Eric Stratton
Footballguy
Here is key point you miss with this...the organization may have ACTED like they were willing to take him back but THEY HAD NO INTENTIONS OF DOING SO. This is something the TT supporters can't grasp.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Farve Reinstated; expected to report Monday (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter The Amalgamated
- Start date
- Status
Okay, almost everything is speculative at this point since we are not privy to the actual talks.
Let's look at what we know.
a. Brett filed for reinstatement and reported to camp. Very few players report to a training camp without be willing to practice. In fact, I cannot generate a reasonable explanation for why one would. What did he have to lose by practicing.
b. Favre has reported wanting to play for the Packers. MM and TT have confirmed this. Playing involves practicing and every position is a competition. I see this as beyond dispute since every party agrees: Brett wants to play. Playing involves practicing. No one has said otherwise. No one has said Favre wasn't willing to compete. BF and MM said he was.
c. Several reports have said (based on Favre camps leaks, I imagine) that he would not be allowed to pactice with the team. McCarthy has at one point said this was the plan. Then Murphey said, "no, it would be a competition".
d. Favre came to camp and left. As far as we know, without fine. If they were not fine with him leaving, if they did not desire it, they might be expected to fine him for not participating. My inference is thay did not want nor would allow him to practice in a normal fashion...with players. And it is consistent with what we KNOW at one point the Packers had said.
e. The Packers have often said he was welcome then done things that conveyed the opposite. The same does not seem to be true for Favre.
So it is not a large stretch to see it this way:
1. Favre showed, was told he would not get to practice with the team nor compete. He would not play during preseason.
2. Favre found this role unacceptable and suspected he might get cut at the last minute.
3. It was clear to all that if Favre did choose to continue to show up and even do individual practices it would be a zoo. Neiher he nor the Packers want one. Favre decides not to put the team through the ringer to try to force them to cut him soon.
4. Favre leaves camp.
5. McCarthy reports Favre was not in the right place about playing with the Packers. Technically probably true. But we do not know what the conditions were. We also do not know if Favre at some point just changed his mind after all the "untruths" of FO telling him one thing and then saying another to the media. By Tuesday, he might not be willing to play for assclowns who ddiiiccckkk him around all the time.
Let's look at what we know.
a. Brett filed for reinstatement and reported to camp. Very few players report to a training camp without be willing to practice. In fact, I cannot generate a reasonable explanation for why one would. What did he have to lose by practicing.
b. Favre has reported wanting to play for the Packers. MM and TT have confirmed this. Playing involves practicing and every position is a competition. I see this as beyond dispute since every party agrees: Brett wants to play. Playing involves practicing. No one has said otherwise. No one has said Favre wasn't willing to compete. BF and MM said he was.
c. Several reports have said (based on Favre camps leaks, I imagine) that he would not be allowed to pactice with the team. McCarthy has at one point said this was the plan. Then Murphey said, "no, it would be a competition".
d. Favre came to camp and left. As far as we know, without fine. If they were not fine with him leaving, if they did not desire it, they might be expected to fine him for not participating. My inference is thay did not want nor would allow him to practice in a normal fashion...with players. And it is consistent with what we KNOW at one point the Packers had said.
e. The Packers have often said he was welcome then done things that conveyed the opposite. The same does not seem to be true for Favre.
So it is not a large stretch to see it this way:
1. Favre showed, was told he would not get to practice with the team nor compete. He would not play during preseason.
2. Favre found this role unacceptable and suspected he might get cut at the last minute.
3. It was clear to all that if Favre did choose to continue to show up and even do individual practices it would be a zoo. Neiher he nor the Packers want one. Favre decides not to put the team through the ringer to try to force them to cut him soon.
4. Favre leaves camp.
5. McCarthy reports Favre was not in the right place about playing with the Packers. Technically probably true. But we do not know what the conditions were. We also do not know if Favre at some point just changed his mind after all the "untruths" of FO telling him one thing and then saying another to the media. By Tuesday, he might not be willing to play for assclowns who ddiiiccckkk him around all the time.
