What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Farve to Report this Weekend (1 Viewer)

Just Win Baby said:
malaka said:
Phurfur said:
gruecd said:
monessen said:
Would love to hear Thompson's version of the Favre's contention.
Me, too, but if Favre's version is true, then it's total B.S. the way the Packers are handling this. It's like they're afraid of him coming into camp and winning the job fair and square. :cry:
Come on people, Favre has not applied for reinstatement yet! He couldn't report if he wanted to. When is someone going to say "Until you apply for reinstatement we don't want to hear from you".
Favre has already been in contact with Goodell, it only takes a fax to get reinstated, doubt if that would take more then a couple minutes. Why would Favre file for reinstatement and then not report to camp, even if TT ask him not to, GB then would ever right to start fining him daily for not showing. TT ask for a few more days and Favre is doing it. Why not wait till the day you report or the day a trade if it happens, to apply for reinstatement.
:cry: All the posts bashing Favre for not seeking reinstatement officially are willfully ignoring the obvious in order to continue to bash Favre.
Not at all.If Favre so wanted to play...he would have done it right away...forced GB's hand right off the bat.

Instead, he too is chosing to continue to play these games through the media (just as the Packers have done as well).

 
ConstruxBoy said:
You know, you may be on to something there. I think Favre is mostly the one to blame for this, but TT screwed up as well. Yet there are Packer fans here who think TT did nothing wrong at all. The only way it makes sense is if they are either dumb, or they want to make it easier to move on without cheering for #4. Hmmm.....
Anyone who thinks TT did nothing wrong are in a bit of denial.He has not handled it perfectly for sure and this game in the media was foolish...as was denying Favre a chance to even come in and compete for the job.
 
ScottyFargo said:
KingAlfred said:
sho nuff said:
KingAlfred said:
I was on TT's side initially, but I am beginning to have my doubts now. Thought he lost somehigh moral ground when he said that 'he could come back as a backup...'. I know he immediately recanted but those words seem to have been spoken from an emotional position, rather than a logical one. Then there was the tampering charges against vikes in which an anonymous( read TT) source released that story to the media....which I do not think Goodell liked very much. There there was the phone thing....Just seems the longer it goes on....the worse it gets for TT....you hate to do something in a panic mode...but I think he should do something rather quickly.
He recanted because he never said "he could come back as a backup"...at least he was never actually quoted as saying so. If he was...someone please post a quote from Thompson saying that before this weekend?Of course there was tampering charges given there was contact that Favre admits.TT would know that Favre has no GB cell phone...so why would he leak that knowing it would come back to bite him in the butt?
Well..we are arguing over wordsmithing...rather than the intended meaning of the words. A quote from TT..."We've communicated that to Brett, that we have since moved forward," Thompson said. "At the same time, we've never said that there couldn't be some role that he might play here. But I would understand his point that he would want to play."When asked whether that role might be as a backup or coach, Thompson said: "Not a coach."And we all know that TT/MM have said that they have moved on and that Aaron Rodgers was starter. If A. Rodgers is starter, what does that make other QB's on the roster ?
Excellant point, but I have a feeling it will be lost on people who pretend that they were simply telling people that they were discussing rumors instead of trying to deflect the discussion from reality.
Yawn...more BS from Scotty. Like I said...McCarthy and TT have surely played the games in the media...but people kept claiming they had said Favre could only be a backup...and I have offered the challenge numerous times...and not one single quote from Thompson has been produced...just more semantics and people reading into things.He used the quotes from the articles that Thompson came out the next day and said it was not accurate to say that they said Favre would be the backup.
 
Just Win Baby said:
malaka said:
Phurfur said:
gruecd said:
monessen said:
Would love to hear Thompson's version of the Favre's contention.
Me, too, but if Favre's version is true, then it's total B.S. the way the Packers are handling this. It's like they're afraid of him coming into camp and winning the job fair and square. :lmao:
Come on people, Favre has not applied for reinstatement yet! He couldn't report if he wanted to. When is someone going to say "Until you apply for reinstatement we don't want to hear from you".
Favre has already been in contact with Goodell, it only takes a fax to get reinstated, doubt if that would take more then a couple minutes. Why would Favre file for reinstatement and then not report to camp, even if TT ask him not to, GB then would ever right to start fining him daily for not showing. TT ask for a few more days and Favre is doing it. Why not wait till the day you report or the day a trade if it happens, to apply for reinstatement.
:lmao: All the posts bashing Favre for not seeking reinstatement officially are willfully ignoring the obvious in order to continue to bash Favre.
Not at all.If Favre so wanted to play...he would have done it right away...forced GB's hand right off the bat.

