Farve to Report this Weekend (1 Viewer)

[bbuster]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I've tried to stay out of the whole Favre thing for the most part.But I find it interesting that Favre ripped Javon Walker and some other guys when those guys were holding out for more money when they were making very little compared to their production and compared to him. He called them selfish, implied that they weren't team players, and told them to live up to their contract. Now Favre has retired, wants to come back, and refuses to live by the contract that he signed. If it's all about what is doing what's right for the team and honoring the contract, and the Packers have determined that starting Rogers is what's best for the team, then Favre should obviously just live up to his contract and go be the backup, right? He's not exactly being a team player here, right? But he doesn't want to live by his contract, he wants to go start for someone else of his choosing. He demanded early on in this thing to be released.

Yes, it has been discussed...over and over. It's not Favre unwilling to "live up to his contract". The Packers do not want him PERIOD. Not as a backup, starter, or in camp at all.

The Packers seem to have indicated that they would take him back as the backup or they're willing to trade him to the team of their choosing. Favre doesn't want to be the backup and obviously wants to play for either the Vikings or Bears. I'd say that by refusing to be the backup and refusing to accept being traded to who the Packers want to trade him to is not being a team player.

Favre has asked for an open competition in camp, they refuse. Even knowing that, he is planning to show up at camp. TT asked him to stay away for a couple of days so that they could try to work something out...Favre stayed away. Favre then turned his papers in and the Packers sent MM down to Mississippi to try to get him to stay away from camp...they are apparently willing to pay him $20 million to stay retired. While all of this is happening, McCarthy is at camp saying that Favre is a great player and that they will welcome him back. Kind of hard to see where Favre is at fault in this particular situation.The Packers, on the other hand, are saying one thing publicly and doing something entirely different behind closed doors.

 

[Flash]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I've tried to stay out of the whole Favre thing for the most part.

But I find it interesting that Favre ripped Javon Walker and some other guys when those guys were holding out for more money when they were making very little compared to their production and compared to him. He called them selfish, implied that they weren't team players, and told them to live up to their contract.

Now Favre has retired, wants to come back, and refuses to live by the contract that he signed. If it's all about what is doing what's right for the team and honoring the contract, and the Packers have determined that starting Rogers is what's best for the team, then Favre should obviously just live up to his contract and go be the backup, right? He's not exactly being a team player here, right? But he doesn't want to live by his contract, he wants to go start for someone else of his choosing. He demanded early on in this thing to be released.

Wow, you do know he has 3 years left on his contract right? And that he wants to come in and abide by that contract but the Packers won't let him?Maybe you have been living under a rock lately, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ScottyFargo]

So do people still think this is all Favre's fault? Geez, Green Bay really seeming dumb here.

I never have thought it was his fault...even though he hasn't handled things perfectly. I think the way the Packers have been handling it from the beginning has been pathetic. The people here who try to lay it all on Favre always will. They are the ones who call him a media whore, and yet they can never wait to get their opinions heard. They complain about all the Favre threads and that the story will never go away...and yet they are always in the middle of it.

Sadly...even most of them are on Favre's side for some reason now.Prior to this...they all whined about him and the attention he got...now they take every word of his as gospel and bash the packers mostly. (its because they will take anything they can to try and bash the Packers...when Favre was an active member and the starter, he was the target...now that he is going more against the team, he is their ally).

Somebody's gotta stand up for the heroes. Did you know he stayed home to help TT keep his job? True story.

True story? Or rumor that has several different sides to it?I think he also helped a little old lady cross the street the other day...such a southern gentleman.

You know, it was less than a month ago that you scolded me for calling him a liar. (And I was right to do it, because he had lied then.) My my, how times have changed!

 

[bbuster]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I've tried to stay out of the whole Favre thing for the most part.

But I find it interesting that Favre ripped Javon Walker and some other guys when those guys were holding out for more money when they were making very little compared to their production and compared to him. He called them selfish, implied that they weren't team players, and told them to live up to their contract.

Now Favre has retired, wants to come back, and refuses to live by the contract that he signed. If it's all about what is doing what's right for the team and honoring the contract, and the Packers have determined that starting Rogers is what's best for the team, then Favre should obviously just live up to his contract and go be the backup, right? He's not exactly being a team player here, right? But he doesn't want to live by his contract, he wants to go start for someone else of his choosing. He demanded early on in this thing to be released.

Wow, you do know he has 3 years left on his contract right? And that he wants to come in and abide by that contract but the Packers won't let him?Maybe you have been living under a rock lately, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

It's amazing to me that even with an 18 page thread, non-stop talk on the NFL network, ESPN, and seemingly every other place on the planet that anyone could be so far behind the story.

 

[sho nuff]

So do people still think this is all Favre's fault? Geez, Green Bay really seeming dumb here.

I never have thought it was his fault...even though he hasn't handled things perfectly. I think the way the Packers have been handling it from the beginning has been pathetic. The people here who try to lay it all on Favre always will. They are the ones who call him a media whore, and yet they can never wait to get their opinions heard. They complain about all the Favre threads and that the story will never go away...and yet they are always in the middle of it.

Sadly...even most of them are on Favre's side for some reason now.Prior to this...they all whined about him and the attention he got...now they take every word of his as gospel and bash the packers mostly. (its because they will take anything they can to try and bash the Packers...when Favre was an active member and the starter, he was the target...now that he is going more against the team, he is their ally).

Somebody's gotta stand up for the heroes. Did you know he stayed home to help TT keep his job? True story.

True story? Or rumor that has several different sides to it?I think he also helped a little old lady cross the street the other day...such a southern gentleman.

You know, it was less than a month ago that you scolded me for calling him a liar. (And I was right to do it, because he had lied then.) My my, how times have changed!