Kleck
Footballguy
I agree with you that the Packers record with Favre returning at this point might not be a whole lot better. A repeat of 13-3 would have been hard enough to repeat even if Favre had never retired and chosen to come back for the 2008 season in March.That's about where I'm at right now. Preseason could obviously change that. FWIW, if Favre did come back as QB, given his lack of offseason preparation and the drama with him and the front office, I predicted about the same for him as well. Which is why I found the Favre vs Rodgers talk so.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kleck
Footballguy
Is there a liable source of some sort that has said this? I may have missed it in the hundred or so new stories that seem to pop up every week. What do you think about the reports about TT and MM willing to take Favre back prior to, or around the time of, the NFL draft?
T Bell
Footballguy
I did some google news searches on my own earlier today thinking I was going to answer Joe's question, but it ended up being too extensive. Nevertheless, I have another example: In April 2006 he made a comment - interestingly enough, while "pondering retirement" right before the draft - that the Packers needed to "make a statement" like they did when they signed Reggie White and sign some big names. It was obviously a challenge to Thompson and even an implied threat under the circumstances that he might not return to the team if they didn't make more of an effort to win by acquiring players. You can easily find multiple links to this.
I was finding this sort of thing was even more common than I, as a non-Packer fan, had realized as I just haven't followed Favre extensively during the offseason typically. Is it horrendous? No. But I think these types of events add up and create dissention, and they certainly imply that Favre feels a sense of entitlement to publicly comment on how the team is operating, and even publicly to demand that it be operated in a way that's built primarily around his own career (he specifically mentioned in some instances how he didn't have much playing time left in his career).
In short, it makes Favre look like a guy who loves to use the media to convey his message when it suits him, but God help you if you say anything bad about him in the media. He comes across looking pretty lame when you start looking at his offseason body of work from the last several years.
Kleck
Footballguy
I'm assuming they are. At that point Favre had not submitted his retirement papers yet, and I haven't seen anything saying that Thompson was pushing Favre to do so.
In case you forgot that was the first year McCarthy was there, andFavre did like Sherman. On top of all that on April 26, 2006 Favre announced he was coming back. By the way I didn't see any real big moves before Favre announced he was coming back.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
You're basically saying the same thing that I did. Favre went with his team. When they were bad, he was bad. When they got better, he got better. When they were good, he got good.The success of mediocre QBs is defined by the players around them. This has been the exact definition of Favre the last 3 years. He is no longer the guy that makes the players around him better. Lately, it's been closer to the other way around, IMHO.Todem said:
We'll have to disagree here. Half the starting QBs in the NFL would have taken that team to the playoffs last year, at least. Rodgers could come in and end up being an awful NFL QB (certainly wouldn't be the first Tedford guy to do it), and then they'd be in trouble. But if he can come in and even just be 'OK', this team won't miss a beat.This wasn't Brett Favre circa 1996 that they lost here.
gump
Footballguy
6:58 p.m.
From SI.com's Peter King
Here's what I'm hearing about the potential Favre deal tonight:
• I want to stress that I wouldn't bet my mortgage on this but it is what I've heard reliably. I hear the Jets are offering a solid third-round draft choice that could rise to a first-round draft choice depending on the team's performance and how well Favre plays.
• I'm told the Bucs positively would not make an offer that lofty. The Packers have suggested a couple of different scenarios involving draft choices with Tampa Bay but I hear that the Packers are not close to doing anything tonight.
• My gut feeling? Brett Favre Held Hostage will reach Thursday or perhaps longer. Tampa Bay general manager Bruce Allen drives a very hard bargain, and I wouldn't expect the Packers to be able to do business easily with him. I don't know if Favre or agent Bus Cook has told Green Bay where he prefers to play, but if his choice is Tampa Bay, this could take a while, especially if the Packers are willing to send him to a team they play in Week 4.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/foot...cker/index.html
From SI.com's Peter King
Here's what I'm hearing about the potential Favre deal tonight:
• I want to stress that I wouldn't bet my mortgage on this but it is what I've heard reliably. I hear the Jets are offering a solid third-round draft choice that could rise to a first-round draft choice depending on the team's performance and how well Favre plays.
• I'm told the Bucs positively would not make an offer that lofty. The Packers have suggested a couple of different scenarios involving draft choices with Tampa Bay but I hear that the Packers are not close to doing anything tonight.