Instead, he too is chosing to continue to play these games through the media (just as the Packers have done as well).
Sorry, but you are wrong. He didn't need to officially send the papers until he was ready to report, either when camp started or at some point later. Sending the papers sooner would have limited his options and subjected him to fines. It turns out he was ready to send it in and report on time, but Thompson asked him not to do that.Favre has done plenty throughout this saga that deserves criticism, but not sending in the reinstatement request sooner is not one of them. People focusing on that are just wrong, and many of them are continuing to harp on it just to pile on.

 
ScottyFargo said:
KingAlfred said:
sho nuff said:
KingAlfred said:
I was on TT's side initially, but I am beginning to have my doubts now. Thought he lost somehigh moral ground when he said that 'he could come back as a backup...'. I know he immediately recanted but those words seem to have been spoken from an emotional position, rather than a logical one. Then there was the tampering charges against vikes in which an anonymous( read TT) source released that story to the media....which I do not think Goodell liked very much. There there was the phone thing....Just seems the longer it goes on....the worse it gets for TT....you hate to do something in a panic mode...but I think he should do something rather quickly.
He recanted because he never said "he could come back as a backup"...at least he was never actually quoted as saying so. If he was...someone please post a quote from Thompson saying that before this weekend?Of course there was tampering charges given there was contact that Favre admits.TT would know that Favre has no GB cell phone...so why would he leak that knowing it would come back to bite him in the butt?
Well..we are arguing over wordsmithing...rather than the intended meaning of the words. A quote from TT..."We've communicated that to Brett, that we have since moved forward," Thompson said. "At the same time, we've never said that there couldn't be some role that he might play here. But I would understand his point that he would want to play."When asked whether that role might be as a backup or coach, Thompson said: "Not a coach."And we all know that TT/MM have said that they have moved on and that Aaron Rodgers was starter. If A. Rodgers is starter, what does that make other QB's on the roster ?
Excellant point, but I have a feeling it will be lost on people who pretend that they were simply telling people that they were discussing rumors instead of trying to deflect the discussion from reality.
Yawn...more BS from Scotty. Like I said...McCarthy and TT have surely played the games in the media...but people kept claiming they had said Favre could only be a backup...and I have offered the challenge numerous times...and not one single quote from Thompson has been produced...just more semantics and people reading into things.He used the quotes from the articles that Thompson came out the next day and said it was not accurate to say that they said Favre would be the backup.
Well, you need to get over it because they are saying it now.
 
Just Win Baby said:
malaka said:
Phurfur said:
gruecd said:
monessen said:
Would love to hear Thompson's version of the Favre's contention.
Me, too, but if Favre's version is true, then it's total B.S. the way the Packers are handling this. It's like they're afraid of him coming into camp and winning the job fair and square. :lmao:
Come on people, Favre has not applied for reinstatement yet! He couldn't report if he wanted to. When is someone going to say "Until you apply for reinstatement we don't want to hear from you".
Favre has already been in contact with Goodell, it only takes a fax to get reinstated, doubt if that would take more then a couple minutes. Why would Favre file for reinstatement and then not report to camp, even if TT ask him not to, GB then would ever right to start fining him daily for not showing. TT ask for a few more days and Favre is doing it. Why not wait till the day you report or the day a trade if it happens, to apply for reinstatement.
:lmao: All the posts bashing Favre for not seeking reinstatement officially are willfully ignoring the obvious in order to continue to bash Favre.
Not at all.If Favre so wanted to play...he would have done it right away...forced GB's hand right off the bat.

Instead, he too is chosing to continue to play these games through the media (just as the Packers have done as well).
Sorry, but you are wrong. He didn't need to officially send the papers until he was ready to report, either when camp started or at some point later. Sending the papers sooner would have limited his options and subjected him to fines. It turns out he was ready to send it in and report on time, but Thompson asked him not to do that.Favre has done plenty throughout this saga that deserves criticism, but not sending in the reinstatement request sooner is not one of them. People focusing on that are just wrong, and many of them are continuing to harp on it just to pile on.
Sure...he does not need to sign them til he is ready to report...but if he really wanted in...and to put pressure on GB...why not do it when he first decided to come back? Why keep playing the media games and not just show up?Like I said...he is choosing to do just as the Packers keep choosing to play games in the media.

I think people have focused on it for a few reasons...one, he has waffled so many times now would it surprise anyone if he never sends them in and never shows up?

It would also give GB a little more leverage in a trade if teams knew he was already reinstated and committed a bit more than he has shown thus far.