Ummm...I said that we did not know that he lied.You called him a liar without knowing the facts.Just as now you are just assuming things to be facts just because he said them.And if he lied then...what makes you think he is not lying now? (don't answer...I know the answer is because it makes GB look bad...well, they don't need your help in doing that right now).

 

[ookook]

Visit to Favre Could Be Blunder By PackersAccording to reports by media outlets in Wisconsin, Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy has traveled to Mississippi to meet with quarterback Brett Favre and his agent, Bus Cook.The Green Bay Press-Gazette reported that Murphy will ask Favre not to show up for the Packers' training camp.If that report is true, the Packers could be making a major blunder.Under NFL rules, the Packers cannot prevent Favre from playing if he wants to play. They can reinstate him to their roster. They can trade him. They can release him. But they can't make him stay home.And if they do--or perhaps even if they just try--the NFL Players Association could file a grievance on Favre's behalf. The union perhaps could ask an arbitrator to make Favre a free agent. Maybe this is the way that Favre gets to his apparently chosen team, the Minnesota Vikings.The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.Presumably, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will reinstate Favre today. If he does, the Packers will have until the close of business Thursday to put Favre back on their roster, trade him or release him.By Mark Maske | July 30, 2008; 12:10 PM ET

I'm not sure that anyone truly knows the content of their communications outside of the Packers, Favre and Cook. Assuming this take is accurate, however, how is this a "blunder" if they ask him to stay away and he agrees? They're not locking him out of camp over his desire to attend, so what's the problem here?

Hey man, you could be absolutely right. However, they didn't need to fly down to ask him to stay away. They're protesting a bit much.

Or maybe, just maybe, the point of the trip is to see how they can work out a trade to another team . . . Nah, that couldn't be it, could it?

Why can't they work on a trade while he's at camp?

Seems pretty obvious when put that way.Turns out there are a bunch of Packers' players that think this has been handled aas badly as humanly possible by FO.

 

[BigJim®]

LOL at the new ESPN reports that the Packers are reconsidering trading Favre within the NFC North.

What in God's name gives them the impression they have the ability to do anything but roster/release Favre? Last I checked the die was cast when TT pissed Favre off by telling him he was not going to compete as a starter in Green Bay. In order to get any trade accomplished, it seems obvious Favre would need to acquiesce by re-doing his $12 million salary, or at least send a good vibe to that team that he wants to go there. Any team that would take on that financial commitment, to get a guy who doesn't want to be there, needs its head examined. NFL teams don't do that with 38 year old guys who make $12 million. They want no part of this soap opera.

Favre will play where Favre wants to play in 2008, and there is zero reason for a team like Minnesota or Chicago to entertain the idea of compensating Green Bay to get a guy one of them - i.e. the one Favre wants to play for - will get without need to compensate Green Bay at all. That is, unless Green Bay wants to keep him on their own active roster for 2008 and look more foolish and petty with each passing day.

Glllllll Green Bay

 

[ookook]

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".There is no question of this.Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The question comes with my last post and what I had heard on the radio today from John McClain.That being...Favre knew perhaps in April or May...that if he said he was staying retired...that was it...the team was moving on without him. All of a sudden a month or two later...he was ready to come back and just expected them to drop everything for him again.As I have maintained...I don't think the team has done everything perfect at all...but Favre appears to be the most to blame for this.

Seems like you are trying to have this both ways (again):(a) Did Favre expect them to drop everything or(b) He knew they would not take him backWhich do you believe. I think (a) is most true but he was prepared for (b) if it happened.

 

[ookook]

Favre DID want to play in GB. Both Favre and McCarthy confirmed it. He was told he was not welcome "the team has moved on" has been echoed by Favre, McCarthy, and TT.Does he still? Probably not. But maybe as starteer (which he has earned repeatedly). I might not want to start for such ########s either.They should have asked for a 2 year committment in June when he first called and made him starteer again. The rest has been a circus easily avoided.

If you buy that, so be it. I don't.He's openly questioned the front office for the better part of three years. He demanded a trade last year when they didn't land Moss, then passed it off as just rumors. Then this.When you put it all together, it just doesn't appear to me to be a guy that wants to play in Green Bay. Or at least for Thompson.And honestly, if he would've just come out and said that instead of playing games, then this situation could've been avoided.Problem is, he's more interested in saving face than admitting what many of us know. He's wanted out for a long time. Long before this stuff happened.

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".There is no question of this.Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The evidence does indeed support that. Favre demanded a trade just last year. I know you all want to gloss over that and believe Favre's "It's just rumors" BS, but I don't buy his excuse on that one.And you're right, they did say they'd moved on. As they should've.Favre knew their timetable. And you can be damn sure he knew how they'd respond in June.This has been brewing for a long time. Anyone who thinks this just bubbled up now because Brett changed his mind is fooling themselves.

Actually, if Favre had demanded a trade he would have been traded or sat out.What he did was say he would like to be traded (once) if they were not going to try to win sooner rather than later.He then took it back.All evidence says he wanted to still play for the Packers. He said it, McCarthy said it, even Thompson said it.But yeah, Favre is no TT fan. But he was not "damn sure" what they would say in June. Sorry you cannot take him at his word, but at least take McCarthy and TT at theirs. There surely was a chance they would take him back, since they were willing to in late March when he said the same thing.

I think he was damn sure what TT and McC would say in June...especially if the report by John McClain is true...they told him what would happen before June.

Sorry, I thought you said Favre's plan was for them to drop everything and take him back as starter?

 

[ScottyFargo]

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".

There is no question of this.

Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The question comes with my last post and what I had heard on the radio today from John McClain.That being...Favre knew perhaps in April or May...that if he said he was staying retired...that was it...the team was moving on without him. All of a sudden a month or two later...he was ready to come back and just expected them to drop everything for him again.

