Farve to Report this Weekend (1 Viewer)

[ScottyFargo]

No malice...you just spin and lie about people said...care to show where I stated that Lombardi was practically dead when he was released? Go look at the quotes above...never said or even implied it.They are poor comparisons as none are even close to the Favre situation at this point...its beyond ridiculous.You like it because it looked upon the Packers poorly...shocking that the haters are the ones buying into such articles with no regard for the actual situation at hand.

What was your point in saying Lombardi coached for one year before basically dying?

 

[sho nuff]

No malice...you just spin and lie about people said...care to show where I stated that Lombardi was practically dead when he was released? Go look at the quotes above...never said or even implied it.They are poor comparisons as none are even close to the Favre situation at this point...its beyond ridiculous.You like it because it looked upon the Packers poorly...shocking that the haters are the ones buying into such articles with no regard for the actual situation at hand.

What was your point in saying Lombardi coached for one year before basically dying?

A point of fact that he stated he was burned out...and it proved...there was a reason behind it...the point was he did little after leaving...as did Reggie.But those were completely different situations.We saw what Brett can still do...so its not like the team should just let him get to any major rival...you can keep secretly hoping Brett becomes a Viking...even though you claim not to want that...it appears by your ramblings in these threads that it is exactly what you want.

 

[Eric Stratton]

A good article by Jay Glazer

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8387530?MSNHPHMA

Trying to make sense of the Favre fiasco

By Jay Glazer

Jay Glazer is a Senior NFL Writer for FOXSports.com on MSN and also appears every week on FOX NFL Sunday as the network's NFL Insider.

Updated: July 28, 2008, 12:37 PM EST

Titletown is starting to look awful lot like Tinseltown.

The fine folks in Hollywood who make millions writing dirty plots and creating cunning villains could be proud of the muck the Brett Favre soap opera has raked up. The only thing missing from this divorce are a few slimy lawyers.

As the annual Glaze Across America training camp tour-slash-debacle shifts into high gear, one thing is clear — there is no escaping the Favre Files.

From the Bears to Rams to Chiefs to my damn cell phone, it's Favre 24/7. I'm trying to cover the other 31 teams as well as the Packers, but with each sitdown with a player, every beer with a coach, conversation after conversation, the question I've now grown to dread usually takes all of one second to be launched ... "OK, what's really going on with the Favre thing?"

So, we're going to try to weed through the murky waters of two sides, the truths, the lies and everything in between.

I do not believe there is any right answer here and when the smoke clears, I believe there will be no winner. The Packers, Favre, tradition, legacy — all thrown under the bus. Admittedly, I am a huge Favre fan. When he throws TD passes like the one he launched against Denver to start overtime last year, it produces chuckles, the same type of laughs that you can't help when Devin Hester returns yet another punt or Tiger Woods drops another 50-footer.

However, legend or no legend, if in any other business an employee, even the top sales manager of all time, calls his boss a liar three times on national television, and then reveals conversations with his boss that were believed to be private and then threatens his bosses ... seriously, how many of those folks would still be employed? How many players in this league would come through unscathed, especially in the wallet?

Now imagine if Mr. Johnny Cool Salesman, it turns out, took such a path for the sole purpose of bolting to a rival company, what does his boss do at this point?

Favre is clearly trying to gain his release, an option the Packers, sources have told FOXSports.com, told Brett as late as two days ago absolutely will NOT happen. In fact, those same sources say that GM Ted Thompson never told Favre he'd get fired for letting him back in the building. Instead, he joked that even the people who don't want Brett back would want him fired if he released the famed gunslinger.

But how in the world does one of the most beloved sports figures of all time, a man who epitomized toughness and grit turn so soap opera-ish so fast? His PR tactics have gained him little if any sympathy, even from his peers. In my travels through camp so far, not one coach I've talked to agrees with his stance and the players have been split 50 percent somewhat sadly against Favre, 25 percent adamantly for Favre and 25 percent absolutely blasting him for the PR route he's taken.

"I don't care, it's Brett Favre, give him his helmet back," said one Bears player over beers the other night. "I don't care what happened or how it's gotten here, it's freakin' Brett Favre!"

"Don't let him back in the building," said a Rams veteran after practice on Sunday. "He's made it all about Brett. I'd be pissed if I was in that locker room and he's made it all about him all this time. Man, I'd want to move on. Enough already, it's been about is he coming back or not for damn near four years. I'd be sick of it."

Then there's the case of their own locker room. Packers players told FOXSports.com that head coach Mike McCarthy was very moved in his speech to the team Sunday afternoon, emphatically praising them for the way his players have handled the most difficult of situations.

Favre is welcome back into the locker room by the front office and coaches, albeit not as the starter. However, if he thought he'd walk in and the locker room would run to his defense, it may not be as clear cut as he'd like to believe.

Remember, 21 of the players in that locker room have never met Favre. Their only experience has been with young Aaron Rodgers and this storm of controversy. Additionally, because of the youth of the team, there's a high percentage of second- and third-year players.

Didn't Favre say just two short weeks ago that he probably wasn't going to force the Packers' hand and show up for fear of something just like this? Didn't he say he didn't want to be a distraction ... but now he wants to be?

The Bucs and Jets are still alive in trade talks, although how strong depends upon the hour you check. Both teams have asked for and received permission to speak with Favre. Favre has not talked to the Jets at this point, although his agent has. The Bucs, oddly, have yet to act and have even publicly denied asking for permission.

The trade is not for a first-round pick, as had been reported, nor for a first-round pick plus other compensation, as is now the latest word on the rumor mill. The Packers, several sources have told FOXSports.com, have based their compensation upon an escalating scale that could go as high as a first-rounder based upon certain performance benchmarks Favre would have to hit.

However, negotiations on the compensation is far from firm as the parties involved are still in serious talks regarding what it would take to make this move. The Packers do not have a firm asking price, as they are trying to trade their formerly beloved player.

So where do we go from here so the rest of us can happily get back to our NFL training camp tours and actually acknowledge that there are 31 other teams in this league? Is Brett Favre great for this league? No doubt, especially when he played like he did last year. The Favre who threw pick after pick in the two previous years? Not so much.

But maybe we all didn't have to come down this road in the first place. In talking with some Chiefs vets last night, they didn't understand why he never came out with, "Look, I made a mistake. I know I've flip-flopped on the organization a lot and for that I truly am sorry. I love this game and I truly realize how much I miss it. I know I've put the organization and especially Aaron in a tough spot and again, I apologize. I made the decision to retire but that itch has returned. What do I need to do to prove I'm fully committed and how can I help the Packers and Aaron?" Would it have worked? Who knows, but it sure would have been better than blasting his boss as a liar and putting the fans he says he loves in a must-choose position.

The fans of Green Bay are like family to the team. But they've been brought into the center of a divorce, being pushed to choose between mom and dad. It's simply not fair.

If Brett truly wants to play football, has that itch, then he should push for a trade to the two teams that have shown interest. Based on my conversations with personnel men and coaches throughout the league, the Packers have called every team in the league aside from those within their own division and those who already have a star QB (Patriots, Colts, etc.). They are working it.

Or, better yet, he can always stay home, quietly apologize for this PR disaster and, should something happen to Aaron Rodgers, gallop in on his white horse and save the day!

We don't like to see our sports stars struggle in their twilight, don't like to hear chants for their hook or boos surrounding their latter-years performances. But we love when they defy the odds and create magic when time tells them they shouldn't.

Only Favre can end this now.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Nice new article today by Gene Wojciechowski on ESPN.com:

Packers say one thing, do another as Favre mess lingers

By Gene Wojciechowski

ESPN.com

So unless he "misremembers" -- to use Roger Clemens' word -- Brett Favre once again confirmed all you need to know about the integrity, or lack of it, of Green Bay Packers management.

First of all, it did the very thing it accuses Favre of doing: It waffled. Actually, general manager Ted Thompson waffled.

A little more than two weeks ago, Thompson said Favre, who mis-retired, could return to the team "as an active member of the Green Bay Packers." Active, as in, on the active roster. But not as the starter.

But the truth is Thompson doesn't want Favre within a Sturgeon Bay of the Packers' training camp. He never did. All that talk of Favre's returning in "some role" was clumsy Thompson propaganda.

The latest proof is in Favre's Sunday interview with ESPN's Chris Mortensen. According to Favre, the quarterback asked Thompson if he'd be "welcome" if he reported to the opening of training camp. A reasonable question.

Thompson, said Favre, "was just about shattered. He said, 'Brett, you can't do that -- you'll get me fired.' I told him I'm not trying to get anybody fired. So Ted asked me to let the guys report and let's try to resolve this over the next two or three days."

Thompson knows what would have happened if Favre had been issued a helmet and a jersey today. Everybody knows. Favre would have been the best quarterback on the field. Thompson knows what would have happened if Favre had been issued a helmet and a jersey today. Everybody knows. Favre would have been the best quarterback on the field.