 
Just Win Baby said:
malaka said:
Phurfur said:
gruecd said:
monessen said:
Would love to hear Thompson's version of the Favre's contention.
Me, too, but if Favre's version is true, then it's total B.S. the way the Packers are handling this. It's like they're afraid of him coming into camp and winning the job fair and square. :lmao:
Come on people, Favre has not applied for reinstatement yet! He couldn't report if he wanted to. When is someone going to say "Until you apply for reinstatement we don't want to hear from you".
Favre has already been in contact with Goodell, it only takes a fax to get reinstated, doubt if that would take more then a couple minutes. Why would Favre file for reinstatement and then not report to camp, even if TT ask him not to, GB then would ever right to start fining him daily for not showing. TT ask for a few more days and Favre is doing it. Why not wait till the day you report or the day a trade if it happens, to apply for reinstatement.
:unsure: All the posts bashing Favre for not seeking reinstatement officially are willfully ignoring the obvious in order to continue to bash Favre.
Not at all.If Favre so wanted to play...he would have done it right away...forced GB's hand right off the bat.

Instead, he too is chosing to continue to play these games through the media (just as the Packers have done as well).
Sorry, but you are wrong. He didn't need to officially send the papers until he was ready to report, either when camp started or at some point later. Sending the papers sooner would have limited his options and subjected him to fines. It turns out he was ready to send it in and report on time, but Thompson asked him not to do that.Favre has done plenty throughout this saga that deserves criticism, but not sending in the reinstatement request sooner is not one of them. People focusing on that are just wrong, and many of them are continuing to harp on it just to pile on.
Sure...he does not need to sign them til he is ready to report...but if he really wanted in...and to put pressure on GB...why not do it when he first decided to come back? Why keep playing the media games and not just show up?Like I said...he is choosing to do just as the Packers keep choosing to play games in the media.

I think people have focused on it for a few reasons...one, he has waffled so many times now would it surprise anyone if he never sends them in and never shows up?

It would also give GB a little more leverage in a trade if teams knew he was already reinstated and committed a bit more than he has shown thus far.
Favre placed so much pressure on the Packers front office that they begged him not to come in to camp. He didn't have to put in the paperwork, anymore than he had to file the paperwork to retire in the first place. This might sound familiar to you: it's all a formality because talking about it has had the desired effect anyway.
Well, you need to get over it because they are saying it now.
That is the best you can come up with? Stating something I have already said they have done?You are slipping...I expected you to try and keep spinning that for a few days.
You said it? All I keep reading is about how Green Bay waffled on whether or not they'd officially bring him back as a backup. That has been such a strong sticking point for you. They neither confirmed nor denied where Favre'd be on the roster when he came back...until recently, where they confirmed it's the backup for Favre. I guess I just don't understand why you keep referencing that since it's moot now.
 
Eric Stratton said:
ConstruxBoy said:
Eric Stratton said:
All of this could have been avoided if Favre would have not changed his mind again at the end of March when the Packers were ready to have him back. This is not the Packers fault.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it's Favre's fault. I think the argument is whether TT has misplaced this thing badly, which is my opinion. Put on the fake smile, welcome him back, tell Aaron you're working on something and work behind the scenes to trade him for high value. Don't tell him it's Aaron's team now. That was just stupid.
I think the whole thing has been handled poorly by EVERYONE. However, Favre got the ball rolling and the Packers had enough of his waffling.
So cut him. I mean what are you saying about your team that if you cut a guy who is a pain in the ###, you're scared ####less that he'll end up on a rival and beat your team in the playoffs?
 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."

 
Monday, July 28

approx 10:45am Head Coach Mike McCarthy Press Conference (Tune In Live*)

approx 1:00pm GM Ted Thompson Press Conference (Tune In Live*)

Found this on the Packers site, for all I know this was a pre-scheduled deal.

Edited to add Link

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Monday, July 28

approx 10:45am Head Coach Mike McCarthy Press Conference (Tune In Live*)

approx 1:00pm GM Ted Thompson Press Conference (Tune In Live*)

Found this on the Packers site, for all I know this was a pre-scheduled deal.

Edited to add Link
It is, but it will still be interesting, esp Thompson's...
 