As I have maintained...I don't think the team has done everything perfect at all...but Favre appears to be the most to blame for this.

Seems like you are trying to have this both ways (again):(a) Did Favre expect them to drop everything

or

(b) He knew they would not take him back

Which do you believe. I think (a) is most true but he was prepared for (b) if it happened.

Par for the course.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I've tried to stay out of the whole Favre thing for the most part.But I find it interesting that Favre ripped Javon Walker and some other guys when those guys were holding out for more money when they were making very little compared to their production and compared to him. He called them selfish, implied that they weren't team players, and told them to live up to their contract. Now Favre has retired, wants to come back, and refuses to live by the contract that he signed. If it's all about what is doing what's right for the team and honoring the contract, and the Packers have determined that starting Rogers is what's best for the team, then Favre should obviously just live up to his contract and go be the backup, right? He's not exactly being a team player here, right? But he doesn't want to live by his contract, he wants to go start for someone else of his choosing. He demanded early on in this thing to be released.

Yes, it has been discussed...over and over. It's not Favre unwilling to "live up to his contract". The Packers do not want him PERIOD. Not as a backup, starter, or in camp at all.

The Packers seem to have indicated that they would take him back as the backup or they're willing to trade him to the team of their choosing. Favre doesn't want to be the backup and obviously wants to play for either the Vikings or Bears. I'd say that by refusing to be the backup and refusing to accept being traded to who the Packers want to trade him to is not being a team player.

So you think a guy who has an amazing games played streak should voluntarily end it?

So all of this is about his games played streak?

Are you unable to answer the question? Or can't you read the question?

 

[Aaronstory]

Turns out there are a bunch of Packers' players that think this has been handled aas badly as humanly possible by FO.

Link?

 

[sho nuff]

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".There is no question of this.Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The question comes with my last post and what I had heard on the radio today from John McClain.That being...Favre knew perhaps in April or May...that if he said he was staying retired...that was it...the team was moving on without him. All of a sudden a month or two later...he was ready to come back and just expected them to drop everything for him again.As I have maintained...I don't think the team has done everything perfect at all...but Favre appears to be the most to blame for this.

Seems like you are trying to have this both ways (again):(a) Did Favre expect them to drop everything or(b) He knew they would not take him backWhich do you believe. I think (a) is most true but he was prepared for (b) if it happened.

How is it having it both ways?You know it can be both right?That he can know they would most likely not take him back...and still expect them to and drop everything they have done this offseason to appease him. (just as he seemed to want TT to make moves that would appease ol #4).

 

[NoFBinLA]

Rotoworld.com:WTMJ-TV Channel 4 in Milwaukee, citing two sources, reported that Packers president Mark Murphy at least floated the idea of paying Favre a package in the neighborhood of $20 million over 10 years to remain retired.

I am embarrassed to be a Packer fan today

I'm embarrassed for you. Jeez Packers, wtf?They just blinked.

 

[sho nuff]

Favre DID want to play in GB. Both Favre and McCarthy confirmed it. He was told he was not welcome "the team has moved on" has been echoed by Favre, McCarthy, and TT.Does he still? Probably not. But maybe as starteer (which he has earned repeatedly). I might not want to start for such ########s either.They should have asked for a 2 year committment in June when he first called and made him starteer again. The rest has been a circus easily avoided.

If you buy that, so be it. I don't.He's openly questioned the front office for the better part of three years. He demanded a trade last year when they didn't land Moss, then passed it off as just rumors. Then this.When you put it all together, it just doesn't appear to me to be a guy that wants to play in Green Bay. Or at least for Thompson.And honestly, if he would've just come out and said that instead of playing games, then this situation could've been avoided.Problem is, he's more interested in saving face than admitting what many of us know. He's wanted out for a long time. Long before this stuff happened.

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".There is no question of this.Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The evidence does indeed support that. Favre demanded a trade just last year. I know you all want to gloss over that and believe Favre's "It's just rumors" BS, but I don't buy his excuse on that one.And you're right, they did say they'd moved on. As they should've.Favre knew their timetable. And you can be damn sure he knew how they'd respond in June.This has been brewing for a long time. Anyone who thinks this just bubbled up now because Brett changed his mind is fooling themselves.

Actually, if Favre had demanded a trade he would have been traded or sat out.What he did was say he would like to be traded (once) if they were not going to try to win sooner rather than later.He then took it back.All evidence says he wanted to still play for the Packers. He said it, McCarthy said it, even Thompson said it.But yeah, Favre is no TT fan. But he was not "damn sure" what they would say in June. Sorry you cannot take him at his word, but at least take McCarthy and TT at theirs. There surely was a chance they would take him back, since they were willing to in late March when he said the same thing.

I think he was damn sure what TT and McC would say in June...especially if the report by John McClain is true...they told him what would happen before June.

Sorry, I thought you said Favre's plan was for them to drop everything and take him back as starter?

No...that it was his expectation that they might...knowing in the back of his mind what the answer would likely be.

 

[ookook]

Rotoworld.com:WTMJ-TV Channel 4 in Milwaukee, citing two sources, reported that Packers president Mark Murphy at least floated the idea of paying Favre a package in the neighborhood of $20 million over 10 years to remain retired.

O.k. so Favre camp sounds like they aren't interested in this option. Was this a bad call by Green Bay? Was this an act of desperation because they can't trade him? Frankly I would be offended if I were Favre because he stood to make something like 40 million if he played out the remaining 3 years on his contract (according to Mortenson on today's NFL Live, I don't have info on Favre's contract. I thought it was just 2 years.) Will Brett Favre be at Packer camp on Friday?