Forget the three-ring media circus if Favre had reported. That's the least of Thompson's problems. His backpedaling and then reversal on Favre's supposed "role" with the team is the admission that counts.

Thompson isn't interested in putting the best product on the field. If he were, he'd let Aaron Rodgers, his handpicked successor to Favre, compete for the starting position. Sure, there'd be off-the-charts media and fan scrutiny. Isn't that part of it?

If Rodgers can't handle the pressure of Favre's presence and open competition for the job in July, what makes you think he can handle the Chicago Bears at Soldier Field in December? But Thompson doesn't want the best man to win. He wants his man to win. So no quarterback bake-off.

At the very least, Thompson should have told Favre: "You want to come back? Fine. I think you're making a mistake, but it's your life and your legacy. If you do come back, it's going to be an open competition for the starting job. I give you my word we'll judge it as objectively as possible. But if Rodgers wins, you're the backup and you can't ##### about it. Deal?"

And at the very most, Thompson could have said: "You gave us 16 great years. Here's your release."

Instead, the Packers are trying to trade their best quarterback. I repeat, their best quarterback. Of course, Favre isn't good enough for them, but he is good enough that the Packers reportedly want a first-round draft pick in exchange for his rights.

This is what I mean by Packers flip-flopping. In March, Green Bay coach Mike McCarthy and assistant coach Tom Clements were telling Favre he could "still play at a high level." But now the Packers don't think he's worth the trouble? Yet they think the negotiations for his rights should start at a first-rounder?

If Thompson can get a second-round pick for Favre, take it. Maybe you add some sort of escalation clause -- if his new team advances to the conference championship game, the second-round pick becomes a first-rounder. I'm just spitballing here.

The bottom line is this: If you believe in Rodgers as much as you say you do, you trade Favre. And it shouldn't matter where. If NFC North rival Minnesota offers the most comprehensive package, you trade him to Minnesota. If Chicago comes up with the best deal, then off to the Bears he goes. That way you get Favre's name off the roster and draft picks in your pocket. It's a win-win.

Favre didn't do himself or his image any favors by changing his mind on retirement. And he's taken considerable heat for it -- some of it deserved, some of it bordering on the hysterical.

But nobody has bungled this situation more than Thompson. From the disingenuous "We Care About Favre's Legacy" stance, to the convenient and false statement that Favre could return to the team, Thompson has written the textbook on mismanagement.

Thompson keeps insisting the Packers have moved forward, as if the mere act of saying the words makes it true. But until he does one of three things -- trade Favre, release Favre or welcome Favre back -- the Packers aren't moving anywhere, especially forward.

Time to make a decision, Ted. Now it's your legacy at stake.

That's a great article that touches all the things I've been trying to say in this thread, but he makes it sensible. Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

 

[GreenNGold]

Well now we know why TT doesn't want Favre to compete for the job, after practice #1:

Rodgers appeared shaky in the early portion of practice and missed a number of receivers. He improved some as the practice wore on, but coach Mike McCarthy said he didn't think Rodgers was affected by the attention.

 

[ScottyFargo]

No malice...you just spin and lie about people said...care to show where I stated that Lombardi was practically dead when he was released? Go look at the quotes above...never said or even implied it.

They are poor comparisons as none are even close to the Favre situation at this point...its beyond ridiculous.

You like it because it looked upon the Packers poorly...shocking that the haters are the ones buying into such articles with no regard for the actual situation at hand.

What was your point in saying Lombardi coached for one year before basically dying?

A point of fact that he stated he was burned out...and it proved...there was a reason behind it...the point was he did little after leaving...as did Reggie.But those were completely different situations.

We saw what Brett can still do...so its not like the team should just let him get to any major rival...you can keep secretly hoping Brett becomes a Viking...even though you claim not to want that...it appears by your ramblings in these threads that it is exactly what you want.

K so we agree he was burnt out, just like Favre. Now, as for your assertion that he did little after leaving:

Washington Redskins

Lombardi stepped down as head coach of the Packers following the 1967 NFL season, staying on as the team's general manager for 1968. He handed off the head coaching position to Phil Bengtson, a longtime assistant, but the Packers finished at 6-7-1 and out of the four team NFL playoffs. A restless Lombardi returned to coaching in 1969 with the Washington Redskins, where he broke a string of 14 losing seasons. The 'Skins would finish with a record of 7-5-2, significant for a number of reasons. Lombardi discovered that rookie running back Larry Brown was deaf in one ear, something that had escaped his parents, schoolteachers, and previous coaches. Lombardi had observed Brown's habit of tilting his head in one direction when listening to signals being called, and walked behind him during drills and said "Larry". When Brown did not answer, the coach asked him to take a hearing exam. Brown was fitted with a hearing aid, and with this correction he would enjoy a successful NFL career.

Lombardi was the first coach to get soft-bellied quarterback Sonny Jurgensen, one of the league's premier forward passers, to get into the best condition he could. He coaxed former All-Pro linebacker Sam Huff out of retirement. He even changed the team's uniform design to reflect that of the Packers, with gold and white trim along the jersey biceps, and later a gold helmet with an "R" inside a circle, similar to the famous Green Bay "G" monogram. The foundation Lombardi laid was the groundwork for Washington's early 1970s success under former L.A. Rams Coach George Allen. Lombardi had brought a winning attitude to the Nation's Capital, in the same year that the nearby University of Maryland had hired Lefty Driesell to coach basketball and the hapless Washington Senators named Ted Williams as manager and led the club to its only winning record in Washington (86-76). It marked a renaissance in sports interest in America's most transient of cities.

His career was cut short by illness. He hardly accomplished "little" in the one season he had with Washington.Whatever you think you know about how I feel about anything is irrelevent.

 

[T Bell]

Chris Morteson ESPN.com

"I asked Ted [saturday], 'Am I welcome in the building if I report?' and Ted was just about shattered," said Favre in a telephone interview. "He said, 'Brett, you can't do that -- you'll get me fired.' I told him I'm not trying to get anybody fired. So Ted asked me to let the guys report and let's try to resolve this over the next two or three days."

Awful nice of Favre to let the players report.

I have a tough time believing that Ted Thompson was pleading with Favre for his job.

 

[T Bell]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

 

[Aaronstory]

Well now we know why TT doesn't want Favre to compete for the job, after practice #1: Rodgers appeared shaky in the early portion of practice and missed a number of receivers. He improved some as the practice wore on, but coach Mike McCarthy said he didn't think Rodgers was affected by the attention.

Hmmm, reminds me of another guy who used to be erratic early in games. Young kid named Favre. You may have heard of him...(And yes. The comparison is ludicrous. No more so than the post it is responding to...)

 

[GreenNGold]

Well now we know why TT doesn't want Favre to compete for the job, after practice #1: Rodgers appeared shaky in the early portion of practice and missed a number of receivers. He improved some as the practice wore on, but coach Mike McCarthy said he didn't think Rodgers was affected by the attention.

Hmmm, reminds me of another guy who used to be erratic early in games. Young kid named Favre. You may have heard of him...(And yes. The comparison is ludicrous. No more so than the post it is responding to...)

Almost as ludicrous as a GM chasing his best QB and RB out of town? But that's ok, it's for the future! To compare to baseball, the Brewers were cellar dwellars for almost my entire life. They realize they have a good chance this year and are "going for it". The Packers are in a similar spot but are choosing to "look towards the future". They could make the equivalant of the trade for CC Sabathia and bring back Brett for another year, but oh well, hopefully within the next 10 years the packers will become contenders again.I think we can all agree that the window most teams have to win a championship are short. The Packers are currently slamming that window shut with no guarantee it will be open again anytime soon.

 

[Aaronstory]

I heard on the FOX affiliate here in Milwaukee tonight that Favre and Thompson had a chat and part of it went something like this......

Favre: Just let me compete, you know I'll win the job.

Thompson: Brett, things are different here now, we are moving forward with Aaron.

If this is true, that's total BS on Thompson s part. Tells me he doesn't care what's best for the team.

From Mortensen's report:"I said, 'Let me compete, you'll know I'll win this job' and Ted said again, 'Brett, things have changed. Aaron Rodgers is our quarterback.' It's pretty clear -- and this is what I told the commissioner -- that they want me to go away, stay retired. They would much rather see me in a Packers' uniform, paying me $12 million to be a backup -- which you know they really don't want -- rather than see in another uniform, no matter what they say. They'll drag this out, asking a king's ransom [in a trade], hoping it all goes away."

Yea, that's the quote I heard.This pisses me off

Why? I don't blame TT at all especially if it is true that Favre expressed his desire to come back the end of March and the Packers were ready to bring him back. Then Brett changed his mind AGAIN and the Packers went and drafted two quaterbacks and named Aaron the starter. The team can not go back on their word and as much as it pains me to say this...Brett brought this on himself and is doing what he can to pass the blame to the Packers.

