Brad Childress Flip Flopping on Favre With Team (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

We all saw Childress a few weeks ago tell his team they were "moving on" without Favre. He reportedly talked with QBs Rosenfels and Jackson about how Favre wasn't in the plans for 2009 and it was a done deal moving forward.

Obviously, that changed as we saw yesterday.

It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see that Childress wasn't comfortable with what he had for QBs. And he made one last ditch effort for Favre and Favre said yes.

This had me thinking as a manager.

How much does that hurt the credibility of a leader to flip flop like that? Will the team trust him the next time he says something? Or will it be a "remember he said we were moving on without Favre too" type thing.

Or is it more a thing where he was just trying to win and realized he might have to back up a little with what he'd told the guys. I'm sure it was a tough conversation with Rosenfels and Jackson Tuesday. But they're grown ups making a ton of money, right?

Thoughts on this flip flopping?

J

 

[Sabertooth]

I think his credibility is shot and this will probably be his last year as a head coach in the NFL.

 

[B-Deep]

what was his choice when favre said no?

"Well, we are screwed, the 2 QBs we have here suck so this really bites"

coaches lie all the time, they have to so they can keep the team positive and working. i have no idea why this is being made into something more.

 

[bostonfred]

From the sounds of it, the Vikings players knew this was coming for a lot longer than we did. And I don't think any of them are unhappy about it, except Rosenfels. If the team didn't want it to happen, I think it would be bad for morale and maybe impact his credibility. But they did, and they kind of knew it was coming, so I think the focus is on the new guy more so than Childress.

 

[MAC_32]

I don't think he ever flip flopped. He just lied to his team when Favre decided to remain retired. I mean, if either QB had shown to be more than he thought between when Favre first said he was going to remain retired and yesterday he could change his mind but they didn't so when Favre predictably decided to come out of retirement Childress welcomed him.

This is a do or die move by Childress, clearly. If he's wrong, he's out, regardless of circumstances he'll be made the scapegoat just like Mangini was last season.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

It's a problem, but one that can be managed - particularly if the team advances well into the playoffs this year. If Favre stinks though, it's going to get ugly later.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I think this had been the plan for a month or so.

"OK, we'll check back when we're about to break training camp. Let your arm heal up a little more. No need to come stay in the dorms since you already know 75% of this offense anyways."

 

[Norseman]

It will be a problem with Jackson & Rosenfels, especially if Favre gets hurt and one of them has to play. With the rest of the team, it won't be a problem, as long as they are winning. Winning cures alot of ills.

 

[beachbum]

I know the general consensus is that Childress is a tool, but since QB is the most important position in the game, I think Chidlress deserves some slack for getting a guy who can read defenses and deliver the ball accurately and take pressure off of Peterson... he probably caused some unrest among the team with how he's handled this, but winning cures all ills (and losing exacerbates them)... I think the team leaders such as Peterson and Hutchinson and Allen and the defensive guys will be on board with this

Should be fun to watch either way

 

[sho nuff]

From the sounds of it, the Vikings players knew this was coming for a lot longer than we did. And I don't think any of them are unhappy about it, except Rosenfels. If the team didn't want it to happen, I think it would be bad for morale and maybe impact his credibility. But they did, and they kind of knew it was coming, so I think the focus is on the new guy more so than Childress.

I thought I remembered seeing the quote that Allen stated after the re-retirement that he did not want Favre back then...did not want him just coming back after camp.My answer to the poll though was the 2nd option...but I would add that it has a chance to be very bad if people resent this move at all. I just don't know if anyone or how many actually do.

 

[Banger]

I think of it like this..It's a make or break year for him. With this defense and running game and decent to good talent at wideout position the time for this team is now. If he failed again in the playoffs (or didn't make the playoffs) he's likely fired after the season anyway so he really has little to lose unless you think that Sage was enough to put them over the top.

 

[MAC_32]

At least they get a golden opportunity week 1 to start off on the right foot, hard to believe they'll start 0-1.

 

[Tau837]

I think of it like this..It's a make or break year for him. With this defense and running game and decent to good talent at wideout position the time for this team is now. If he failed again in the playoffs (or didn't make the playoffs) he's likely fired after the season anyway so he really has little to lose unless you think that Sage was enough to put them over the top.