Taken in tandem with the suggestion (which I assumed and was "corrected" on yesterday) that Favre will not even get to practice with teh 2nd team, I think clearly they are going to hold him until 9/1 or so then cut him.It is this realization that has been behind much posturing to get him to stay retired. And the lies and dissimulation coming from the Packers that he is "welcome". Never was.They absolutely do not plan to have him on the roster come opening day (12 million dollar bench sitter). He will get cut. So might as well trade him and get something, as he will be able to sign whereever he wants then. So what it is really about is what can someone (presumably Vikings) give to make it worth having him in camp. BUt they will get him either way.

 

[sho nuff]

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".

There is no question of this.

Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The question comes with my last post and what I had heard on the radio today from John McClain.That being...Favre knew perhaps in April or May...that if he said he was staying retired...that was it...the team was moving on without him. All of a sudden a month or two later...he was ready to come back and just expected them to drop everything for him again.

As I have maintained...I don't think the team has done everything perfect at all...but Favre appears to be the most to blame for this.

Seems like you are trying to have this both ways (again):(a) Did Favre expect them to drop everything

or

(b) He knew they would not take him back

Which do you believe. I think (a) is most true but he was prepared for (b) if it happened.

Par for the course.

That you two don't understand something? Yes...it most certainly is.Maybe you can point out where in that post I am trying to have it both ways?

 

[ookook]

Rotoworld.com:WTMJ-TV Channel 4 in Milwaukee, citing two sources, reported that Packers president Mark Murphy at least floated the idea of paying Favre a package in the neighborhood of $20 million over 10 years to remain retired.

I am embarrassed to be a Packer fan today

I'm embarrassed for you. Jeez Packers, wtf?They just blinked.

Yesterday I moved from embarrased to ashamed. :(

 

[ookook]

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".

There is no question of this.

Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The question comes with my last post and what I had heard on the radio today from John McClain.That being...Favre knew perhaps in April or May...that if he said he was staying retired...that was it...the team was moving on without him. All of a sudden a month or two later...he was ready to come back and just expected them to drop everything for him again.

As I have maintained...I don't think the team has done everything perfect at all...but Favre appears to be the most to blame for this.

Seems like you are trying to have this both ways (again):(a) Did Favre expect them to drop everything

or

(b) He knew they would not take him back

Which do you believe. I think (a) is most true but he was prepared for (b) if it happened.

Par for the course.

That you two don't understand something? Yes...it most certainly is.Maybe you can point out where in that post I am trying to have it both ways?

Sho, I love you. Really I do. But you have clearly asserted both of these things and it is not worth my time to dig it out.Truly, I am and was okay with the Packers moving on. But they made several bad mistakes and have continued to lie about what they were doing. This outcome, which is a disgrace to the entire franchise, that should have been avoided.

Taking him back was better. Cutting him was better.

This is a disgrace.

But they sincerely thought he could be coerced into staying retired. That he was not committed to playing this season.

And it just gets worse and worse. The whole "he is welcome" and "could be a backup" is clearly nonsense and the FO has lost credability with every player in the league.

 

[T Bell]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I've tried to stay out of the whole Favre thing for the most part.But I find it interesting that Favre ripped Javon Walker and some other guys when those guys were holding out for more money when they were making very little compared to their production and compared to him. He called them selfish, implied that they weren't team players, and told them to live up to their contract. Now Favre has retired, wants to come back, and refuses to live by the contract that he signed. If it's all about what is doing what's right for the team and honoring the contract, and the Packers have determined that starting Rogers is what's best for the team, then Favre should obviously just live up to his contract and go be the backup, right? He's not exactly being a team player here, right? But he doesn't want to live by his contract, he wants to go start for someone else of his choosing. He demanded early on in this thing to be released.

Yes, it has been discussed...over and over. It's not Favre unwilling to "live up to his contract". The Packers do not want him PERIOD. Not as a backup, starter, or in camp at all.

The Packers seem to have indicated that they would take him back as the backup or they're willing to trade him to the team of their choosing. Favre doesn't want to be the backup and obviously wants to play for either the Vikings or Bears. I'd say that by refusing to be the backup and refusing to accept being traded to who the Packers want to trade him to is not being a team player.

So you think a guy who has an amazing games played streak should voluntarily end it?

So all of this is about his games played streak?

Are you unable to answer the question? Or can't you read the question?

I'm sitting at your knee, Master, humbled by your superior knowledge. Please impart it. Or at least frame a question that's halfway comprehensible.

 

[sho nuff]

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".

There is no question of this.

Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The question comes with my last post and what I had heard on the radio today from John McClain.That being...Favre knew perhaps in April or May...that if he said he was staying retired...that was it...the team was moving on without him. All of a sudden a month or two later...he was ready to come back and just expected them to drop everything for him again.

As I have maintained...I don't think the team has done everything perfect at all...but Favre appears to be the most to blame for this.

Seems like you are trying to have this both ways (again):(a) Did Favre expect them to drop everything

or

(b) He knew they would not take him back

Which do you believe. I think (a) is most true but he was prepared for (b) if it happened.

Par for the course.

That you two don't understand something? Yes...it most certainly is.Maybe you can point out where in that post I am trying to have it both ways?

Sho, I love you. Really I do. But you have clearly asserted both of these things and it is not worth my time to dig it out.Truly, I am and was okay with the Packers moving on. But they made several bad mistakes and have continued to lie about what they were doing. This outcome, which is a disgrace to the entire franchise, that should have been avoided.

Taking him back was better. Cutting him was better.

This is a disgrace.

But they sincerely thought he could be coerced into staying retired. That he was not committed to playing this season.