Yeah! Aaron Rodgers worked really hard in those minicamps and he deserves to be the starter! How rude!

You're right. He's just been sitting around since he was drafted and not working and improving at all...

 

[Moe Green]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Favre is either going to have to play for a team the Packers trade him to, or not play at all.

 

[T Bell]

Well now we know why TT doesn't want Favre to compete for the job, after practice #1: Rodgers appeared shaky in the early portion of practice and missed a number of receivers. He improved some as the practice wore on, but coach Mike McCarthy said he didn't think Rodgers was affected by the attention.

Hmmm, reminds me of another guy who used to be erratic early in games. Young kid named Favre. You may have heard of him...(And yes. The comparison is ludicrous. No more so than the post it is responding to...)

Does anyone really think the scrutiny on Rodgers would be any less if Favre had remained retired? Camp may have been less of a circus without Favre in the picture, but the attention on errant passing during drills wouldn't have been any less. The bottom line is that it sucks to have to follow a legend.

 

[Aaronstory]

Well now we know why TT doesn't want Favre to compete for the job, after practice #1: Rodgers appeared shaky in the early portion of practice and missed a number of receivers. He improved some as the practice wore on, but coach Mike McCarthy said he didn't think Rodgers was affected by the attention.

Hmmm, reminds me of another guy who used to be erratic early in games. Young kid named Favre. You may have heard of him...(And yes. The comparison is ludicrous. No more so than the post it is responding to...)

Almost as ludicrous as a GM chasing his best QB and RB out of town? But that's ok, it's for the future! To compare to baseball, the Brewers were cellar dwellars for almost my entire life. They realize they have a good chance this year and are "going for it". The Packers are in a similar spot but are choosing to "look towards the future". They could make the equivalant of the trade for CC Sabathia and bring back Brett for another year, but oh well, hopefully within the next 10 years the packers will become contenders again.

Why can't people understand that the Packers are a good team, with or without Favre, or Grant for that matter? McCarthy was more responsible in winning 13 games last year than either Favre or Grant. I for one will take a 5 to 10 year window to reach a Super Bowl rather than a one year shot.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Notes from TT's press conf.

Monday, July 28, 2008Thompson speaksRunning notes from Packers GM Ted Thompson's weekly training camp media conference ...* He starts with saying this morning's practice was good. He then addresses the Brett Favre saga: "Brett and I had a couple of converations on Saturday." Both about 45 minutes. "It was very professional, it was very cordial." Both acknowledged it's a unique situation; feels both sides are. Talked about options available. Both stated case about options. "We still have not gotten the point where we agree on what the best option is. We have sort of agreed to disagree." Favre suggested he would delay coming to camp. Favre asked Thompson to present reasoning about that -- that he doesn't want to disturb the team. No resolution or update yet. "We will continue to try to do the right thing for all parties. There's not any simple answers, but that's what we're tasked to do. ... As a leader here, I feel the responsibility to do this and do this in a proper manner. It's an ongoing thing that we're going to do the best we can."* Favre coming back is an option, but commitment has been made to move forward, even if sides are not in total agreement. Different role? Would be determined if he comes back. "There are scenarios where he would come back, and he would be fine."* Made clear to Favre they're going down the Aaron Rodgers path. Didn't want to be dishonest, so told him the way he felt. "We believe this is the path that we should be on. We believe this is in the best interest (of the Packers) in the long-term and the short-term."* "To just offer a blanket release would just (be) relinquishing the club's business rights" and that wouldn't make sense.* Consider trade to NFC North team? "No."* Favre give deadline of when coming? "No. ... I think he used the term 'a couple days.'"* Really say he'd get fired if Favre came? "That would not be my interpretation of that conversation."* Feasible to get trade done by Wednesday? Doesn't know. Complications with iconic figure. Matter of all parties coming together and saying this is a good idea, and they're not there yet.* Relieved when decided not to come? "We talked about this. I ... felt this had the potential to be ... a little bit more of a distraction than normal. I'm very proud of our team. ... I think we can handle it ... if it happens."* From trade conversations so far, think can get fair value? "I don't know. ... I don't know if it's fair to speculate" about market value. * How many teams, scenarios? Wouldn't care to comment, in keeping with normal policy.* Fair to say ongoing? "There have been some kicking-of-tires type of conversations."* Favre told what teams would go to? "No."* Trade most desirable outcome? No ... that would be just getting to point where done trade and get Favre where he wants to be.* Why not willing to trade player within division? Special bond and player-for-player within division is rare. * Release just doesn't make sense. Hasn't heard many people say that's a good option, "even people who want to hang me in effigy outside."* If confident in team, why not just let go? Doesn't think those issues are intertwined. "There's a business side of this, and there's a common sense of this that says just to relinquish all our rights doesn't make much business sense."* Prepared for Favre to be backup for entire season? See when they get there.* Has Favre said 100 percent he wants to play? Yes, in Saturday conversations.* On cell phone thing: Never heard of any Packers cell phones for players since been back with team.* On Ryan Grant's sitution (and I'm transcribing this one now because I had to win a five-man shouting match to get it off): "The Ryan Grant thing is, he is in a remarkably unique position year-wise. It's a negotiation. It's ongoing. We do not negotiate in the press. We don't think that serves a purpose. We don't necessarily (get) offended by the fact that some agents like to do that. But we're working through it. Ryan's a good man and a good player, and we're going to try to get him back in here." Do you have a timetable? "I don't. I think that's one of those things I think we spoke of before. It's sort of, the cake's cooked when it's cooked."-- Tom Pelissero, tpelisse@greenbaypressgazette.composted by PackersNews.com at 12:59 PM | 4 Comments

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Then why tell him that he'll be a backup to Rodgers, and then ask him to stay away from camp? I'm trying to find some justification for what Ted Thompson is doing and I can't find any. You tell the guy he'll be the backup (which is crazy for a guy with Favre's credentials and starting streak), then you tell him to stay away from camp, then you won't cut him or trade him (minus a ridiculous incentive, like if Favre starts every game the draft pick is a 2nd or 1st or something? Come on). What is Thompson doing?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

What is Thompson doing?

Obviously, we don't know what Thompson is doing, as it should be. Do you claim to know everything Thompson is doing?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

What is Thompson doing?

Obviously, we don't know what Thompson is doing, as it should be. Do you claim to know everything Thompson is doing?

LOL, no, that's why I was asking. What do you think he's doing?

 

[sho nuff]

Well now we know why TT doesn't want Favre to compete for the job, after practice #1: Rodgers appeared shaky in the early portion of practice and missed a number of receivers. He improved some as the practice wore on, but coach Mike McCarthy said he didn't think Rodgers was affected by the attention.

Because Favre never had a bad practice and always hit every WR in stride and threw a small number of interceptions?

 

[Avery]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Then why tell him that he'll be a backup to Rodgers, and then ask him to stay away from camp? I'm trying to find some justification for what Ted Thompson is doing and I can't find any. You tell the guy he'll be the backup (which is crazy for a guy with Favre's credentials and starting streak), then you tell him to stay away from camp, then you won't cut him or trade him (minus a ridiculous incentive, like if Favre starts every game the draft pick is a 2nd or 1st or something? Come on). What is Thompson doing?

I admittedly haven't read all of the eight pages of this thread, so this is likely not an original thought but perhaps Thompson thought that Farve's pride would keep him away from camp in the role of a backup. It appears that Farve called his bluff and now Thompson is "exploring other options."Seems not much of this has been thought through well on anyone's part.

 

[T Man]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Then why tell him that he'll be a backup to Rodgers, and then ask him to stay away from camp? I'm trying to find some justification for what Ted Thompson is doing and I can't find any. You tell the guy he'll be the backup (which is crazy for a guy with Favre's credentials and starting streak), then you tell him to stay away from camp, then you won't cut him or trade him (minus a ridiculous incentive, like if Favre starts every game the draft pick is a 2nd or 1st or something? Come on). What is Thompson doing?

Who knows if Thompson "asked" Favre not to come to camp? Favre says it so it must be true? And, since when is Favre doing something that Thompson has asked him to do?I agree that the Packers do not want Favre in camp; but there are a multitude of reasons. The media frenzy -- the heightened pressure of both QBs. Heck if Favre performs poorly, he can retire. But the stress it takes on everyone else preparing for the season may be a bit much. Plus, there probably is a split in the locker room. Many probably agree with the Packers and want to move forward -- tired of dealing with the waffling of BF.

From his comments to Greta, it is clear that Brett has been trying to dictate what he wasnts done. Thompson apparently has not always been receptive. Now Favre says he wants to play -- but he refuses to identify the teams for which he will play? Why? Because he only wants to play for Minny? Because he just wants to try and stick it to TT? probably. ANd that is why the Packers should hold firm and not release him -- at least until the day before the season (although I would keep him for the season if he could not be traded).