Childress just pushed in all his chips. If they have a successful season and he remains as head coach, I seriously doubt there will be any repercussions from this, and, in fact, he may garner additional respect from the team (at least everyone other than Rosenfels and Jackson) for making a gutsy move that paid off. If they don't win, he's gone anyway, so what difference does it make?The only reason it could matter is if this caused such a loss of respect/faith in Childress (and the front office/ownership) that it prevented the players from performing to their best ability this year, thus directly leading to an unsuccessful season. But players are still competitive and playing to win... still playing for their next contract, option, etc... still playing for their teammates (at least the ones they like), organization, and fans...Even guys like Rosenfels and Jackson (if he stays with the team) know it's a business... know they didn't play well enough in camp/preseason to show Childress he didn't need Favre... and could now be even more motivated to play well with a chip on their shoulders if they get the opportunity. Both of these guys have lost out in QB battles before, so it's nothing new.I don't see a problem here.

 

[ScottyFargo]

It's tough because the move is unfair to two players, at minimum, and that's before you even consider how the rest of the team handles it. They might already feel like they had one pulled over on them because he effectively skipped TC, and it wouldn't take a cynical mind to believe that was the sort of wink-nod agreement between the two that it took to get Favre on board.

However, the signing of Favre was an immediate success, given the # of tickets sold increased instantly (and at full price, ending a half price sale). This will be a money maker, and we have to also consider that it wasn't just Childress' call to go this route... he had to get the Wilf's buy in, and he said as much at yesterdays press conference. The signing of Brett Favre has brought a LOT of media attention to the Vikings, who usually struggle to get time on air that isn't focused on our D, Starcaps or Adrian Peterson. There are doubters and there are people who have too much faith in this move, but from the ownership p.o.v., this move has already been good.

Wilf's ultimate goal is to get a Stadium. That will require showing the state of Minnesota that the team is worth it, and this is a calculated move to try and achieve success both on field and off field.

But the OP was asking more specifically about Childress' credibility. Apparently, as late as the day before yesterday, some Viking players were already figuring that a move like this would still happen, which says that some players already didn't believe Childress would stick with his word. Those who vehemently back Jackson will probably feel particularly slighted. Those who wanted Favre earlier will also feel a bit used. However, at the end of the day, this will end up one of two ways: If Favre and the Vikings are successful, all will be forgiven. If Favre fizzles early and the Vikings have to rely on the arm of Rosenfels, the team may lose all faith in Childress, and the season itself could unravel. The players themselves are professionals, but they are also human.

Once week 1 starts, though, I think it will become less complicated as there is a new opponent each week to focus your energy on. I believe the players have faith in themselves and their ability, and the majority can only feel good about having such an experienced QB leading the team. The Vikings have had a tough three years moving the ball through the air... if Favre is able to keep the chains moving as effectively as the running game will, then nobody will worry about how his acquisition came about.

 

[NoCheese]

I think this had been the plan for a month or so.

"OK, we'll check back when we're about to break training camp. Let your arm heal up a little more. No need to come stay in the dorms since you already know 75% of this offense anyways."

100% convinced this is how it went down. Look, it's not the best situation in the way it went down, but let me make a case for signing Favre rather than not.

The consensus is that Favre wasn't there for training camp, and it's not fair that he should be able to skip camp and still play. The thinking goes that "he wasn't in the trenches with us for 2 weeks of camp, so we don't need him now". The blame falls on Childress for signing him late in the game. BUT, despite alienating a few players on the team (primarily TJack/Rosenfels), Childress may be perceived by the veterans as doing whatever it takes to win, even if it was much preferrable to have him signed 3 weeks ago (even though he was unavailable then, or so he says). So to respond to Joe's original question about trust, from a Vikings player's perspective, you could spin it one of 3 ways concerning player opinion of Childress:

1) He went back on his word and I can't trust anything he says now. His credibility is shot.

2) I'll think twice about what he says in the future because of this incident. We'll see how this goes, but I'm skeptical now.

3) He went back on his word, but since Favre said "no" then and "yes" now, and we weren't going anywhere w/ TJack/Sage, I have a newfound respect that Childress was willing to take heat for signing Favre because he is that committed to winning in 2009.