And it just gets worse and worse. The whole "he is welcome" and "could be a backup" is clearly nonsense and the FO has lost credability with every player in the league.

I agree they have made mistakes.Im ok with some of how they have handled it (this 20 mil offer thing is not one of them...nor is barring him from competing once they figured out he was serious and they had no real offers to trade him).

I don't think cutting him has ever been a better option...

 

[Darker Knight]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I've tried to stay out of the whole Favre thing for the most part.But I find it interesting that Favre ripped Javon Walker and some other guys when those guys were holding out for more money when they were making very little compared to their production and compared to him. He called them selfish, implied that they weren't team players, and told them to live up to their contract. Now Favre has retired, wants to come back, and refuses to live by the contract that he signed. If it's all about what is doing what's right for the team and honoring the contract, and the Packers have determined that starting Rogers is what's best for the team, then Favre should obviously just live up to his contract and go be the backup, right? He's not exactly being a team player here, right? But he doesn't want to live by his contract, he wants to go start for someone else of his choosing. He demanded early on in this thing to be released.

Yes, it has been discussed...over and over. It's not Favre unwilling to "live up to his contract". The Packers do not want him PERIOD. Not as a backup, starter, or in camp at all.

The Packers seem to have indicated that they would take him back as the backup or they're willing to trade him to the team of their choosing. Favre doesn't want to be the backup and obviously wants to play for either the Vikings or Bears. I'd say that by refusing to be the backup and refusing to accept being traded to who the Packers want to trade him to is not being a team player.

So you think a guy who has an amazing games played streak should voluntarily end it?

So all of this is about his games played streak?

Are you unable to answer the question? Or can't you read the question?

I'm sitting at your knee, Master, humbled by your superior knowledge. Please impart it. Or at least frame a question that's halfway comprehensible.

Are you saying you don't understand the question.......really.......seriously?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I've tried to stay out of the whole Favre thing for the most part.But I find it interesting that Favre ripped Javon Walker and some other guys when those guys were holding out for more money when they were making very little compared to their production and compared to him. He called them selfish, implied that they weren't team players, and told them to live up to their contract. Now Favre has retired, wants to come back, and refuses to live by the contract that he signed. If it's all about what is doing what's right for the team and honoring the contract, and the Packers have determined that starting Rogers is what's best for the team, then Favre should obviously just live up to his contract and go be the backup, right? He's not exactly being a team player here, right? But he doesn't want to live by his contract, he wants to go start for someone else of his choosing. He demanded early on in this thing to be released.

Yes, it has been discussed...over and over. It's not Favre unwilling to "live up to his contract". The Packers do not want him PERIOD. Not as a backup, starter, or in camp at all.

The Packers seem to have indicated that they would take him back as the backup or they're willing to trade him to the team of their choosing. Favre doesn't want to be the backup and obviously wants to play for either the Vikings or Bears. I'd say that by refusing to be the backup and refusing to accept being traded to who the Packers want to trade him to is not being a team player.

So you think a guy who has an amazing games played streak should voluntarily end it?

So all of this is about his games played streak?

Are you unable to answer the question? Or can't you read the question?

I'm sitting at your knee, Master, humbled by your superior knowledge. Please impart it. Or at least frame a question that's halfway comprehensible.

LMAO. If you can't comprehend this question:"So you think a guy who has an amazing games played streak should voluntarily end it?"then you should probably stop posting on this board and pay attention to your teacher.

 

[ookook]

But they will cut him. They have to. They cannot even Keyshawn him.

They will not pay him 12 million to NOT be even a back-up. An dhave the story the whole time going round and round.

Look how hard they are trying to keep him from camp.

I see no way that once he shows for camp they will allow him to be on their roster starting September and be obligated to pay him not to play. And clearly they have to be careful, as he has rights under his contract too.

Cut him at the last possible moment they will. And if so, shouldn't they have just done it in June?

 

[T Bell]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I've tried to stay out of the whole Favre thing for the most part.

But I find it interesting that Favre ripped Javon Walker and some other guys when those guys were holding out for more money when they were making very little compared to their production and compared to him. He called them selfish, implied that they weren't team players, and told them to live up to their contract.

Now Favre has retired, wants to come back, and refuses to live by the contract that he signed. If it's all about what is doing what's right for the team and honoring the contract, and the Packers have determined that starting Rogers is what's best for the team, then Favre should obviously just live up to his contract and go be the backup, right? He's not exactly being a team player here, right? But he doesn't want to live by his contract, he wants to go start for someone else of his choosing. He demanded early on in this thing to be released.

Yes, it has been discussed...over and over. It's not Favre unwilling to "live up to his contract". The Packers do not want him PERIOD. Not as a backup, starter, or in camp at all.

The Packers seem to have indicated that they would take him back as the backup or they're willing to trade him to the team of their choosing. Favre doesn't want to be the backup and obviously wants to play for either the Vikings or Bears. I'd say that by refusing to be the backup and refusing to accept being traded to who the Packers want to trade him to is not being a team player.

So you think a guy who has an amazing games played streak should voluntarily end it?

So all of this is about his games played streak?

Are you unable to answer the question? Or can't you read the question?

I'm sitting at your knee, Master, humbled by your superior knowledge. Please impart it. Or at least frame a question that's halfway comprehensible.

LMAO. If you can't comprehend this question:"So you think a guy who has an amazing games played streak should voluntarily end it?"

then you should probably stop posting on this board and pay attention to your teacher.

Teach me. I want to learn.

 

[ookook]

Does anybody still sincerely think they are willing to let him be a back-up? I don't.

Favre always had more cards, so by insulting him over and over again they just made it worse for themselves.

 

[ookook]

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".

There is no question of this.

Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The question comes with my last post and what I had heard on the radio today from John McClain.That being...Favre knew perhaps in April or May...that if he said he was staying retired...that was it...the team was moving on without him. All of a sudden a month or two later...he was ready to come back and just expected them to drop everything for him again.

As I have maintained...I don't think the team has done everything perfect at all...but Favre appears to be the most to blame for this.

Seems like you are trying to have this both ways (again):(a) Did Favre expect them to drop everything

or

(b) He knew they would not take him back

Which do you believe. I think (a) is most true but he was prepared for (b) if it happened.

Par for the course.

That you two don't understand something? Yes...it most certainly is.Maybe you can point out where in that post I am trying to have it both ways?

Sho, I love you. Really I do. But you have clearly asserted both of these things and it is not worth my time to dig it out.Truly, I am and was okay with the Packers moving on. But they made several bad mistakes and have continued to lie about what they were doing. This outcome, which is a disgrace to the entire franchise, that should have been avoided.

Taking him back was better. Cutting him was better.

This is a disgrace.

But they sincerely thought he could be coerced into staying retired. That he was not committed to playing this season.

And it just gets worse and worse. The whole "he is welcome" and "could be a backup" is clearly nonsense and the FO has lost credability with every player in the league.

I agree they have made mistakes.Im ok with some of how they have handled it (this 20 mil offer thing is not one of them...nor is barring him from competing once they figured out he was serious and they had no real offers to trade him).

I don't think cutting him has ever been a better option...

I think you should disagree with any option or tactic that involved trying to keep him from playing football if he wants to.All of that was ill-conceived. And then they say one thing and do another again and again.

 

[sho nuff]

But they will cut him. They have to. They cannot even Keyshawn him.They will not pay him 12 million to NOT be even a back-up. An dhave the story the whole time going round and round.Look how hard they are trying to keep him from camp.I see no way that once he shows for camp they will allow him to be on their roster starting September and be obligated to pay him not to play. And clearly they have to be careful, as he has rights under his contract too.Cut him at the last possible moment they will. And if so, shouldn't they have just done it in June?

In June? While they might have avoided any PR mess...delaying it would also give a team like Minny less time to acclimate Favre in, have him get on the same page with the receivers, get into that offense, or tweak the offense for him.

 

[sho nuff]

Does anybody still sincerely think they are willing to let him be a back-up? I don't. Favre always had more cards, so by insulting him over and over again they just made it worse for themselves.

With all of the talk of Thompson's ego and stubbornness...why would he not be willing to let him be the backup in camp and hope that a QB somewhere else gets hurt and they get a better trade offer?He has done his share of insulting as well.And I don't think he always had more cards.In the end, they still hold his contract in their hands.

 

[ookook]

Does anybody still sincerely think they are willing to let him be a back-up? I don't. Favre always had more cards, so by insulting him over and over again they just made it worse for themselves.

With all of the talk of Thompson's ego and stubbornness...why would he not be willing to let him be the backup in camp and hope that a QB somewhere else gets hurt and they get a better trade offer?He has done his share of insulting as well.And I don't think he always had more cards.In the end, they still hold his contract in their hands.

If they were willing for him to be a backup, he would not be "limited" to individual activities when he gets there, which appears to be their plan. He would work with the 2nd squad.

 

[ookook]

But they will cut him. They have to. They cannot even Keyshawn him.They will not pay him 12 million to NOT be even a back-up. An dhave the story the whole time going round and round.Look how hard they are trying to keep him from camp.I see no way that once he shows for camp they will allow him to be on their roster starting September and be obligated to pay him not to play. And clearly they have to be careful, as he has rights under his contract too.Cut him at the last possible moment they will. And if so, shouldn't they have just done it in June?

In June? While they might have avoided any PR mess...delaying it would also give a team like Minny less time to acclimate Favre in, have him get on the same page with the receivers, get into that offense, or tweak the offense for him.

Agreed. But in hindsight, if they end up cutting him 9/1, would it have been worth not letting him practice?Not to me at this point.

 

[gruecd]

Does anybody still sincerely think they are willing to let him be a back-up? I don't.

Me, neither. The Packers don't want Brett in camp. Period.I'm guessing we get some kind of resolution on this today.

 

[ookook]

With all of the talk of Thompson's ego and stubbornness...why would he not be willing to let him be the backup in camp and hope that a QB somewhere else gets hurt and they get a better trade offer?

I don't think they have ever intended to let him be backup.How about this Sho: If they do not let him practice with other players if or when he arrives at camp, would you be willing to admit they had lied about their intentions at that point? That he was never welcome in camp and they never intended he could be a back up (both of which I hope we agree they have said)?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

After 3 days of involuntary absence from the board, it's good to see you all solved everything. Glad progress has been made! :X

 

[ookook]

Does anybody still sincerely think they are willing to let him be a back-up? I don't.

Me, neither. The Packers don't want Brett in camp. Period.I'm guessing we get some kind of resolution on this today.

I don't think so.I think they will stick to the letter of the contract and collective bargaining agreement, keep him from practicing but allow him to camp (they have to) then cut him last possible moment to avoid the 12 million.

 

[sho nuff]

Does anybody still sincerely think they are willing to let him be a back-up? I don't. Favre always had more cards, so by insulting him over and over again they just made it worse for themselves.

With all of the talk of Thompson's ego and stubbornness...why would he not be willing to let him be the backup in camp and hope that a QB somewhere else gets hurt and they get a better trade offer?He has done his share of insulting as well.And I don't think he always had more cards.In the end, they still hold his contract in their hands.

If they were willing for him to be a backup, he would not be "limited" to individual activities when he gets there, which appears to be their plan. He would work with the 2nd squad.