Also, how is it ridiculous to ask for a conditional pick that escalates based upon Favre's playing time and performance. Heck Montanna was traded for a first. If Favre is the QB everyone thinnks he is, then a conditional pick should be worth it. It does not appear that the Packers are the ones being ridiculous about the trade details -- the stumbling point appears to be Favre reefusing to identify teams to which he would accept a trade.

I agree that TT has made mistakes, but many seem to think that Brett is innocent in all of this. A better article then the one on ESPN by Wojo is the article by Glazer on Fox. More balanced. I am tired of all the BF love. Both the Packers and Favre are to blame for this.

 

[vitaflo]

What is Thompson doing?

Obviously, we don't know what Thompson is doing, as it should be. Do you claim to know everything Thompson is doing?

LOL, no, that's why I was asking. What do you think he's doing?

Trying to trade him, while not causing a distraction to the rest of the team while he tries to finalize a deal. Seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Then why tell him that he'll be a backup to Rodgers, and then ask him to stay away from camp? I'm trying to find some justification for what Ted Thompson is doing and I can't find any. You tell the guy he'll be the backup (which is crazy for a guy with Favre's credentials and starting streak), then you tell him to stay away from camp, then you won't cut him or trade him (minus a ridiculous incentive, like if Favre starts every game the draft pick is a 2nd or 1st or something? Come on). What is Thompson doing?

Who knows if Thompson "asked" Favre not to come to camp? Favre says it so it must be true? And, since when is Favre doing something that Thompson has asked him to do?I agree that the Packers do not want Favre in camp; but there are a multitude of reasons. The media frenzy -- the heightened pressure of both QBs. Heck if Favre performs poorly, he can retire. But the stress it takes on everyone else preparing for the season may be a bit much. Plus, there probably is a split in the locker room. Many probably agree with the Packers and want to move forward -- tired of dealing with the waffling of BF.

From his comments to Greta, it is clear that Brett has been trying to dictate what he wasnts done. Thompson apparently has not always been receptive. Now Favre says he wants to play -- but he refuses to identify the teams for which he will play? Why? Because he only wants to play for Minny? Because he just wants to try and stick it to TT? probably. ANd that is why the Packers should hold firm and not release him -- at least until the day before the season (although I would keep him for the season if he could not be traded).

Also, how is it ridiculous to ask for a conditional pick that escalates based upon Favre's playing time and performance. Heck Montanna was traded for a first. If Favre is the QB everyone thinnks he is, then a conditional pick should be worth it. It does not appear that the Packers are the ones being ridiculous about the trade details -- the stumbling point appears to be Favre reefusing to identify teams to which he would accept a trade.

I agree that TT has made mistakes, but many seem to think that Brett is innocent in all of this. A better article then the one on ESPN by Wojo is the article by Glazer on Fox. More balanced. I am tired of all the BF love. Both the Packers and Favre are to blame for this.

LMAO, the Glazer article was balanced? Geez, you must really believe that Fox News is balanced too, huh? It was a pro-Thompson article, just as Wojo's was a pro-Favre article. Of course he wants to play for Minny, or Chicago. That's his best chance to win before he retires again, for good we hope. It just so happens that two of the top teams on a list of needing a good, veteran QB to get over the top happen to be in the Packers division. Do you really think Favre wants it that way? Do you think that if the Vikings were supposed to stink this year and the Chiefs were the ones only a QB away, that Favre would still want to go to Minny? Of course not. He'd be trying to go to the Chiefs. Just bad luck for both him and Green Bay.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

What is Thompson doing?

Obviously, we don't know what Thompson is doing, as it should be. Do you claim to know everything Thompson is doing?

LOL, no, that's why I was asking. What do you think he's doing?

Trying to trade him, while not causing a distraction to the rest of the team while he tries to finalize a deal. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Really? I think he's dragging his feet and hoping that Brett gets tired of it and re-retires. If Ted is really trying to trade him, I think he can make a deal by the end of the week. I'm betting that he doesn't.

 

[Flash]

I wish someone would have asked him why they won't let Favre compete and the best man wins. Isn't that what's in the best interest of the team, when you boil it down, anyway?

Why is competition so bad?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I wish someone would have asked him why they won't let Favre compete and the best man wins. Isn't that what's in the best interest of the team, when you boil it down, anyway?Why is competition so bad?

I think the answer is that TT thinks that Favre will win the battle, but it's better for the long term if Rodgers plays this season. It's a defensible idea, but if you think that you need to trade or release Favre.

 

[sho nuff]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Exactly...just because they have faith in Rodgers...does not mean you give your division rival a piece to the puzzle that they appear to be missing....according to the Glazer article above (that is predictably being glazed over)...TT stated he would be fired if he just let him go...

 

[sho nuff]

Well now we know why TT doesn't want Favre to compete for the job, after practice #1: Rodgers appeared shaky in the early portion of practice and missed a number of receivers. He improved some as the practice wore on, but coach Mike McCarthy said he didn't think Rodgers was affected by the attention.

Hmmm, reminds me of another guy who used to be erratic early in games. Young kid named Favre. You may have heard of him...(And yes. The comparison is ludicrous. No more so than the post it is responding to...)

Almost as ludicrous as a GM chasing his best QB and RB out of town? But that's ok, it's for the future! To compare to baseball, the Brewers were cellar dwellars for almost my entire life. They realize they have a good chance this year and are "going for it". The Packers are in a similar spot but are choosing to "look towards the future". They could make the equivalant of the trade for CC Sabathia and bring back Brett for another year, but oh well, hopefully within the next 10 years the packers will become contenders again.I think we can all agree that the window most teams have to win a championship are short. The Packers are currently slamming that window shut with no guarantee it will be open again anytime soon.

Awful comparison IMO between baseball and football given the difference in salary cap...and its not as if bringing in a Vet pitcher is the same as having a Vet QB.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Exactly...just because they have faith in Rodgers...does not mean you give your division rival a piece to the puzzle that they appear to be missing....according to the Glazer article above (that is predictably being glazed over)...TT stated he would be fired if he just let him go...

Then he should be fired for not having the guts to do what is best for his team. A trade will take forever to work out and will distract the team as it is getting done. Just cut him.

 

[Cenobite]

Well now we know why TT doesn't want Favre to compete for the job, after practice #1: Rodgers appeared shaky in the early portion of practice and missed a number of receivers. He improved some as the practice wore on, but coach Mike McCarthy said he didn't think Rodgers was affected by the attention.

Hmmm, reminds me of another guy who used to be erratic early in games. Young kid named Favre. You may have heard of him...(And yes. The comparison is ludicrous. No more so than the post it is responding to...)

Almost as ludicrous as a GM chasing his best QB and RB out of town? But that's ok, it's for the future! To compare to baseball, the Brewers were cellar dwellars for almost my entire life. They realize they have a good chance this year and are "going for it". The Packers are in a similar spot but are choosing to "look towards the future". They could make the equivalant of the trade for CC Sabathia and bring back Brett for another year, but oh well, hopefully within the next 10 years the packers will become contenders again.I think we can all agree that the window most teams have to win a championship are short. The Packers are currently slamming that window shut with no guarantee it will be open again anytime soon.

Awful comparison IMO between baseball and football given the difference in salary cap...and its not as if bringing in a Vet pitcher is the same as having a Vet QB.

What is this "baseball" you speaketh of? I am a NFL fan and a Favre fan. The NFL will step in and make sure the fairest deal is reached for the Packers and Favre. A second and fifth round pick should be enough compensation and Favre should be traded to the JETS. I mean, the JET players where green uniforms, right? Good enough for me.

 

[T Bell]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Then why tell him that he'll be a backup to Rodgers, and then ask him to stay away from camp? I'm trying to find some justification for what Ted Thompson is doing and I can't find any. You tell the guy he'll be the backup (which is crazy for a guy with Favre's credentials and starting streak), then you tell him to stay away from camp, then you won't cut him or trade him (minus a ridiculous incentive, like if Favre starts every game the draft pick is a 2nd or 1st or something? Come on). What is Thompson doing?

I don't understand your question. If you assume that TT and McCarthy believe that Rodgers has earned the starting job (which I believe is their position), then of course they'd tell Favre that that's the case and that he's the backup. I don't see a mystery there. What I was addressing with my previous post that you were responding to was the challenge to the Packers to simply release Favre if he was going to be the backup. I don't see why that should necessarily happen if Favre is (as I believe he clearly is) still a good enough QB to improve a good NFC North team like the Vikings at a critical weak spot for them. Why should the Packers just accept that?

We're always told that these sorts of maneuverings are just business, and yet the arguments for the release of Favre all seem to gravitate back to moralistic themes - "you owe it to him after all he's given the franchise", etc., etc., etc. Favre has had no problems being selfish about his interests the last several offseasons, so I don't see what's so unfair about the team getting selfish about its interests with respect to Favre's status.