• My gut feeling? Brett Favre Held Hostage will reach Thursday or perhaps longer. Tampa Bay general manager Bruce Allen drives a very hard bargain, and I wouldn't expect the Packers to be able to do business easily with him. I don't know if Favre or agent Bus Cook has told Green Bay where he prefers to play, but if his choice is Tampa Bay, this could take a while, especially if the Packers are willing to send him to a team they play in Week 4.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/foot...cker/index.html
T Bell
Footballguy
This explanation of what we're seeing (and not seeing) today makes sense.The Jets, the team with the most to gain from both a PR standpoint and a team need standpoint from Favre's arrival, is offering the most to the Packers to make this happen. Unfortunately for them, as between them and TB, they're second in terms of Favre's order of preference.
The Bucs, seeing that Favre would prefer to play with them (and play during their October matchup vs. GB) are playing a bit more hard-nosed, but they also are in a position to offer a veteran QB in Griese to back up Rodgers. Moreover, as they run a similar system to GB's system under Gruden, they may feel they have the luxury of time and can afford to wait longer than GB can to resolve this Favre situation. After all, if it doesn't happen for them, they still have a guy they can win with in Garcia, and plenty of depth behind him, unlike the Jets.
The game continues.
gump
Footballguy
Packers want Griese, possible second-round pick
August 6, 2008 7:23 PM
Posted by ESPN.com's Pat Yasinskas.
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fl. -- We're now starting to get an idea of what the Packers want in terms of compensation for Brett Favre.
ESPN's Sal Paolantonio is reporting the New York Jets have offered a fourth-round pick in 2009 that has the potential to turn into a second-round choice if certain performance standards are met and the team.
Paolantonio also reports the Packers have told Bucs general manager Bruce Allen that Green Bay would accept a third-round pick in 2009 that could turn into a second-round pick along with reserve quarterback Brian Griese.
Including Griese as part of the package could be a key because the Packers want a veteran presence to go with Aaron Rodgers and Brian Brohm. Griese is expendable because Tampa Bay also has Jeff Garcia, Chris Simms, Luke McCown and Josh Johnson on the roster. Garcia and Simms also could be candidates for trades if the Bucs land Favre.
August 6, 2008 7:23 PM
Posted by ESPN.com's Pat Yasinskas.
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fl. -- We're now starting to get an idea of what the Packers want in terms of compensation for Brett Favre.
ESPN's Sal Paolantonio is reporting the New York Jets have offered a fourth-round pick in 2009 that has the potential to turn into a second-round choice if certain performance standards are met and the team.
Paolantonio also reports the Packers have told Bucs general manager Bruce Allen that Green Bay would accept a third-round pick in 2009 that could turn into a second-round pick along with reserve quarterback Brian Griese.
Including Griese as part of the package could be a key because the Packers want a veteran presence to go with Aaron Rodgers and Brian Brohm. Griese is expendable because Tampa Bay also has Jeff Garcia, Chris Simms, Luke McCown and Josh Johnson on the roster. Garcia and Simms also could be candidates for trades if the Bucs land Favre.
Is Farve urging his GM to "make a statement" and sign some big names like they did with Reggie White similar to "constantly bad mouthing Thompson and calling Thompson a liar before he retired?" J
Last edited by a moderator:
T Bell
Footballguy
Didn't the "liar" stuff just happen in the last couple of weeks? I assumed you'd seen that and was looking for older stuff.
What was "too extensive"? You found a lot of quotes demonstrating Favre "constantly bad mouthing Thompson and calling Thompson a liar before he retired?" Can you share some?
J
I don't know. That's why I'm asking rene to help me understand exactly the quotes he's talking about that make him say:
J
H.K.
Footballguy
Either your math or your wording is wrong. Going by NFL.com game logs, Grant started weeks 9-12, 14, 16-17.Based on Grant's seven starts, here are the actual numbers:
Favre (in 2007) when Grant did not start threw for 259 yards and 1.44 touchdowns per game w/ 7.3 YPA
Favre (in 2007) when Grant did start threw for 261 yards and 2.14 touchdowns per game w/ 8.4 YPA
Favre's stats for verification
Tau837
Footballguy
Franknbeans
Footballguy
No better than 6-10
FunkyPlutos
Footballguy
I have been one to question the decision of the Packers to "get rid of" Brett Favre but after thinking about it today, I think it is probably a good move for the organization. (If not a good move, it is one they have to make) They spent a first round pick on Rodgers, and if I am right, he has two years left on his contract before being a FA. If Favre stays, for even one year, they will have spent a first round pick on a player who will play for them for one year. NFL teams draft first round players to make a difference. Many of them bust but at least they show that they cannot hack it in the NFL. The Packers HAVE to let Rodgers play to justify the pick in the first round "way back when."