I think the willing to be a backup thing is a last ditch effort.In reality, the bringing him in and limiting him to individual activities is keeping him from getting hurt in case they can work a trade before the season.How many reps does Favre need to be a backup if it came to that?

 

[sho nuff]

With all of the talk of Thompson's ego and stubbornness...why would he not be willing to let him be the backup in camp and hope that a QB somewhere else gets hurt and they get a better trade offer?

I don't think they have ever intended to let him be backup.How about this Sho: If they do not let him practice with other players if or when he arrives at camp, would you be willing to admit they had lied about their intentions at that point? That he was never welcome in camp and they never intended he could be a back up (both of which I hope we agree they have said)?

I think they are definitely lying about saying he is so welcome in camp...but I don't think the limiting changes their willingness to have him as a backup if that is what it comes to.As for the backup...they said alot of things...one of which was that he would be welcome and they would determine his role (whatever the hell that means)

 

[ScottyFargo]

After 3 days of involuntary absence from the board, it's good to see you all solved everything. Glad progress has been made!

How could we have solved things without you? Quick, start with the fixing!

 

[T Bell]

Does anybody still sincerely think they are willing to let him be a back-up? I don't. Favre always had more cards, so by insulting him over and over again they just made it worse for themselves.

With all of the talk of Thompson's ego and stubbornness...why would he not be willing to let him be the backup in camp and hope that a QB somewhere else gets hurt and they get a better trade offer?He has done his share of insulting as well.And I don't think he always had more cards.In the end, they still hold his contract in their hands.

If they were willing for him to be a backup, he would not be "limited" to individual activities when he gets there, which appears to be their plan. He would work with the 2nd squad.

I think the willing to be a backup thing is a last ditch effort.In reality, the bringing him in and limiting him to individual activities is keeping him from getting hurt in case they can work a trade before the season.How many reps does Favre need to be a backup if it came to that?

I'm still not convinced that they won't just have him in there as a backup and move forward. The real question there is how much that distracts Rodgers, but I don't think it's impossible as it puts Favre at as much risk for criticism if he undercuts Rodgers or the team's ability to win by being a distraction as it does for the team treating Favre unfairly.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

After 3 days of involuntary absence from the board, it's good to see you all solved everything. Glad progress has been made!

How could we have solved things without you? Quick, start with the fixing!

No, you guys are doing a great job of continuing this - it reminds me of arguments during late night trips to Denny's after bar-close.

 

[sho nuff]

After 3 days of involuntary absence from the board, it's good to see you all solved everything. Glad progress has been made!

How could we have solved things without you? Quick, start with the fixing!

No, you guys are doing a great job of continuing this - it reminds me of arguments during late night trips to Denny's after bar-close.

Mmm...Grand Slam Breakfast.Though...I prefer Waffle House for that late night drunk food.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

After 3 days of involuntary absence from the board, it's good to see you all solved everything. Glad progress has been made!

How could we have solved things without you? Quick, start with the fixing!

No, you guys are doing a great job of continuing this - it reminds me of arguments during late night trips to Denny's after bar-close.

Mmm...Grand Slam Breakfast.Though...I prefer Waffle House for that late night drunk food.

Isn't Waffle House only in the south? I don't recall a Waffle House in Green Bay....

 

[sho nuff]

After 3 days of involuntary absence from the board, it's good to see you all solved everything. Glad progress has been made!

How could we have solved things without you? Quick, start with the fixing!

No, you guys are doing a great job of continuing this - it reminds me of arguments during late night trips to Denny's after bar-close.

Mmm...Grand Slam Breakfast.Though...I prefer Waffle House for that late night drunk food.

Isn't Waffle House only in the south? I don't recall a Waffle House in Green Bay....

Yes...its more of a southern thing.Bacon Egg and Cheese Sandwich, Hashbrowns scattered and covered, gritsYum.Especially when my friends knew the one cook and that sandwich was 4 layers with about 10 pieces of bacon and 6 eggs in it.Just damn tasty.

 

[ookook]

After 3 days of involuntary absence from the board, it's good to see you all solved everything. Glad progress has been made!

Hey man, morons come and morons go, but you we are glad to have back. Please call Murphy amd get this thing solved.

 

[Darker Knight]

Does anybody still sincerely think they are willing to let him be a back-up? I don't. Favre always had more cards, so by insulting him over and over again they just made it worse for themselves.

With all of the talk of Thompson's ego and stubbornness...why would he not be willing to let him be the backup in camp and hope that a QB somewhere else gets hurt and they get a better trade offer?He has done his share of insulting as well.And I don't think he always had more cards.In the end, they still hold his contract in their hands.

If they were willing for him to be a backup, he would not be "limited" to individual activities when he gets there, which appears to be their plan. He would work with the 2nd squad.

I think the willing to be a backup thing is a last ditch effort.In reality, the bringing him in and limiting him to individual activities is keeping him from getting hurt in case they can work a trade before the season.How many reps does Favre need to be a backup if it came to that?

I'm still not convinced that they won't just have him in there as a backup and move forward. The real question there is how much that distracts Rodgers, but I don't think it's impossible as it puts Favre at as much risk for criticism if he undercuts Rodgers or the team's ability to win by being a distraction as it does for the team treating Favre unfairly.

Like I said before this is a no win situation for the Packers.....If they take Favre back as the Back-up and Rodgers has a bad series or a bad game with Favre on the bench how long a leash does Rodgers have with Favre still there(how well will he play knowing Favre is looking over his sholder).......or if they trade or release him and Rodgers struggles and Favre plays well with whatever team he goes to.....now if Favre goes somewhere and plays badly and Rodgers plays well then they Win....but I just don't see that happening

 

[ookook]

With all of the talk of Thompson's ego and stubbornness...why would he not be willing to let him be the backup in camp and hope that a QB somewhere else gets hurt and they get a better trade offer?