 

[sho nuff]

A good article by Jay Glazer

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8387530?MSNHPHMA

Trying to make sense of the Favre fiasco

By Jay Glazer

Jay Glazer is a Senior NFL Writer for FOXSports.com on MSN and also appears every week on FOX NFL Sunday as the network's NFL Insider.

Updated: July 28, 2008, 12:37 PM EST

Titletown is starting to look awful lot like Tinseltown.

The fine folks in Hollywood who make millions writing dirty plots and creating cunning villains could be proud of the muck the Brett Favre soap opera has raked up. The only thing missing from this divorce are a few slimy lawyers.

As the annual Glaze Across America training camp tour-slash-debacle shifts into high gear, one thing is clear — there is no escaping the Favre Files.

From the Bears to Rams to Chiefs to my damn cell phone, it's Favre 24/7. I'm trying to cover the other 31 teams as well as the Packers, but with each sitdown with a player, every beer with a coach, conversation after conversation, the question I've now grown to dread usually takes all of one second to be launched ... "OK, what's really going on with the Favre thing?"

So, we're going to try to weed through the murky waters of two sides, the truths, the lies and everything in between.

I do not believe there is any right answer here and when the smoke clears, I believe there will be no winner. The Packers, Favre, tradition, legacy — all thrown under the bus. Admittedly, I am a huge Favre fan. When he throws TD passes like the one he launched against Denver to start overtime last year, it produces chuckles, the same type of laughs that you can't help when Devin Hester returns yet another punt or Tiger Woods drops another 50-footer.

However, legend or no legend, if in any other business an employee, even the top sales manager of all time, calls his boss a liar three times on national television, and then reveals conversations with his boss that were believed to be private and then threatens his bosses ... seriously, how many of those folks would still be employed? How many players in this league would come through unscathed, especially in the wallet?

Now imagine if Mr. Johnny Cool Salesman, it turns out, took such a path for the sole purpose of bolting to a rival company, what does his boss do at this point?

Favre is clearly trying to gain his release, an option the Packers, sources have told FOXSports.com, told Brett as late as two days ago absolutely will NOT happen. In fact, those same sources say that GM Ted Thompson never told Favre he'd get fired for letting him back in the building. Instead, he joked that even the people who don't want Brett back would want him fired if he released the famed gunslinger.

But how in the world does one of the most beloved sports figures of all time, a man who epitomized toughness and grit turn so soap opera-ish so fast? His PR tactics have gained him little if any sympathy, even from his peers. In my travels through camp so far, not one coach I've talked to agrees with his stance and the players have been split 50 percent somewhat sadly against Favre, 25 percent adamantly for Favre and 25 percent absolutely blasting him for the PR route he's taken.

"I don't care, it's Brett Favre, give him his helmet back," said one Bears player over beers the other night. "I don't care what happened or how it's gotten here, it's freakin' Brett Favre!"

"Don't let him back in the building," said a Rams veteran after practice on Sunday. "He's made it all about Brett. I'd be pissed if I was in that locker room and he's made it all about him all this time. Man, I'd want to move on. Enough already, it's been about is he coming back or not for damn near four years. I'd be sick of it."

Then there's the case of their own locker room. Packers players told FOXSports.com that head coach Mike McCarthy was very moved in his speech to the team Sunday afternoon, emphatically praising them for the way his players have handled the most difficult of situations.

Favre is welcome back into the locker room by the front office and coaches, albeit not as the starter. However, if he thought he'd walk in and the locker room would run to his defense, it may not be as clear cut as he'd like to believe.

Remember, 21 of the players in that locker room have never met Favre. Their only experience has been with young Aaron Rodgers and this storm of controversy. Additionally, because of the youth of the team, there's a high percentage of second- and third-year players.

Didn't Favre say just two short weeks ago that he probably wasn't going to force the Packers' hand and show up for fear of something just like this? Didn't he say he didn't want to be a distraction ... but now he wants to be?

The Bucs and Jets are still alive in trade talks, although how strong depends upon the hour you check. Both teams have asked for and received permission to speak with Favre. Favre has not talked to the Jets at this point, although his agent has. The Bucs, oddly, have yet to act and have even publicly denied asking for permission.

The trade is not for a first-round pick, as had been reported, nor for a first-round pick plus other compensation, as is now the latest word on the rumor mill. The Packers, several sources have told FOXSports.com, have based their compensation upon an escalating scale that could go as high as a first-rounder based upon certain performance benchmarks Favre would have to hit.

However, negotiations on the compensation is far from firm as the parties involved are still in serious talks regarding what it would take to make this move. The Packers do not have a firm asking price, as they are trying to trade their formerly beloved player.

So where do we go from here so the rest of us can happily get back to our NFL training camp tours and actually acknowledge that there are 31 other teams in this league? Is Brett Favre great for this league? No doubt, especially when he played like he did last year. The Favre who threw pick after pick in the two previous years? Not so much.

But maybe we all didn't have to come down this road in the first place. In talking with some Chiefs vets last night, they didn't understand why he never came out with, "Look, I made a mistake. I know I've flip-flopped on the organization a lot and for that I truly am sorry. I love this game and I truly realize how much I miss it. I know I've put the organization and especially Aaron in a tough spot and again, I apologize. I made the decision to retire but that itch has returned. What do I need to do to prove I'm fully committed and how can I help the Packers and Aaron?" Would it have worked? Who knows, but it sure would have been better than blasting his boss as a liar and putting the fans he says he loves in a must-choose position.

The fans of Green Bay are like family to the team. But they've been brought into the center of a divorce, being pushed to choose between mom and dad. It's simply not fair.

If Brett truly wants to play football, has that itch, then he should push for a trade to the two teams that have shown interest. Based on my conversations with personnel men and coaches throughout the league, the Packers have called every team in the league aside from those within their own division and those who already have a star QB (Patriots, Colts, etc.). They are working it.

Or, better yet, he can always stay home, quietly apologize for this PR disaster and, should something happen to Aaron Rodgers, gallop in on his white horse and save the day!

We don't like to see our sports stars struggle in their twilight, don't like to hear chants for their hook or boos surrounding their latter-years performances. But we love when they defy the odds and create magic when time tells them they shouldn't.

Only Favre can end this now.

Not shocking the vocal bashers have pretty much ignored this.

 

[T Bell]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Exactly...just because they have faith in Rodgers...does not mean you give your division rival a piece to the puzzle that they appear to be missing....according to the Glazer article above (that is predictably being glazed over)...TT stated he would be fired if he just let him go...

Then he should be fired for not having the guts to do what is best for his team. A trade will take forever to work out and will distract the team as it is getting done. Just cut him.

What? This response makes no sense.

 

[sho nuff]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Then why tell him that he'll be a backup to Rodgers, and then ask him to stay away from camp? I'm trying to find some justification for what Ted Thompson is doing and I can't find any. You tell the guy he'll be the backup (which is crazy for a guy with Favre's credentials and starting streak), then you tell him to stay away from camp, then you won't cut him or trade him (minus a ridiculous incentive, like if Favre starts every game the draft pick is a 2nd or 1st or something? Come on). What is Thompson doing?

Who knows if Thompson "asked" Favre not to come to camp? Favre says it so it must be true? And, since when is Favre doing something that Thompson has asked him to do?I agree that the Packers do not want Favre in camp; but there are a multitude of reasons. The media frenzy -- the heightened pressure of both QBs. Heck if Favre performs poorly, he can retire. But the stress it takes on everyone else preparing for the season may be a bit much. Plus, there probably is a split in the locker room. Many probably agree with the Packers and want to move forward -- tired of dealing with the waffling of BF.

From his comments to Greta, it is clear that Brett has been trying to dictate what he wasnts done. Thompson apparently has not always been receptive. Now Favre says he wants to play -- but he refuses to identify the teams for which he will play? Why? Because he only wants to play for Minny? Because he just wants to try and stick it to TT? probably. ANd that is why the Packers should hold firm and not release him -- at least until the day before the season (although I would keep him for the season if he could not be traded).

Also, how is it ridiculous to ask for a conditional pick that escalates based upon Favre's playing time and performance. Heck Montanna was traded for a first. If Favre is the QB everyone thinnks he is, then a conditional pick should be worth it. It does not appear that the Packers are the ones being ridiculous about the trade details -- the stumbling point appears to be Favre reefusing to identify teams to which he would accept a trade.

I agree that TT has made mistakes, but many seem to think that Brett is innocent in all of this. A better article then the one on ESPN by Wojo is the article by Glazer on Fox. More balanced. I am tired of all the BF love. Both the Packers and Favre are to blame for this.

