Farve to Report this Weekend (1 Viewer)

[FunkyPlutos]

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.

Wouldn't make sense...it would have given the Vikings too much time to figure out who was going to back up Tarvaris - Favre or Frerotte.

 

[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?

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.

IMO...the fans love that streak much more than he does.

 

[sho nuff]

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?

Maybe he likes the booty.ETA: NTTIAWWT

Me...I prefer the Cooter

 

[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

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.

This is not going to happen. What's their next best option?

 

[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.

This is not going to happen. What's their next best option?

Oh, your clairvoyance is invaluable. Thanks for that. If they can't do this, then it comes down to the team's intestinal fortitude. If you can handle it, you take him on your roster, and let him sit as a backup. If not, you release him. Pretty simple at that point.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Will Favre be willing to play for the Sox?

 

[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

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.

This is not going to happen. What's their next best option?

Oh, your clairvoyance is invaluable. Thanks for that. If they can't do this, then it comes down to the team's intestinal fortitude. If you can handle it, you take him on your roster, and let him sit as a backup. If not, you release him. Pretty simple at that point.

Hey the Jerk store called........anyway If they could have worked out a deal to take the leverage away from Favre they would have done it already....So they options are have him on the roster which seems very unlikely at this point or release and if it comes down to release option they may as well trade him to the Vikings and get something for him.

 

[NoFBinLA]

I would like to strike from the record that I thought Favre to Packs was completely insane - I would like it noted it is only just the normal level of 'insane'.

Carry on.

 

[Darker Knight]

I would like to strike from the record that I thought Favre to Packs was completely insane - I would like it noted it is only just the normal level of 'insane'.

Carry on.

Vikes?

 

[NoFBinLA]

I would like to strike from the record that I thought Favre to Packs was completely insane - I would like it noted it is only just the normal level of 'insane'.

Carry on.

Vikes?

UUmmmmmmyeeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhLOOK IT'S BRETT FAVRE IN A RAIDERS JERSEY

:dropssmokebomb:

:runs:

Apparently my brain am misfunctioning.

Although Favre playing for the Pack at this point is probably insane - but yes I meant Vikes.

Thanks. I am going to go now and hope the early onset senility passes.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Page 2?? We're dangerously close to allowing non-Favre threads on the first page.

BUMP

 

[sho nuff]

I bet the Packers' "plan" for Favre in camp is not that he gets to work out with the second team even.

That whole "he can be a backup" and "he can be part of the team" is now shown to be false as far as I can tell, to shift balme to Favre.

Otherwise, why are they trying so hard to prevent him from caoming to camp?

Again...you are only taking Favre's word as far as them preventing him from coming to camp.According to Thompson...it was Favre who offered to stay away while they worked on trying to resolved this/trade him.

And from several accounts in the journal sentinel, Rodgers would continue to get about 50% of the snaps and the rest would be split between Favre and Brohm and Flynn some...with Flynn most likely released or kept to be on the practice squad later.

Thompson was lying. I mentioned this before, he looked down twice as he said this. Anyone who studies language and the relationship of body language and spoken language will tell you that when a person does that they are lying. Trust me and if you don't go do some research on this and maybe you'll finally see why Ted Thompson needs to be fired.

Which way did he look after looking down?Also...part of learning body language...as an auditor I have taken many classes on this.

Up and right you are accessing the creative portions of your brain...meaning you are probably lying and making something up.

Up and left, you are accessing the memory functions and are probably telling the truth.

If they look straight to the left, they are remembering something they actually said...down and right they are remembering something they actually heard.

If they look right...they probably making something up.

Down and right they are probably giving personal feelings.

So no...looking down is no sole indicator of any lies or untruthfulness.

The only research I needed was finding my training manual from the class I took earlier this year.

Thank you for proving my point here, I was just waiting for someone to post the correct information here, coming from you is a bonus. When he said this, guess what, he wasn't looking down!!!!!!!!!!!! You just got fooled my friend, he was looking up and to the right, go back and watch it and you then come back here and defend him, that would be priceless!

I just did and posted on it...he was looking forward at the press.Your backtracking and what appears to be a downright lie is laughable.

I simply posted the factual statements about eye movement and what they may mean.