fatness
Footballguy
I don't recall him calling Thompson a liar before he retired. Maybe he did but I don't recall it. I do recall the things he said about the Packers failing to sign Randy Moss, and there is no way to read them except as criticism of Thompson:from Favre criticizes Packers' failed attempt at trading for Moss, May 12, 2007
and from FRUSTRATED FAVRE, May 13, 2007 (archived copy)
Tau837
Footballguy
In this particular case, he was right. I'm impressed that he offered to give up some of his own salary to help out. That made it even lower risk.
renesauz
IBL Representative
But even that is speculation!!! After all, didn't TT go down to Mississippi himself to ask Brett oe more time?FWIW..I think that there is a great deal of truth in that speculation. I believe TT and MM were relieved that Favre retired because they really did want to move on with Rodgers.
So what? It was only a few short weeks ago that BF clearly changed his mind, and that was clearly too late for the Packers.
All I am trying to (desperately) point out is that even if we believe most of Favre's story, it doesn't change the fundamental fact that TT and the team committed to move on with Rodgers, with revamped offensive plans (we can safely assume), with a high QB draft pick, etc.
We are all trying to read between the lines with stories which may or may not be true, and quotes that can be interpreted different ways. We may all be wrong, but right now I see more reasons to trust TT then BF. I know Favre to be a waffler.
FunkyPlutos
Footballguy
renesauz
IBL Representative
Come on...now you're acting toolish. Isn't it remotely possible that MM wanted Brett to know that while BF was welcome on the team, he may want to start Rodgers anyway? Maybe both realized that should MM decide Rodgers was the better choice (for whatever reason), BF was not in the right frame of mind, not committed enought to the TEAM, to sit the bench? Isn't it even remotely reasonable that maybe MM decided against the open competition since Favre couldn't handle being benched?Both MM and BF said they'd love an open competition, and I believe them. But I ask (for the hundreth time), how was a fair and open competition even remotely possible? You talked about conditions....what conditions would Favre need? Look, I don't have all of the answers in here, but it's very very clear to me that the average BF supporter is believeing virtually everything he says and is incapable of even acknowledging that anyone else could reasonably believe Rodgers might be the better answer for the Packers.
renesauz
IBL Representative
Joe...I'm having trouble coming up with the links you've asked for. Perhaps I was mistaken based on some of the writer's stories, and if that's the basis, then I'm every bit as guilty of stretching truth as I have been accusing some of the BF supporters in here.
I do believe that I've posted some very good questions, several of them in that post you've been calling me out for, that have yet to be adequately answered by the pro-BF camp however.
I do believe that I've posted some very good questions, several of them in that post you've been calling me out for, that have yet to be adequately answered by the pro-BF camp however.
These are the quotes I'd seen.I don't think they're as bad as what Rene is remembering. Yes, he's voicing frustration and being critical saying he badly wanted a guy like Moss. I think what he said is what many Green Bay fans were saying. But I don't think it's as negative a tone as some are remembering.
J
renesauz
IBL Representative
I agree...I appear to have been wrong on that point, but still await answers to my other questions :X
T Bell
Footballguy
I agree that we've seen uglier, but it's also true that there's a been a constant whine from Hattiesburg in recent offseasons, defined in time as after Sherman (who gave Favre the run of the place) was replaced by Thompson. Every major decision or (allegedly) missed opportunity has seen Favre commenting on what he thinks should be done- not resigning Rivera; not resigning Wahle; not signing Moss; hiring McCarthy (this was less express as Favre was lobbying for Mariucci); the "we need to make a statement with a big signing" comment two years ago; etc., and that's just off the top of my head. Instead of a single big blowup, it's been death by a thousand cuts. Add that to the annual months-long drama about whether or not he'll return, and I can easily see where Thompson has had his fill and wants to be rid of this "legend" that he's been saddled with.