LMAO, the Glazer article was balanced? Geez, you must really believe that Fox News is balanced too, huh? It was a pro-Thompson article, just as Wojo's was a pro-Favre article. Of course he wants to play for Minny, or Chicago. That's his best chance to win before he retires again, for good we hope. It just so happens that two of the top teams on a list of needing a good, veteran QB to get over the top happen to be in the Packers division. Do you really think Favre wants it that way? Do you think that if the Vikings were supposed to stink this year and the Chiefs were the ones only a QB away, that Favre would still want to go to Minny? Of course not. He'd be trying to go to the Chiefs. Just bad luck for both him and Green Bay.

I don't think Favre wants to play for Chicago.IF he thought TT did not do enough to get him weapons...what would he think of Chicago...and he would be on his back alot with that Oline.

 

[sho nuff]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Exactly...just because they have faith in Rodgers...does not mean you give your division rival a piece to the puzzle that they appear to be missing....according to the Glazer article above (that is predictably being glazed over)...TT stated he would be fired if he just let him go...

Then he should be fired for not having the guts to do what is best for his team. A trade will take forever to work out and will distract the team as it is getting done. Just cut him.

Why do you think its in the best interest of the franchise to trade him to Minny or release him?He has explained why that is not in the best interest of the team and makes no business sense...it has been said over and over why that would be a bad idea...so why would you think it would be best for his team?

 

[T Bell]

Well now we know why TT doesn't want Favre to compete for the job, after practice #1:

Rodgers appeared shaky in the early portion of practice and missed a number of receivers. He improved some as the practice wore on, but coach Mike McCarthy said he didn't think Rodgers was affected by the attention.

Hmmm, reminds me of another guy who used to be erratic early in games. Young kid named Favre. You may have heard of him...(And yes. The comparison is ludicrous. No more so than the post it is responding to...)

Almost as ludicrous as a GM chasing his best QB and RB out of town? But that's ok, it's for the future! To compare to baseball, the Brewers were cellar dwellars for almost my entire life. They realize they have a good chance this year and are "going for it". The Packers are in a similar spot but are choosing to "look towards the future". They could make the equivalant of the trade for CC Sabathia and bring back Brett for another year, but oh well, hopefully within the next 10 years the packers will become contenders again.

I think we can all agree that the window most teams have to win a championship are short. The Packers are currently slamming that window shut with no guarantee it will be open again anytime soon.

Awful comparison IMO between baseball and football given the difference in salary cap...and its not as if bringing in a Vet pitcher is the same as having a Vet QB.

What is this "baseball" you speaketh of? I am a NFL fan and a Favre fan. The NFL will step in and make sure the fairest deal is reached for the Packers and Favre. A second and fifth round pick should be enough compensation and Favre should be traded to the JETS. I mean, the JET players where green uniforms, right? Good enough for me.

What makes you think that the Packers wouldn't accept such a deal with the Jets?What makes you think that Favre would accept such a deal with the Jets?

 

[Chachi]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Exactly...just because they have faith in Rodgers...does not mean you give your division rival a piece to the puzzle that they appear to be missing....according to the Glazer article above (that is predictably being glazed over)...TT stated he would be fired if he just let him go...

Then he should be fired for not having the guts to do what is best for his team. A trade will take forever to work out and will distract the team as it is getting done. Just cut him.

Why do you think its in the best interest of the franchise to trade him to Minny or release him?He has explained why that is not in the best interest of the team and makes no business sense...it has been said over and over why that would be a bad idea...so why would you think it would be best for his team?

I don't think Ted Thompson is a very smart man. I know these guys try and act cagey with their canned responses but I noticed today:Reporter #1Did you say to Favre that if he reported you worried you'd get canned?Thompson "That is not the way I interpreted it"R #2 Yo listen up TT, Did you say that???????TT - "I am not going to get into the he said she said stuffR #3Dude, you're killing me, Did you say that, Did those words come out of your piehole?TT "I didn't interpret it that way"Is this a joke? How is he "interpreting" what he is being asked if those words came out of his yapper? I think TT lies so much he doesn't know which lie to tell to cover the next, I think he is extremely dishonest and looked like an utter moron in regards to the questions the reporters asked him about what came out of his own piehole.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Is this a joke? How is he "interpreting" what he is being asked if those words came out of his yapper? I think TT lies so much he doesn't know which lie to tell to cover the next, I think he is extremely dishonest and looked like an utter moron in regards to the questions the reporters asked him about what came out of his own piehole.

Or it is a polite way to say Favre misquoted him.

 

[Aaronstory]

A good article by Jay Glazer

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8387530?MSNHPHMA

Trying to make sense of the Favre fiasco

By Jay Glazer

Jay Glazer is a Senior NFL Writer for FOXSports.com on MSN and also appears every week on FOX NFL Sunday as the network's NFL Insider.

Updated: July 28, 2008, 12:37 PM EST

Titletown is starting to look awful lot like Tinseltown.

The fine folks in Hollywood who make millions writing dirty plots and creating cunning villains could be proud of the muck the Brett Favre soap opera has raked up. The only thing missing from this divorce are a few slimy lawyers.

As the annual Glaze Across America training camp tour-slash-debacle shifts into high gear, one thing is clear — there is no escaping the Favre Files.

From the Bears to Rams to Chiefs to my damn cell phone, it's Favre 24/7. I'm trying to cover the other 31 teams as well as the Packers, but with each sitdown with a player, every beer with a coach, conversation after conversation, the question I've now grown to dread usually takes all of one second to be launched ... "OK, what's really going on with the Favre thing?"

So, we're going to try to weed through the murky waters of two sides, the truths, the lies and everything in between.

I do not believe there is any right answer here and when the smoke clears, I believe there will be no winner. The Packers, Favre, tradition, legacy — all thrown under the bus. Admittedly, I am a huge Favre fan. When he throws TD passes like the one he launched against Denver to start overtime last year, it produces chuckles, the same type of laughs that you can't help when Devin Hester returns yet another punt or Tiger Woods drops another 50-footer.

However, legend or no legend, if in any other business an employee, even the top sales manager of all time, calls his boss a liar three times on national television, and then reveals conversations with his boss that were believed to be private and then threatens his bosses ... seriously, how many of those folks would still be employed? How many players in this league would come through unscathed, especially in the wallet?

Now imagine if Mr. Johnny Cool Salesman, it turns out, took such a path for the sole purpose of bolting to a rival company, what does his boss do at this point?

Favre is clearly trying to gain his release, an option the Packers, sources have told FOXSports.com, told Brett as late as two days ago absolutely will NOT happen. In fact, those same sources say that GM Ted Thompson never told Favre he'd get fired for letting him back in the building. Instead, he joked that even the people who don't want Brett back would want him fired if he released the famed gunslinger.

But how in the world does one of the most beloved sports figures of all time, a man who epitomized toughness and grit turn so soap opera-ish so fast? His PR tactics have gained him little if any sympathy, even from his peers. In my travels through camp so far, not one coach I've talked to agrees with his stance and the players have been split 50 percent somewhat sadly against Favre, 25 percent adamantly for Favre and 25 percent absolutely blasting him for the PR route he's taken.

"I don't care, it's Brett Favre, give him his helmet back," said one Bears player over beers the other night. "I don't care what happened or how it's gotten here, it's freakin' Brett Favre!"

"Don't let him back in the building," said a Rams veteran after practice on Sunday. "He's made it all about Brett. I'd be pissed if I was in that locker room and he's made it all about him all this time. Man, I'd want to move on. Enough already, it's been about is he coming back or not for damn near four years. I'd be sick of it."

Then there's the case of their own locker room. Packers players told FOXSports.com that head coach Mike McCarthy was very moved in his speech to the team Sunday afternoon, emphatically praising them for the way his players have handled the most difficult of situations.

Favre is welcome back into the locker room by the front office and coaches, albeit not as the starter. However, if he thought he'd walk in and the locker room would run to his defense, it may not be as clear cut as he'd like to believe.

Remember, 21 of the players in that locker room have never met Favre. Their only experience has been with young Aaron Rodgers and this storm of controversy. Additionally, because of the youth of the team, there's a high percentage of second- and third-year players.

Didn't Favre say just two short weeks ago that he probably wasn't going to force the Packers' hand and show up for fear of something just like this? Didn't he say he didn't want to be a distraction ... but now he wants to be?

The Bucs and Jets are still alive in trade talks, although how strong depends upon the hour you check. Both teams have asked for and received permission to speak with Favre. Favre has not talked to the Jets at this point, although his agent has. The Bucs, oddly, have yet to act and have even publicly denied asking for permission.

The trade is not for a first-round pick, as had been reported, nor for a first-round pick plus other compensation, as is now the latest word on the rumor mill. The Packers, several sources have told FOXSports.com, have based their compensation upon an escalating scale that could go as high as a first-rounder based upon certain performance benchmarks Favre would have to hit.