I don't know. As a veteran Viking player, I would think they'd be ecstatic that Favre is joining the team. In my view, his presence puts them in the conversation of NFC favorites, along w/ NYG, Carolina, and Philly (I intentionally left Arizona out of this group). So, in spite of the egg on his face, can't we look at this as a man 100% committed to winning and wouldn't that be enough to outweigh the embarrassment of extending the original deadline?

ETA: this is a boom or bust move. If Favre struggles or gets injured (specifically his throwing arm) there will be a HUGE division on the team that will include getting rid of Childress. So in that sense, it is inadvisable. But this is a huge repudiation of the status quo and quite possibly could be the impetus needed to get a new stadium and renewed fan interest. Time will tell.

 

[stuckinthemuck]

However, the signing of Favre was an immediate success, given the # of tickets sold increased instantly (and at full price, ending a half price sale). This will be a money maker, and we have to also consider that it wasn't just Childress' call to go this route... he had to get the Wilf's buy in, and he said as much at yesterdays press conference. The signing of Brett Favre has brought a LOT of media attention to the Vikings, who usually struggle to get time on air that isn't focused on our D, Starcaps or Adrian Peterson. There are doubters and there are people who have too much faith in this move, but from the ownership p.o.v., this move has already been good.

The signing was 90% economic. The fact that a contending NFL team hadn’t sold out its seats at this time of year must have been quite troubling for its owners and management. Imagine the headlines if they had to block out the locals from television because Rosenfels wasn’t filling the seats. From a management perspective, Childress is caught in the middle the way middle-level managers must accept orders from corporate Officers. He does not decide who gets signed. Now he must play Favre even if he feels that Rosenfels might have been a solid, if unspectacular, field general. If the team does not go deep into the playoffs the ultimate responsibility must lie with the upper levels of management, not the coach; and ain’t it the truth that it will be the middle level manager/coach who gets blamed if things doesn’t turn out so well.

 

[sib]

As a manager/coach I don't know how you don't lose most (if not all the credibility) you've established. Childress has basically told his team that as long as you're talented enough and can play "when it counts", OTAs, minicamps, and training camp isn't important. Favre basically got to skip all those activities and got the starting job handed to him. I also think it sends a bad message that Rosenfels had a pretty successful debut in preseason and Childress still went after Favre. Where is the loyalty for spending the offseason training and working with the team?

If I'm in Adrian Peterson's shoes I'm taking *very* careful notes on this. They're going to feed him the rock another 300+ times this season. RB careers are short and if I'm as integral to the offense as everybody says I am then I'm going to hold out to get a new contract next year and make the Vikings brain trust bend over backwards like they did for Favre.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I think this had been the plan for a month or so. "OK, we'll check back when we're about to break training camp. Let your arm heal up a little more. No need to come stay in the dorms since you already know 75% of this offense anyways."

Agree. And Favre looks better if the story is that Childress called him vs. the other way around.THe guy is STARTING in TWO DAYS. I know the offenses are similar, yada yada, but pretty sure there was some faxing and game planning going on with Favre before yesterday afternoon.Has anyone heard Cris Carter on this? He's the most vocal guy I've heard against Childress.

 

[Jason Wood]

I view this as a self-fulfilling prophecy to an extent.

Childress has to make a playoff run this year or he's probably out of a job. He's smart enough to know Sage and Tarvaris aren't the answers, at least to a deep playoff push.

If Favre comes in and saves the day, Childress isn't getting fired and he did what needed to be done.

If Favre gets hurt or the Vikings struggle anyway, Childress was going to lose his job without a big run anyway so what's the difference?

Will this impact Childress from getting another job down the line? Maybe, but then again what have we seen from him thus far to suggest he deserves another HC job anyway?

 

[Dexter Manley]

He's lost all credibility with Sage and TJax.

With the rest of the team, it's really TBD. If Farve plays well, and the team is winning, it will quickly be forgotten that he ever flip flopped.

If Farve starts making mistakes that cost the team games, it will become a significant issue with most of the other players on the team.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

at the time, that was probably true. if Favre wasn't an option, then they were going to move on without him.

but, Favre changed his mind. once that happened, Childress made the wise decision to pursue him again.

doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

 

[H.K.]