They are again an inexact science even for people who know what they are doing...you do not appear to know what you are doing when it comes to watching behavioral patterns.

Wow, Just Wow. Priceless. You are worse than Ted Thompson at this point. Carry on as facts can't change you're mind.

1:33 into the video he address what was said...he is looking forward. Not up...as I have yet to notice him looking anywhere but to make eye contact with the press and looking down at what appears to be his notes.You made the claim he was lying and you had this proof...please post it...just post a time clip in the video where he lies.

It should be easy for you.

Until then...I have posted a time in the video...refute it...or just consider yourself a complete liar.

Here...I will even give you a link to the video.

http://www.packers.com/multimedia/videos/2...__c0904eab63dd/

Still waiting Chachi....please let me know when you can show where Thompson's eyes ever do as you are claiming.

 

[cr8f]

Here we go again.

Favre will probably decide after all the free agents are signed.

Brett Favre has decided to retire as Vikings quarterback, it would seem an announcement could come this week, after the Super Bowl, because the NFL prefers not to have distractions that would interfere with its big game.

If Favre is undecided and wants the Vikings to improve the $13 million deal for which he is signed for next season, that should be known by the end of the month.

The consensus guess is that Favre, 40, will return. But Favre has proved it's virtually impossible to predict what he'll do next.

If Favre has decided to retire, he no longer has any motive to drag out the drama as he did with the Green Bay Packers to get to the New York Jets, and with the Jets to get to the Vikings.

The Vikings, although they won't say it, need to know Favre's plans before March 5, when the trading deadline opens, so they would be able to compete with other teams to acquire, for instance, a Donovan McNabb from Philadelphia or a Matt Hasselbeck from Seattle, or whomever they would try to bring in.

If it's March 5 and Favre is saying, "I don't know yet," that would put the Vikings in a tough position. It's also in early March that Vikings season-ticket holders are initially asked to renew.

If Favre does plan to return, he shouldn't need more time than March 1 to say he's coming back.

If Favre retires now, he would become eligible for the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2015, the same year just-retired QB Kurt Warner will be

 

[BigJim®]

Here we go again.

Favre will probably decide after all the free agents are signed.

Brett Favre has decided to retire as Vikings quarterback, it would seem an announcement could come this week, after the Super Bowl, because the NFL prefers not to have distractions that would interfere with its big game.

If Favre is undecided and wants the Vikings to improve the $13 million deal for which he is signed for next season, that should be known by the end of the month.

The consensus guess is that Favre, 40, will return. But Favre has proved it's virtually impossible to predict what he'll do next.

If Favre has decided to retire, he no longer has any motive to drag out the drama as he did with the Green Bay Packers to get to the New York Jets, and with the Jets to get to the Vikings.

The Vikings, although they won't say it, need to know Favre's plans before March 5, when the trading deadline opens, so they would be able to compete with other teams to acquire, for instance, a Donovan McNabb from Philadelphia or a Matt Hasselbeck from Seattle, or whomever they would try to bring in.

If it's March 5 and Favre is saying, "I don't know yet," that would put the Vikings in a tough position. It's also in early March that Vikings season-ticket holders are initially asked to renew.

If Favre does plan to return, he shouldn't need more time than March 1 to say he's coming back.

If Favre retires now, he would become eligible for the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2015, the same year just-retired QB Kurt Warner will be

Let me guess, the word "If" disappeared on its own in the first sentence of the article?

 

[ScottyFargo]

Here we go again.

Favre will probably decide after all the free agents are signed.

Brett Favre has decided to retire as Vikings quarterback, it would seem an announcement could come this week, after the Super Bowl, because the NFL prefers not to have distractions that would interfere with its big game.

Let me guess, the word "If" disappeared on its own in the first sentence of the article?

Copy / Paste is not as easy as it looks I guess.

 

[sho nuff]

Other than a possible trade...the March 5th is not all that huge for them as being in the final 8 they are limited in what they can do in FA anyway.

Seems with a possible lockout in 2011...it actually would be smart to get him back and for him to comeback.

Then if there is a lockout...he can retire because of it...Pat W would probably retire after that as well.

He is obviously their best shot at this point...better than Sage from what he showed again this year.