Just Win Baby said:
malaka said:
Phurfur said:
gruecd said:
monessen said:
Would love to hear Thompson's version of the Favre's contention.
Me, too, but if Favre's version is true, then it's total B.S. the way the Packers are handling this. It's like they're afraid of him coming into camp and winning the job fair and square. :football:
Come on people, Favre has not applied for reinstatement yet! He couldn't report if he wanted to. When is someone going to say "Until you apply for reinstatement we don't want to hear from you".
Favre has already been in contact with Goodell, it only takes a fax to get reinstated, doubt if that would take more then a couple minutes. Why would Favre file for reinstatement and then not report to camp, even if TT ask him not to, GB then would ever right to start fining him daily for not showing. TT ask for a few more days and Favre is doing it. Why not wait till the day you report or the day a trade if it happens, to apply for reinstatement.
:goodposting: All the posts bashing Favre for not seeking reinstatement officially are willfully ignoring the obvious in order to continue to bash Favre.
Not at all.If Favre so wanted to play...he would have done it right away...forced GB's hand right off the bat.

Instead, he too is chosing to continue to play these games through the media (just as the Packers have done as well).
People have taken every opportunity to rip on Favre since all of this started. One thing that people have said is that Favre is selfish and not a team guy...so now he does something that seems like what is best for the team by respecting TT request that he not report to avoid the media circus and people are still shredding him. :football:
 
People have taken every opportunity to rip on Favre since all of this started. One thing that people have said is that Favre is selfish and not a team guy...so now he does something that seems like what is best for the team by respecting TT request that he not report to avoid the media circus and people are still shredding him.
Depends on your read of his motivation. He can't go to camp without sending in the papers. If he does that without knowing how the Packers plan to resolve this thing, he puts himself in a really bad spot. I think that is his motivation -- not doing the right thing. However, If I were in his position, I'd do the same to protect myself. As others said, it doesn't take long to send in a fax.
 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
:tinfoilhat: That was my point when I originally posted the article, but most people ran with the other stuff...shocker huh?
 
Not sure how filing papers would have put him in a bad spot. Yeah, they could fine him BUT he would be getting paid again at 12 million rate. I think it shows he is a team guy and the last folks he wants to hurt are his (former?) teammates.

Also, Favre again has been told he could not compete for starting QB by TT (according to Favre). This is the same thing as being told he would be a back-up. Unless you think he has lied repeatedly. Moreover, the Packers would just cut him late August anyway.

 
Not sure how filing papers would have put him in a bad spot. Yeah, they could fine him BUT he would be getting paid again at 12 million rate. I think it shows he is a team guy and the last folks he wants to hurt are his (former?) teammates.Also, Favre again has been told he could not compete for starting QB by TT (according to Favre). This is the same thing as being told he would be a back-up. Unless you think he has lied repeatedly. Moreover, the Packers would just cut him late August anyway.
I think if the Packers brought him in and cut him at the end of preseason, they would face a major backlash that would be worse than the one Favre has felt so far.
 
Not sure how filing papers would have put him in a bad spot. Yeah, they could fine him BUT he would be getting paid again at 12 million rate. I think it shows he is a team guy and the last folks he wants to hurt are his (former?) teammates.Also, Favre again has been told he could not compete for starting QB by TT (according to Favre). This is the same thing as being told he would be a back-up. Unless you think he has lied repeatedly. Moreover, the Packers would just cut him late August anyway.
In addition to the fines, they could trade him somewhere he doesn't want to go. He could refuse, but that would be messier than just staying retired. And, regarding doing the right thing, I don't think he needed Thomspson to tell him it would be disruptive and a media circus if he showed up. So, it doesn't hold water for me that he changed his mind to not hurt anyone. In fact, it is likely he informed them he'd show up in order to force a resolution. Which is not a bad tactic from his angle.
 
Monday, July 28

approx 10:45am Head Coach Mike McCarthy Press Conference (Tune In Live*)

approx 1:00pm GM Ted Thompson Press Conference (Tune In Live*)

Found this on the Packers site, for all I know this was a pre-scheduled deal.

Edited to add Link
Is that window popping up for anyone? I'm trying to watch this.
 
Not sure how filing papers would have put him in a bad spot. Yeah, they could fine him BUT he would be getting paid again at 12 million rate. I think it shows he is a team guy and the last folks he wants to hurt are his (former?) teammates.Also, Favre again has been told he could not compete for starting QB by TT (according to Favre). This is the same thing as being told he would be a back-up. Unless you think he has lied repeatedly. Moreover, the Packers would just cut him late August anyway.
I think if the Packers brought him in and cut him at the end of preseason, they would face a major backlash that would be worse than the one Favre has felt so far.
True. That is why I think it has not been to Favre's benefit to withhold papers and reporting, it was an act of compromise with the Packer's FO.
 