However, negotiations on the compensation is far from firm as the parties involved are still in serious talks regarding what it would take to make this move. The Packers do not have a firm asking price, as they are trying to trade their formerly beloved player.

So where do we go from here so the rest of us can happily get back to our NFL training camp tours and actually acknowledge that there are 31 other teams in this league? Is Brett Favre great for this league? No doubt, especially when he played like he did last year. The Favre who threw pick after pick in the two previous years? Not so much.

But maybe we all didn't have to come down this road in the first place. In talking with some Chiefs vets last night, they didn't understand why he never came out with, "Look, I made a mistake. I know I've flip-flopped on the organization a lot and for that I truly am sorry. I love this game and I truly realize how much I miss it. I know I've put the organization and especially Aaron in a tough spot and again, I apologize. I made the decision to retire but that itch has returned. What do I need to do to prove I'm fully committed and how can I help the Packers and Aaron?" Would it have worked? Who knows, but it sure would have been better than blasting his boss as a liar and putting the fans he says he loves in a must-choose position.

The fans of Green Bay are like family to the team. But they've been brought into the center of a divorce, being pushed to choose between mom and dad. It's simply not fair.

If Brett truly wants to play football, has that itch, then he should push for a trade to the two teams that have shown interest. Based on my conversations with personnel men and coaches throughout the league, the Packers have called every team in the league aside from those within their own division and those who already have a star QB (Patriots, Colts, etc.). They are working it.

Or, better yet, he can always stay home, quietly apologize for this PR disaster and, should something happen to Aaron Rodgers, gallop in on his white horse and save the day!

We don't like to see our sports stars struggle in their twilight, don't like to hear chants for their hook or boos surrounding their latter-years performances. But we love when they defy the odds and create magic when time tells them they shouldn't.

Only Favre can end this now.

Not shocking the vocal bashers have pretty much ignored this.

 

[Chachi]

Is this a joke? How is he "interpreting" what he is being asked if those words came out of his yapper? I think TT lies so much he doesn't know which lie to tell to cover the next, I think he is extremely dishonest and looked like an utter moron in regards to the questions the reporters asked him about what came out of his own piehole.

Or it is a polite way to say Favre misquoted him.

Haha, I don't buy it. Reason I don't buy it is because at the beginning of his press conference in his opening statement when he brought up that "Brett said we should wait it out a couple days" his body language said "Liar, Liar pants on fire" as he looked 1.) Nervous 2.) He looked down twice as he said it (A huge telltale of a lie) and 3.) He ran his arm across his face. Being nervous I get, the arm and face is another sign of nervous. Looking down twice as he said it indicates "I am a liar and hiding the truth so I am looking down". Psych 101, couple that with the fact that he lied to Brett on 3 other occasions that we know of and I think it's getting fairly clear the guy has gotta go, he's ruined enough.

 

[sho nuff]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Exactly...just because they have faith in Rodgers...does not mean you give your division rival a piece to the puzzle that they appear to be missing....according to the Glazer article above (that is predictably being glazed over)...TT stated he would be fired if he just let him go...

Then he should be fired for not having the guts to do what is best for his team. A trade will take forever to work out and will distract the team as it is getting done. Just cut him.

Why do you think its in the best interest of the franchise to trade him to Minny or release him?He has explained why that is not in the best interest of the team and makes no business sense...it has been said over and over why that would be a bad idea...so why would you think it would be best for his team?

I don't think Ted Thompson is a very smart man. I know these guys try and act cagey with their canned responses but I noticed today:Reporter #1Did you say to Favre that if he reported you worried you'd get canned?Thompson "That is not the way I interpreted it"R #2 Yo listen up TT, Did you say that???????TT - "I am not going to get into the he said she said stuffR #3Dude, you're killing me, Did you say that, Did those words come out of your piehole?TT "I didn't interpret it that way"Is this a joke? How is he "interpreting" what he is being asked if those words came out of his yapper? I think TT lies so much he doesn't know which lie to tell to cover the next, I think he is extremely dishonest and looked like an utter moron in regards to the questions the reporters asked him about what came out of his own piehole.

I cannot disagree more...I think he comes off as not wanting to try and bash Favre or publicly discuss things he and Favre may have said. He keeps things very close to the vest...as well he should and will not just appease some fans who think he should just tell all.

 

[T Man]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Exactly...just because they have faith in Rodgers...does not mean you give your division rival a piece to the puzzle that they appear to be missing....according to the Glazer article above (that is predictably being glazed over)...TT stated he would be fired if he just let him go...

Then he should be fired for not having the guts to do what is best for his team. A trade will take forever to work out and will distract the team as it is getting done. Just cut him.

This is simply unrealistic. Brett Favre may not be in the Pack's plans, but if he is valuable to other teams, it would be a disservice to the Packers to simply cut him. It makes no economic sense. But, let's assume that the Pack want to give Favre his wish becasue of the years of quality service. He could simply ask to be cut with the understanding that he will not go to an NFC North team. But Favre wants it both ways. He said he wanted to be released with "no strings attached". So essentually he wants to go to another contender in the same division for FREE.

In any business, that is a sure fire way for a manager to get fired.

 

[gruecd]

Why do you think its in the best interest of the franchise to trade him to Minny or release him?

He has explained why that is not in the best interest of the team and makes no business sense...it has been said over and over why that would be a bad idea...so why would you think it would be best for his team?

Really, what other options do they have? We've established that Brett essentially has veto power over any trade, so they can't trade him someplace that he doesn't want to do. He could report to camp, but everyone knows (OK, assumes) that he'd outplay Rodgers, and Ted wants no part of the media circus that would obviously ensue. I guess they could bring him to camp and release him just before the start of the season, but that would be a PR nightmare, and I doubt Goodell (or the player's union, for that matter) would let it happen, since they've already gone on record as saying that they're won't be an open competition.IMO, the team's best bet right now is to simply release the guy and move on, like the team said it's committed to doing.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Then why tell him that he'll be a backup to Rodgers, and then ask him to stay away from camp? I'm trying to find some justification for what Ted Thompson is doing and I can't find any. You tell the guy he'll be the backup (which is crazy for a guy with Favre's credentials and starting streak), then you tell him to stay away from camp, then you won't cut him or trade him (minus a ridiculous incentive, like if Favre starts every game the draft pick is a 2nd or 1st or something? Come on). What is Thompson doing?

I don't understand your question. If you assume that TT and McCarthy believe that Rodgers has earned the starting job (which I believe is their position), then of course they'd tell Favre that that's the case and that he's the backup. I don't see a mystery there. What I was addressing with my previous post that you were responding to was the challenge to the Packers to simply release Favre if he was going to be the backup. I don't see why that should necessarily happen if Favre is (as I believe he clearly is) still a good enough QB to improve a good NFC North team like the Vikings at a critical weak spot for them. Why should the Packers just accept that?

We're always told that these sorts of maneuverings are just business, and yet the arguments for the release of Favre all seem to gravitate back to moralistic themes - "you owe it to him after all he's given the franchise", etc., etc., etc. Favre has had no problems being selfish about his interests the last several offseasons, so I don't see what's so unfair about the team getting selfish about its interests with respect to Favre's status.

You make good points, but I think it would be just as good for your team and your QB's confidence to wash their hands of Favre (for now, not forever) and just release him. So what if he joins the Vikings? Aren't you confident enough that you can beat them anyway? Plus taking the higher road while Favre goes to play for your biggest rival just makes your organization look a lot better by comparison. I think my problem is that Thompson's statements (We've moved on, Aaron's our QB, we don't want a media circus) do not match his actions, all because he isn't confident his team can beat the Vikings if Favre is the QB. The business decision is to move on.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Exactly...just because they have faith in Rodgers...does not mean you give your division rival a piece to the puzzle that they appear to be missing....according to the Glazer article above (that is predictably being glazed over)...TT stated he would be fired if he just let him go...

Then he should be fired for not having the guts to do what is best for his team. A trade will take forever to work out and will distract the team as it is getting done. Just cut him.

What? This response makes no sense.

How so?

 

[T Bell]

Why do you think its in the best interest of the franchise to trade him to Minny or release him?

He has explained why that is not in the best interest of the team and makes no business sense...it has been said over and over why that would be a bad idea...so why would you think it would be best for his team?

Really, what other options do they have? We've established that Brett essentially has veto power over any trade, so they can't trade him someplace that he doesn't want to do. He could report to camp, but everyone knows (OK, assumes) that he'd outplay Rodgers, and Ted wants no part of the media circus that would obviously ensue. I guess they could bring him to camp and release him just before the start of the season, but that would be a PR nightmare, and I doubt Goodell (or the player's union, for that matter) would let it happen, since they've already gone on record as saying that they're won't be an open competition.IMO, the team's best bet right now is to simply release the guy and move on, like the team said it's committed to doing.

