back. That's right! I'm not stupid. Favre just came off of one of his best seasons with the youngest team in the league. But that's just it. It's the youngest team in the league, and maybe the Packers won't do as well without Favre. But maybe they can live without him. Not every Super Bowl winner has a hall of fame QB. Besides, what if they Packers took him back for one season and didn't get the Super Bowl? The organization would have endured all of this drama for something short of a Super Bowl...again? Since there will never be another Brett Favre, it's best to move on without him. He made the decision to retire, and through Aaron Rodgers's eyes, I find it selfish of Favre to keep Rodgers from getting his chance to prove that the Packers are .500 at best without Favre, as you stated, gator. As for not seeing Rodgers play enough plays, neither have I or anyone else. He played well in the Dallas game last year, but I think it's a different mindset, knowing you're the backup. Some of the media compare this issue to the Montana/Young issue, but I like to view it as a little bit of Montana/Young and a little bit of Drew Brees/Philip Rivers. Philip Rivers had to prove he was a worthy first round pick recently, and I think he has done so. He's surrounded by a talented offense, and he had to prove that he's capable of leading it. The Packers have to let Favre go for the "team's best interests," and hope that Rodgers can be another first round pick who waited his time behind, what is now a very talented offense, just like Rivers did. As I said before, this issue is a double-edged sword, but then again, Brett Favre has always been a double-edged sword. Take the good with the bad, and this is bad.