That's cool. We just disagree with how much of a negative this "death by a thousand cuts" (I"m sorry but that's a little melodramatic) is and more importantly, what you're getting in return.Aaron Rodgers will be quiet as a mouse and never be bigger than Ted Thompson in the foreseeable future. He also might be Joey Harrington or Kyle Boller. That's the gamble. If I'm Thompson, I man up and take my thousand cuts (and maybe avoid some of the bonehead moves that are drawing these like not bungling the Moss deal).
J
Last edited by a moderator:
habsfan
Footballguy
The marketing deal is telling to me. Do you (allegedly) offer a player $20-25MM to stay home if you either a) want him on your team or b) are prepared/able to trade him in a way that is even remotely agreeable to you? Clearly not. You want him to stay retired because you don't want him back and you feel he is looking for a new playing situation that you clearly can't live with (the Bears/Vikings type rumors).
The time for the optics of "good will" between Favre and GB are long past so I'm not buying the "keep him in the family" angle. If you're GB, how do you drag out this trade situation for a minute longer over the Jets versus the Bucs or this round pick versus that round pick? You were going to pay him to stay home and suddenly now you're trying to put the squeeze on potential suitors for every last drop? That makes no sense.
What makes sense to me is that Favre would settle for nothing less than his outright release or a trade to the team(s) he wanted from the get-go. He felt he held the cards to force that (contractually and/or in the court of popular opinion) so he and MM had a six hour game of chicken and GB didn't flinch - we will tolerate the circus and we will hand you a clipboard. So now the power has shifted to where each side seems to be holding an equal amount.
The time for the optics of "good will" between Favre and GB are long past so I'm not buying the "keep him in the family" angle. If you're GB, how do you drag out this trade situation for a minute longer over the Jets versus the Bucs or this round pick versus that round pick? You were going to pay him to stay home and suddenly now you're trying to put the squeeze on potential suitors for every last drop? That makes no sense.
What makes sense to me is that Favre would settle for nothing less than his outright release or a trade to the team(s) he wanted from the get-go. He felt he held the cards to force that (contractually and/or in the court of popular opinion) so he and MM had a six hour game of chicken and GB didn't flinch - we will tolerate the circus and we will hand you a clipboard. So now the power has shifted to where each side seems to be holding an equal amount.
T Bell
Footballguy
You accuse me of being dramatic, but then you talk about Favre as if it's 1996 and how Thompson needs to "man up" and continue to tolerate this aging, whining star. How many more years do you think Favre could play at a level where he's better than, say, half of the starters in the NFL? I'd say maybe two tops, FWIW, and maybe less.
Oh for sure, I think we're talking about a 2 year situation here max.And it's not an issue of 1996. It's an issue of 2008 Favre vs 2008 Rodgers. For that I say suck it up.
J
massraider
Footballguy
If that's what the Pack is asking for, I gotta figure the Bucs would have already gone for it.
KingPrawn
Footballguy
Not really wanting to promote the who's to blame game here but I'm still interested in seeing an answer to the original question posed by fatness because I think it's important to how the Packers and Favre got to this point. How many here would be able to quit their job, go on national television and call the business owner a liar and bad-mouth him, change their mind, ask for their job back, and still get it back?Show of hands?
Anyone?
I think both sides, by their own admission, have said things they both regretted saying. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Both sides have said things that have damaged the relationship. McCarthy wasn't convinced that Favre could get past that and wisely didn't want the negativity in his locker room. Favre realized he couldn't get past what was said and wants to play elsewhere.
I would also like to hear from those that think the Packers should just bring Favre back because he is the better QB. I agree he is but IMO it's not that black and white. After Favre's retirement/unretirement/retirement in March Mike McCarthy told Rodgers he is the starting QB, told the team to get behind Rodgers as the starting QB. Aaron Rodgers has done nothing to betray that decision. He has showed up at all the off-season practices, workouts, etc. He has had the whole team over almost weekly for cookouts. The only time Favre has showed up in Green Bay since his retirement announcement was Sunday night. Favre hasn't even worked out with his personal trainer as in years past. And now McCarthy is supposed to go back on his word to Rodgrs and the team because Favre wants to come back? If he were to do that he would lose the trust of most of the team.
It depends. Like most things, it's not simple.Among many things, it depends on:
Who you are.
What have you done for the company?
How much political capital you have within the company.
What you're saying - Do most people agree with that you're saying? Are you right?
How much political capital the guy you're saying this about has.
Can Jared Lorenzen say Bill Polian is stupid for not cutting Marvin Harrison after the gun thing? No way.