Can you unpack this? How on earth could Goodell or the union dictate whether there'd be an open competition between Favre and Rodgers if the Packers were willing to simply stash Favre on their roster this year?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Again, if you're so sure of Rodgers, then cut Favre.

Why does one make the other true? In other words, why if the Packers believe that Rodgers is the best starter for them in 2008, must they also act like Favre would not be an improvement over Tarvaris Jackson for a good division rival whose only weak spot is QB? This sounds like a stupid argument to me. I don't see why the Packers should be expected to allow a player whose rights they still have to simply go to a division rival that could desperately use the upgrade that Favre would provide at QB. Can someone explain that to me?

Exactly...just because they have faith in Rodgers...does not mean you give your division rival a piece to the puzzle that they appear to be missing....according to the Glazer article above (that is predictably being glazed over)...TT stated he would be fired if he just let him go...

Then he should be fired for not having the guts to do what is best for his team. A trade will take forever to work out and will distract the team as it is getting done. Just cut him.

Why do you think its in the best interest of the franchise to trade him to Minny or release him?He has explained why that is not in the best interest of the team and makes no business sense...it has been said over and over why that would be a bad idea...so why would you think it would be best for his team?

Because the other option is the media circus that is currently occurring and I think that is worse for his team than Brett playing for Minn. I guess I'm just not convinced that Brett playing for Minnesota is as scary as the Packers fans apparently do.

 

[Dodge]

Packers don't need to do anything. It's rediculous to think they will just cut him, and they shouldn't. Green Bay OWNS his rights. They don't want him going to a divisional rival so they will attempt to trade him.

The only stickler is if Brett wants to play and he isn't traded, what can you do? PUP him until week 6 and then release him? I think salary implications come in to play here, though GBay has 30+mil of cap room right?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

A good article by Jay Glazer

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8387530?MSNHPHMA

Trying to make sense of the Favre fiasco

By Jay Glazer

Jay Glazer is a Senior NFL Writer for FOXSports.com on MSN and also appears every week on FOX NFL Sunday as the network's NFL Insider.

Updated: July 28, 2008, 12:37 PM EST

Titletown is starting to look awful lot like Tinseltown.

The fine folks in Hollywood who make millions writing dirty plots and creating cunning villains could be proud of the muck the Brett Favre soap opera has raked up. The only thing missing from this divorce are a few slimy lawyers.

As the annual Glaze Across America training camp tour-slash-debacle shifts into high gear, one thing is clear — there is no escaping the Favre Files.

From the Bears to Rams to Chiefs to my damn cell phone, it's Favre 24/7. I'm trying to cover the other 31 teams as well as the Packers, but with each sitdown with a player, every beer with a coach, conversation after conversation, the question I've now grown to dread usually takes all of one second to be launched ... "OK, what's really going on with the Favre thing?"

So, we're going to try to weed through the murky waters of two sides, the truths, the lies and everything in between.

I do not believe there is any right answer here and when the smoke clears, I believe there will be no winner. The Packers, Favre, tradition, legacy — all thrown under the bus. Admittedly, I am a huge Favre fan. When he throws TD passes like the one he launched against Denver to start overtime last year, it produces chuckles, the same type of laughs that you can't help when Devin Hester returns yet another punt or Tiger Woods drops another 50-footer.

However, legend or no legend, if in any other business an employee, even the top sales manager of all time, calls his boss a liar three times on national television, and then reveals conversations with his boss that were believed to be private and then threatens his bosses ... seriously, how many of those folks would still be employed? How many players in this league would come through unscathed, especially in the wallet?

Now imagine if Mr. Johnny Cool Salesman, it turns out, took such a path for the sole purpose of bolting to a rival company, what does his boss do at this point?

Favre is clearly trying to gain his release, an option the Packers, sources have told FOXSports.com, told Brett as late as two days ago absolutely will NOT happen. In fact, those same sources say that GM Ted Thompson never told Favre he'd get fired for letting him back in the building. Instead, he joked that even the people who don't want Brett back would want him fired if he released the famed gunslinger.

But how in the world does one of the most beloved sports figures of all time, a man who epitomized toughness and grit turn so soap opera-ish so fast? His PR tactics have gained him little if any sympathy, even from his peers. In my travels through camp so far, not one coach I've talked to agrees with his stance and the players have been split 50 percent somewhat sadly against Favre, 25 percent adamantly for Favre and 25 percent absolutely blasting him for the PR route he's taken.

"I don't care, it's Brett Favre, give him his helmet back," said one Bears player over beers the other night. "I don't care what happened or how it's gotten here, it's freakin' Brett Favre!"

"Don't let him back in the building," said a Rams veteran after practice on Sunday. "He's made it all about Brett. I'd be pissed if I was in that locker room and he's made it all about him all this time. Man, I'd want to move on. Enough already, it's been about is he coming back or not for damn near four years. I'd be sick of it."

Then there's the case of their own locker room. Packers players told FOXSports.com that head coach Mike McCarthy was very moved in his speech to the team Sunday afternoon, emphatically praising them for the way his players have handled the most difficult of situations.

Favre is welcome back into the locker room by the front office and coaches, albeit not as the starter. However, if he thought he'd walk in and the locker room would run to his defense, it may not be as clear cut as he'd like to believe.

Remember, 21 of the players in that locker room have never met Favre. Their only experience has been with young Aaron Rodgers and this storm of controversy. Additionally, because of the youth of the team, there's a high percentage of second- and third-year players.

Didn't Favre say just two short weeks ago that he probably wasn't going to force the Packers' hand and show up for fear of something just like this? Didn't he say he didn't want to be a distraction ... but now he wants to be?

The Bucs and Jets are still alive in trade talks, although how strong depends upon the hour you check. Both teams have asked for and received permission to speak with Favre. Favre has not talked to the Jets at this point, although his agent has. The Bucs, oddly, have yet to act and have even publicly denied asking for permission.

The trade is not for a first-round pick, as had been reported, nor for a first-round pick plus other compensation, as is now the latest word on the rumor mill. The Packers, several sources have told FOXSports.com, have based their compensation upon an escalating scale that could go as high as a first-rounder based upon certain performance benchmarks Favre would have to hit.

However, negotiations on the compensation is far from firm as the parties involved are still in serious talks regarding what it would take to make this move. The Packers do not have a firm asking price, as they are trying to trade their formerly beloved player.

So where do we go from here so the rest of us can happily get back to our NFL training camp tours and actually acknowledge that there are 31 other teams in this league? Is Brett Favre great for this league? No doubt, especially when he played like he did last year. The Favre who threw pick after pick in the two previous years? Not so much.

But maybe we all didn't have to come down this road in the first place. In talking with some Chiefs vets last night, they didn't understand why he never came out with, "Look, I made a mistake. I know I've flip-flopped on the organization a lot and for that I truly am sorry. I love this game and I truly realize how much I miss it. I know I've put the organization and especially Aaron in a tough spot and again, I apologize. I made the decision to retire but that itch has returned. What do I need to do to prove I'm fully committed and how can I help the Packers and Aaron?" Would it have worked? Who knows, but it sure would have been better than blasting his boss as a liar and putting the fans he says he loves in a must-choose position.

The fans of Green Bay are like family to the team. But they've been brought into the center of a divorce, being pushed to choose between mom and dad. It's simply not fair.

If Brett truly wants to play football, has that itch, then he should push for a trade to the two teams that have shown interest. Based on my conversations with personnel men and coaches throughout the league, the Packers have called every team in the league aside from those within their own division and those who already have a star QB (Patriots, Colts, etc.). They are working it.

Or, better yet, he can always stay home, quietly apologize for this PR disaster and, should something happen to Aaron Rodgers, gallop in on his white horse and save the day!

We don't like to see our sports stars struggle in their twilight, don't like to hear chants for their hook or boos surrounding their latter-years performances. But we love when they defy the odds and create magic when time tells them they shouldn't.

Only Favre can end this now.

Not shocking the vocal bashers have pretty much ignored this.

Not shocking the Favre bashers have pretty much ignored the Wojo article either, huh?

 

[T Bell]

Packers don't need to do anything. It's rediculous to think they will just cut him, and they shouldn't. Green Bay OWNS his rights. They don't want him going to a divisional rival so they will attempt to trade him.The only stickler is if Brett wants to play and he isn't traded, what can you do? PUP him until week 6 and then release him? I think salary implications come in to play here, though GBay has 30+mil of cap room right?

From what I gather, the salary cap is not an issue. Now, whether the Packers want to pay him $12M this year may be its own issue, but as far as the cap goes it's irrelevant.The game of chicken consists of Favre threatening to report and bringing the distracting media circus with him to the team, versus the team simply refusing to release him and allow him to go to the Vikings. It's unclear to me how much each party is willing to give to move off of these positions, and I also have no way to judge Favre's tolerance for sitting on the bench as a backup or the team's tolerance for the media distraction.