I don't think they have ever intended to let him be backup.How about this Sho: If they do not let him practice with other players if or when he arrives at camp, would you be willing to admit they had lied about their intentions at that point? That he was never welcome in camp and they never intended he could be a back up (both of which I hope we agree they have said)?

I think they are definitely lying about saying he is so welcome in camp...but I don't think the limiting changes their willingness to have him as a backup if that is what it comes to.As for the backup...they said alot of things...one of which was that he would be welcome and they would determine his role (whatever the hell that means)

So if they don't allow him to practice with the team or play in a single pre-season (and there is no way he gets the chance to outplay Rodgers in a pre-season game) at what point do you concede it is not about "protecting" Favre anymore?

 

[T Man]

I had a feeling that Murphy went down to try and hammer out a "Retirement Package". Didn't think Favre would take it though. While I agree that Favre might want to play, I also think its now about Favre wanting to put the screws to the Pack and to show them that HE is the man. In other words, Favre might not have been sure he wanted to play -- but all of this has made sure that he wants to show TT and the Pack.

In a twist of the phrase . . . "Its not business, its personal"

If true, the offer to "pay him off" is pathetic. My guess is that it had something to do with a player/coach type of arrangement or a marketing arrangement. But still awful.

Of course, Murphy said he did not want to disclose what was talked about because they all agreed it should be just between Cook, Favre and Murphy. Of course, the contents of the conversation apparently were "leaked" by someone. I would guess this is not something that Murphy would want leaked. So someone in the Favre camp leaks it?? I would guess so in an attempt to stick another knife in and twist.

My gut has been wrong before, but I still say that Favre and Cook have manipulated the situation since day one to help Favre get out of GB; its just that Favre did not want to be upfront about his desires. And, I think that Brett wants to play for an NFC North team so that he can try and stick it to the Pack and TT twice a year and maybe win the division and go forward as a bonus.

While the Packers have made poor decisions, they still have respected Favre in the press. No name calling or anything demeaning. I wonder if all that changes and the "dirty laundry" is disclosed.

Could this become even more of a soap opera?

 

[mozzy84]

Does anybody still sincerely think they are willing to let him be a back-up? I don't.

Favre always had more cards, so by insulting him over and over again they just made it worse for themselves.

With all of the talk of Thompson's ego and stubbornness...why would he not be willing to let him be the backup in camp and hope that a QB somewhere else gets hurt and they get a better trade offer?He has done his share of insulting as well.

And I don't think he always had more cards.

In the end, they still hold his contract in their hands.

If they were willing for him to be a backup, he would not be "limited" to individual activities when he gets there, which appears to be their plan. He would work with the 2nd squad.

I think the willing to be a backup thing is a last ditch effort.In reality, the bringing him in and limiting him to individual activities is keeping him from getting hurt in case they can work a trade before the season.

How many reps does Favre need to be a backup if it came to that?

I'm still not convinced that they won't just have him in there as a backup and move forward. The real question there is how much that distracts Rodgers, but I don't think it's impossible as it puts Favre at as much risk for criticism if he undercuts Rodgers or the team's ability to win by being a distraction as it does for the team treating Favre unfairly.

I so want to see his start streak that he loves so much end just like this.

 

[T Bell]

Does anybody still sincerely think they are willing to let him be a back-up? I don't. Favre always had more cards, so by insulting him over and over again they just made it worse for themselves.

With all of the talk of Thompson's ego and stubbornness...why would he not be willing to let him be the backup in camp and hope that a QB somewhere else gets hurt and they get a better trade offer?He has done his share of insulting as well.And I don't think he always had more cards.In the end, they still hold his contract in their hands.

If they were willing for him to be a backup, he would not be "limited" to individual activities when he gets there, which appears to be their plan. He would work with the 2nd squad.

I think the willing to be a backup thing is a last ditch effort.In reality, the bringing him in and limiting him to individual activities is keeping him from getting hurt in case they can work a trade before the season.How many reps does Favre need to be a backup if it came to that?

I'm still not convinced that they won't just have him in there as a backup and move forward. The real question there is how much that distracts Rodgers, but I don't think it's impossible as it puts Favre at as much risk for criticism if he undercuts Rodgers or the team's ability to win by being a distraction as it does for the team treating Favre unfairly.

Like I said before this is a no win situation for the Packers.....If they take Favre back as the Back-up and Rodgers has a bad series or a bad game with Favre on the bench how long a leash does Rodgers have with Favre still there(how well will he play knowing Favre is looking over his sholder).......or if they trade or release him and Rodgers struggles and Favre plays well with whatever team he goes to.....now if Favre goes somewhere and plays badly and Rodgers plays well then they Win....but I just don't see that happening

Two of the last three seasons have been marked by very poor play for Favre. Everyone seems to want to ignore that. Why should we just assume that Favre will march out and essentially repeat his 2007 performance or close to it? I agree that if forced to choose, I'd say that Favre likely gives the Packers a better chance to win in 2008 than does Rodgers, but that's not saying much given that Rodgers has all of 59 career attempts in three seasons. I also think it's valid to argue that this particular decision should be based upon not only the 2008 season, but also the coming seasons as well, and how long do you want Favre's offseason prima donna act to impact the team's ability to plan for the future (he's signed for three more years, so this mess could easily repeat itself next year and the year after if Favre comes back)?It's a real mess. The team's best option is to work a deal, which forces Favre to either report to that team, or back off on his demands. The problem though is whether any trading partners out there are going to be willing and able to take on his large salary.

 

[3nOut]

All I really want to know is where can I get my Minn #4 jersey.

Why would you want a John Booty jersey? Big fan?