It's tough because the move is unfair to two players,

Which two and how is it "unfair" to them?

 

[sho nuff]

Wilf's ultimate goal is to get a Stadium. That will require showing the state of Minnesota that the team is worth it, and this is a calculated move to try and achieve success both on field and off field.

Did I read on this today that the Governor or someone said that Favre will in no way affect the possible stadium deal?And I can see why they would say that...they know Favre is around for a year...maybe 2. Not sure how much it really helps as those in charge (legislature/voters) will know that once Favre is gone...if the team struggles and the economy is still hurting...the fans could react the same as last year and not sell out the place as quickly.I just can't see how a 40 year old QB is going to help any stadium deal.Great for a short term boost in ticket sales...but that long term goal IMO is not affected all that much.

 

[dparker713]

Childress (is he even the GM?) is the boss. It doesnt matter if he's credible. The players do what he says or you lose PT and/or your job. Seems like a simple enough speech to me - his way or the higway. Any player that underperforms because of this is almost as gigantic a baby as Schlereth.

 

[Dave Baker]

I don't think you can believe a word out of Childress' mouth ever again. Either mean what you say or don't. If he thought that poor QB performance could lead to him changing his mind, then he never should have said what he did. Now none of this makes Childress all that unique. Many coaches say stuff that make then lose complete credibility. It's just that now we know Childress can never be believed for anything that comes out of his mouth again. And if I were a player, you better believe I take notice. Whether it's a starting assignment or an assessment of my abilities, or whatever, I know if he tells me something, it's quite possible that he doesn't truly mean it.

And for those that cry out "things changed!", I can go with that only so far. Things change, sure. But it's not like this is three years later, or even one year later. That's why you don't say things like he did unless you mean it.

Don't get me wrong. The move itself might make perfect sense for the team. But that has zero to do with this thread.

 

[ScottyFargo]

It's tough because the move is unfair to two players,

Which two and how is it "unfair" to them?

The two quarterbacks who thought that they had a shot at starting for the Vikings this year. I feel bad for them, but not to the point where I decry the move to sign Favre. He's a better option, but it is unfair how they worked through T.C. just to be put aside when Favre changed his mind.I agree that the term unfair is based on what vantage point you're standing on.

 

[comfortably numb]

IMO Favre has been studying the Vikings playbook for the last month, and this was a calculated move.

In regards to Childress flip flopping, its the same as your employer telling your dept that the cut backs will not effect your department.

2 weeks later, the whole department is terminated.

It's business IMO.

 

[fatness]

I think this had been the plan for a month or so. "OK, we'll check back when we're about to break training camp. Let your arm heal up a little more. No need to come stay in the dorms since you already know 75% of this offense anyways."

While I agree with you, I don't think that was shared with the players. I think they were told otherwise. If there was any dissatisfaction with Childress among the players prior to all this, his dishonesty will just add to it. Supposedly "winning cures everything", and if they roll over everyone all season long and deep into the playoffs (which I don't expect will happen) then maybe all gets forgotten. But if they're winning on defense and running, or winning despite bad QB play, the dissatisfaction will grow. And if they lose due to bad QB play the whole thing will come apart quickly and publicly.edited to add: I do think that Childress had the right to do what he did, as several other posters do. But I don't think that's the issue at all. The issue is whether he's undermined his relationship with the players, and if, how, and how soon that will affect anything.

 

[Zoomanji]

minor issue when compared to a coach who preaches character than convinces the owner to sign a convicted felon

 

[ookook]

It seems to me that most (if not all) the players fully expected this so the flip-flop is not the end of the world. Coaches and players alike (and GMs) lie to the press and each other all the time.

There are rote things the roles require they say.

 

[Dave Baker]

its the same as your employer telling your dept that the cut backs will not effect your department.2 weeks later, the whole department is terminated.It's business IMO.

Not all businesses are run like this. But for those that do, do you think it's good business practice? I think it's terrible, because you lose the trust of your staff. It's better not to say anything at all that open your mouth and become a liar, just a few weeks later. You know, like Childress did.

 

[H.K.]

It's tough because the move is unfair to two players,

Which two and how is it "unfair" to them?