Can Brett Favre say he's frustrated Ted Thompson wasn't able to land Randy Moss? Absolutely.
Is that fair? I dunno. But that's how life works.
J
Last edited by a moderator:
renesauz
IBL Representative
Joe, theres an awful lot of guys whose opinions we both respect who've gone on record as saying they didn't see BF as any more then an average QB (Maurile is one).Now, we might be wrong, but this opinion wasn't based on TT's choices, but our own observations of what BF has done over the past few years.Contrary to popular opinion, it is NOT always in the best interests of any franchise to go with the best guy "this year". At some point, ou have to let go the old and welcome the new...at some point.We can agree to disagree on the right answer, but TT is NOT alone in his thinking...there are MANY of us who agree that it's time to move on with Rodgers.From what I can tell, the vast majority of the support for BF, and resultant anti-TT sentiment seems based primarily on two things:1. An unwavering belief that BF is the not only the better answer, but the ONLY answer.2. That BF is being mostly truthful, and has been lied to and decieved by TT...a belief that is not well proven, but only speculated based primarily on the statements of BF himself.I'm not trying to get you or any other Favre believer to change his mind on what you feel is the right answer, because not only are you entitled to that opinion, but you have strong, valid arguments. What I'm trying to get you and others to do is back off of TT, not because I have a man-crush for him like some do for BF, but because I think you're unwavering acceptance of the two points above has cause you to inappropriately and unfairly judge the man.Now...If you can see that point, it's much easier to see/understand TT's later moves. He could have handled all of this better, but that's very easy to say from my living room, in hindsight. Too easy.O...and please answer my other questions!
Tau837
Footballguy
fatness
Footballguy
I think we all know that those who are celebrities can get away with things we cannot. Maybe a better question is: "Can Terrell Owens go on national television and call the business owner a liar and bad-mouth him, change his mind, ask for his job back, and still get it back?" The answer "no", he can't get away with it to the extent that Favre did, he would have been gone sooner. And the main difference is that Favre is a more popular guy, people like his "image". Whereas for doing similar things Owens would have been labeled "whiner" and "cancer" by more fans far earlier and to a greater extent than Favre was. Favre's image was popular, so he got away with things others couldn't for awhile. That's NBA-style, where players get coaches fired. Personally I don't want to see the NFL becoming like that.
Tau837
Footballguy
I'm not sure I get this point.IMO Favre is the best QB for the Packers this year, given their choices are Favre, Rodgers, Brohm, and Flynn. If they had Peyton Manning, Brady, Romo, or several others, Favre wouldn't be the "ONLY answer." But they don't have those players. They have Favre and a bunch of unproven, inexperienced QBs.Inevitably, the next point made is, well you can't just play for this year. IMO playing Favre this year doens't preclude playing Rodgers, Brohm, or Flynn in the future, and I can't see putting a QB out there this year who isn't the best option for the team this year. So I disagree with the premise that it is necessary to move on from Favre now in order to preclude some future disaster scenario at QB for the team.So, if your point really means an unwavering belief that Favre is the only answer this year in comparison to Rodgers, Brohm, and Flynn, then I agree with it. But the way you stated it makes it sound a lot worse for those backing Favre here.
What other questions? I'm not judging the man. I've no idea what kind of a guy he is. I think Thompson has made a huge error in managing this team. Nothing to do with being "on" him or backing off him. It's just my opinion of what he's done here. This is my opinion on what I think is going to happen. We'll know what happened in a few months.Joe, theres an awful lot of guys whose opinions we both respect who've gone on record as saying they didn't see BF as any more then an average QB (Maurile is one).Now, we might be wrong, but this opinion wasn't based on TT's choices, but our own observations of what BF has done over the past few years.
Contrary to popular opinion, it is NOT always in the best interests of any franchise to go with the best guy "this year". At some point, ou have to let go the old and welcome the new...at some point.
We can agree to disagree on the right answer, but TT is NOT alone in his thinking...there are MANY of us who agree that it's time to move on with Rodgers.
From what I can tell, the vast majority of the support for BF, and resultant anti-TT sentiment seems based primarily on two things:
1. An unwavering belief that BF is the not only the better answer, but the ONLY answer.
2. That BF is being mostly truthful, and has been lied to and decieved by TT...a belief that is not well proven, but only speculated based primarily on the statements of BF himself.