The two quarterbacks who thought that they had a shot at starting for the Vikings this year. I feel bad for them, but not to the point where I decry the move to sign Favre. He's a better option, but it is unfair how they worked through T.C. just to be put aside when Favre changed his mind.I agree that the term unfair is based on what vantage point you're standing on.

First, thank you for answering because I did not want to make any assumptions on who you were referencing. I understand a certain level of empathy for those two, however, I still don't get what is "unfair" here regardless of vantage point. Plenty of NFL players get demoted after busting their butts in TC, so other than the media coverage, this situation is no different than what happens everywhere else around the league.Both Sage and TJ had ample opportunity to prove to the team that they didn't need anyone else at QB. They are every bit as responsible for Favre being there as Childress.

 

[Lash]

bottom line: Who gets fired if things don't go well this year for Minny?

Brad Childress

the players know this and they are big boys

 

[smackdaddies]

Winning covers a multitude of sins

They win, all is good (Think 1st 8 games for the Jets last year)

They lose.....

 

[comfortably numb]

its the same as your employer telling your dept that the cut backs will not effect your department.2 weeks later, the whole department is terminated.It's business IMO.

Not all businesses are run like this. But for those that do, do you think it's good business practice? I think it's terrible, because you lose the trust of your staff. It's better not to say anything at all that open your mouth and become a liar, just a few weeks later. You know, like Childress did.

I hear you, but if you are the owner of your company, and you know you have to cut off a department, but have to put other things in order 1st, and you have 76 reporters at your office each morning asking you if you are cutting Department X, you either show your cards and cause possible damage to what you are lining up, or you lie.

 

[Dave Baker]

its the same as your employer telling your dept that the cut backs will not effect your department.2 weeks later, the whole department is terminated.It's business IMO.

Not all businesses are run like this. But for those that do, do you think it's good business practice? I think it's terrible, because you lose the trust of your staff. It's better not to say anything at all that open your mouth and become a liar, just a few weeks later. You know, like Childress did.

I hear you, but if you are the owner of your company, and you know you have to cut off a department, but have to put other things in order 1st, and you have 76 reporters at your office each morning asking you if you are cutting Department X, you either show your cards and cause possible damage to what you are lining up, or you lie.

I think there's a happy medium between lying and telling everyone everything. In Childress' example, I would have suggested saying that Favre said he was retired and that we're moving on without him. When asked what happens if decides to come back later, I say we'll deal with that when the time comes. Simple, straighforward and honest. And you don't lose credibility and guys like Jackson and Rosenfels might even appreciate the candor.

 

[ScottyFargo]

It's tough because the move is unfair to two players,

Which two and how is it "unfair" to them?

The two quarterbacks who thought that they had a shot at starting for the Vikings this year. I feel bad for them, but not to the point where I decry the move to sign Favre. He's a better option, but it is unfair how they worked through T.C. just to be put aside when Favre changed his mind.I agree that the term unfair is based on what vantage point you're standing on.

First, thank you for answering because I did not want to make any assumptions on who you were referencing. I understand a certain level of empathy for those two, however, I still don't get what is "unfair" here regardless of vantage point. Plenty of NFL players get demoted after busting their butts in TC, so other than the media coverage, this situation is no different than what happens everywhere else around the league.

Both Sage and TJ had ample opportunity to prove to the team that they didn't need anyone else at QB. They are every bit as responsible for Favre being there as Childress.

That's a fair point, and one I agreed with when the Vikings were initially pursuing Favre, I think that the unfair point comes in where Childress said that the door was closed at the start of TC, when obviously it really never was. You're right, Sage or Tarvaris should have shown more in practices in order to secure the position, and even for Sage the timing of his good performance in week 1 preseason was still too little too late for him to step out from under Favre's shadow.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

didn't Favre also flip flop here?

lots of players retire and then unretire a short while later. Derrick Mason just did it. Favre has done it a bunch of times.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

My slant is this...MIN did not receive terrible QB play last season

267 Completions

452 Attempts

3217 Yards

59.1% Completion Rate

7.12 YPA

22 TD's

17 INT's

...is Brett Favre going to be much better than this? Consider that MIN does not have what you would call a great stable of receivers? Their trade to get Sage Rosenfels was an adequate move to perhaps provide some stability to the position, even if he's not a great talent.

But now, Childress sells his sould essentially for a guy who has shown himself to be a selfish egomaniac with some troublesome arm, age and committment issues. I see the chances for this going poorly for the Vikings as being much greater than it turning out roses.

Childress said "No way" 3 weeks ago. Jared Allen said it would be tough to do what the Vikings did to Sage/Tavaris 3 weeks ago claiming that training camp and that bonding experience not to mention the blood, sweat and tears that are shared means alot. For Favre to not take part in that would hinder Favre's acceptance in the locker room.

Everything is painted nice now...when adversity hits as it inevitably does though - the Vikings won't just suffer from lack of leadership, they'll suffer from people being in leadership positions that haven't or aren't displaying leadership.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

For me, it is less about this specific move and more about how the move is yet more proof that Childress has absolutely no idea what he's doing.

 

[Quadrax]

i'm starting favre week 1 instead of pennington or young....

 

[Stinger Ray]

I think this had been the plan for a month or so. "OK, we'll check back when we're about to break training camp. Let your arm heal up a little more. No need to come stay in the dorms since you already know 75% of this offense anyways."

 

[H.K.]

That's a fair point, and one I agreed with when the Vikings were initially pursuing Favre, I think that the unfair point comes in where Childress said that the door was closed at the start of TC, when obviously it really never was. You're right, Sage or Tarvaris should have shown more in practices in order to secure the position, and even for Sage the timing of his good performance in week 1 preseason was still too little too late for him to step out from under Favre's shadow.

I agree, but I believe that was how Childress felt at the time. Not unlike how he did last year when he said TJ was his starter, then it was Gus, then it was TJ again.Favre was out of the picture, so the team could move on. Well, the world changed and now Favre is their QB.

It's like the "dreaded vote of confidence" HC's get from owners right before they get canned. Things are as they are....until they change.

 

[Not Sure]

Childress lacks integrity and credibility and is astoundingly devoid of charisma for someone in a leadership position. This episode only accentuated those characteristics. If in fact the players expected this kind of behavior, it further shows how little respect he gets and deserves. It would have been so much better for him, and the team, if he had been more straight-forward about it.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

what was his choice when favre said no?"Well, we are screwed, the 2 QBs we have here suck so this really bites"coaches lie all the time, they have to so they can keep the team positive and working. i have no idea why this is being made into something more.

Bingo.This poll is ridiculous.

 

[KCC]

what was his choice when favre said no?"Well, we are screwed, the 2 QBs we have here suck so this really bites"coaches lie all the time, they have to so they can keep the team positive and working. i have no idea why this is being made into something more.

Very The last thing we need is more melodrama surrounding the Favre signing.

 

[Dave Baker]

didn't Favre also flip flop here?lots of players retire and then unretire a short while later. Derrick Mason just did it. Favre has done it a bunch of times.

And the players get a ton of flack for it. Deservedly so. Just like Childress should get. And when a player does it, the next time he retires, everyone rolls their eyes (as they did with Favre). So from this point forward, you can count on everyone rolling their eyes whenever Childress talks about football matters because they'll know he might not mean it or is prone to change his mind in a couple weeks.The lesson learned? Keep your trap shut. Don't say the book on Favre is closed if it's not.

 

[Dave Baker]

what was his choice when favre said no?"Well, we are screwed, the 2 QBs we have here suck so this really bites"coaches lie all the time, they have to so they can keep the team positive and working. i have no idea why this is being made into something more.

Bingo.This poll is ridiculous.

Wrong. His choice was to say that since Favre is retired, they will move forward with a winning team and play Rosenfels and Jackson. If he unretires, they deal with that then, just like they deal with any situation to make their team better. If the players can't handle that, they shouldn't be starting anyway.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

anyone have the direct quote or story regarding what Childress said after Favre turned them down a few weeks ago?

 

[Cookiemonster]

How about the need to motivate Save and Tarvaris? Who cares what was said to them if it got the best out of them? The best man wins (Sage) and the other is moved out of the way (Jackson). Chilly doesn't owe either of them anything. It's business and in no way static. What if Minnesota suddenly made a trade offer for Peyton Manning that the Colts couldn't turn down? Would anybody have a problem with Sage and TJax being bumped for Peyton, or is it just 'cause we're tired of hearing about Favre coming/going?