I'm not trying to get you or any other Favre believer to change his mind on what you feel is the right answer, because not only are you entitled to that opinion, but you have strong, valid arguments. What I'm trying to get you and others to do is back off of TT, not because I have a man-crush for him like some do for BF, but because I think you're unwavering acceptance of the two points above has cause you to inappropriately and unfairly judge the man.
Now...If you can see that point, it's much easier to see/understand TT's later moves. He could have handled all of this better, but that's very easy to say from my living room, in hindsight. Too easy.
O...and please answer my other questions!
J
Last edited by a moderator:
renesauz
IBL Representative
JWB, MOST (cartainly not all) of the BF backers have been so adamant and unwavering in that belief that they literrally laugh at anybody who suggests BF may not wina "fair and open competition". Even our own Joe Bryant lightly poked fun at TT for believing otherwise. Their are a great number who literally can't even conceive of BF losing to AR.
Oh absolutely. I think if Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers were in a true open competition for the starting job, there is less than 5% chance that Rodgers would win. That's just my opinion. I don't "know" that. I believe that.Sometimes, you have to say things like "it's an open competition" for public consumption. That doesn't mean both guys have an equal chance.
J
I am not asserting whether or not Favre is a better short or long term answer for the Packers.I am asserting that the Packers APPEAR to have made up their mind that he was not to be allowed to be part of the team and consistently have misrepresented it to the public. Since June, it was clear they never wanted him to play for them this season even as a backup. He was not welcomed. He was not given a chance to compete. They said these things and they were not true. And there is no evidence he would have been allowed to practice with the team. Instead, we have both BF and MM saying he was not be. That is evidence. What I was also responding to was an assertion that Favre was AFRAID to compete. This was a lot more speculative than the inferences I have made based on what has been said by one or more of the parties who actually know something.Toolish as as toolish does my friend. I am actually not all that biased. Both parties moving on makes sense to me. What does not is the exact kind of misinformation that Brett accuses TT of in the past. Saying one thing to him, then another to the media.At this point I trust Favre at his word a WHOLE LOT more than any member of the Packers organization.I mean they said things like welcome and backup then sent Murphey down with a 25 million dollar offer to stay retired.I simply think it is beyond a reasonable doubt that since April they never intended to allow him to be part of the team. Every action they have taken was to try to make sure he would not or could not be. But they never ever had the integrity to come out and say it. And it turns out that is a lot closer to what Fare has said than the FO.This has nothing at all to do with who I believe should or should not be the starting QB. I has a lot to do with who I think should be in management of a franchise with a storied history.I would rather lose with integrity than give it up to win.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
Agreed. I thought I made it clear in that post that IMO Favre is clearly a better option than Rodgers.
renesauz
IBL Representative
I agree, but I do disagree on the meanings/reasons behind it. From all APPEARances, they were ready and willing, maybe even wanted BF back up until a couple months ago, but BF changed his mind a month ago. Put yourself in their shoes, assume for a second that you believe Rodgers is the best path for the team...what do you do? It was a heck of a spot to be in.
Yes, but evidance with multiple possible interpretations. I gave an legitimate alternate interpretation.
I don't think Favre was afraid to compete. I think he's afraid that the organization had already made up their minds...and he may be right! I also believe that he refused to buy into the team concept enough to allow that to happen. IE: He would NEVER ride the pine quietly.
Hearsay with the primary person calling this being BF. TT has actually said very little to the press. MOST of the supposed lies TT has told him are not proven, but simply stated as lies by BF.
I agree.....but were we part ways is that I believe they were well within their rights to take that approach. While I also agree that they could have been more forthright, BF wasn't exactly forthright himself until recently. Also, fro what I understand the 25 million dollar marketing deal was proposed long ago, before all of this, but was brought up again during this. Now, again put yourself in TTs shoes...look at this media firestorm over the topic. they KNEW the mess that would happen if Favre changed his mind again. While a bribe seems weak..I can certainly understand their desperation to avoid this mess. Unfortunately for them, it only made it worse.
I don't think they've given it up. I think they're fighting like heck to keep it in a horrible, virtually unwinnable situation. If they really believe Rodgers to be the right answer, then giving in to Favre would have been a violation of their integrity.
- Status