Not sure how filing papers would have put him in a bad spot. Yeah, they could fine him BUT he would be getting paid again at 12 million rate. I think it shows he is a team guy and the last folks he wants to hurt are his (former?) teammates.Also, Favre again has been told he could not compete for starting QB by TT (according to Favre). This is the same thing as being told he would be a back-up. Unless you think he has lied repeatedly. Moreover, the Packers would just cut him late August anyway.
People have no problem believing the worst, even with unsubstantiated rumors. But when the guy actually tells us what is going on...he must be lying. :angry:
 
Not sure how filing papers would have put him in a bad spot. Yeah, they could fine him BUT he would be getting paid again at 12 million rate. I think it shows he is a team guy and the last folks he wants to hurt are his (former?) teammates.

Also, Favre again has been told he could not compete for starting QB by TT (according to Favre). This is the same thing as being told he would be a back-up. Unless you think he has lied repeatedly. Moreover, the Packers would just cut him late August anyway.
I think he doesn't exactly want to go to Packer camp as he knows that if he plays this year, it's not going to be for the Packers, so why create even more trouble for the Packers when letting them know his intentions has gotten them to work harder at finding a resolution anyway?
 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
Man you REALLY need to just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.Reggie White was retired for one year, out of football for a year, get it? Do you comprehend the words that are being typed here??? TOTALLY different situation.

Lombardi retired from coaching and was the GM for a year before wanting to coach again. Again, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE TYPED OUT HERE?????

Apples and Oranges........ Your Packer hatred is making you look like a complete fool here.

 
Just Win Baby said:
malaka said:
Phurfur said:
gruecd said:
monessen said:
Would love to hear Thompson's version of the Favre's contention.
Me, too, but if Favre's version is true, then it's total B.S. the way the Packers are handling this. It's like they're afraid of him coming into camp and winning the job fair and square. :thumbdown:
Come on people, Favre has not applied for reinstatement yet! He couldn't report if he wanted to. When is someone going to say "Until you apply for reinstatement we don't want to hear from you".
Favre has already been in contact with Goodell, it only takes a fax to get reinstated, doubt if that would take more then a couple minutes. Why would Favre file for reinstatement and then not report to camp, even if TT ask him not to, GB then would ever right to start fining him daily for not showing. TT ask for a few more days and Favre is doing it. Why not wait till the day you report or the day a trade if it happens, to apply for reinstatement.
:shock: All the posts bashing Favre for not seeking reinstatement officially are willfully ignoring the obvious in order to continue to bash Favre.
Not at all.If Favre so wanted to play...he would have done it right away...forced GB's hand right off the bat.

Instead, he too is chosing to continue to play these games through the media (just as the Packers have done as well).
People have taken every opportunity to rip on Favre since all of this started. One thing that people have said is that Favre is selfish and not a team guy...so now he does something that seems like what is best for the team by respecting TT request that he not report to avoid the media circus and people are still shredding him. :no:
I don't think people are bashing him just because of the papers...but those who were...were doing so long before the most recent part about him not doing it at the request of Thompson.
 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
I have mentioned White...he left the NFL for a whole year before coming back.And comparing Favre to anything in the 60s is quite foolish too...as if anything is the same as it was in that era.

And Lombardi coached for what...one year before basically dying.

Nice comparisons. :shock:

 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
I have mentioned White...he left the NFL for a whole year before coming back.And comparing Favre to anything in the 60s is quite foolish too...as if anything is the same as it was in that era.

And Lombardi coached for what...one year before basically dying.

Nice comparisons. :rolleyes:
it's not worth it dude. he has the IQ of a small forest creature.
 
Can someone exaplin this to me...I didn't get it and I didn't want to start a new thread over 1 question.

“I asked Ted (on Saturday), ‘Am I welcome in the building if I report?’ and Ted was just about shattered,” Favre told ESPN.com in a phone 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.”

What meaneth this?

 
Can someone exaplin this to me...I didn't get it and I didn't want to start a new thread over 1 question.

“I asked Ted (on Saturday), ‘Am I welcome in the building if I report?’ and Ted was just about shattered,” Favre told ESPN.com in a phone 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.”

What meaneth this?
This is where Im not sure if TT would really say this...given the reception from the stockholders he has...or he has been directed by the executive committee to simply do whatever it takes to keep Brett away until it is sorted out.
 
With that said, it was just hyperbole. TT's job is secure, although many fans many never forgive him.

I must say that between this and Ryan Grant contract negotiations, the Packers are getting a bunch of bad press. Then when they go 3-4 in the first 7 games before the bye it is going to really blow chunks, huh?

This story is not going to die unless they can win a whole lotta games. And I for one think that much of the offensive success was owed to the arm of someone who will not be on the team this year.

 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
Man you REALLY need to just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.Reggie White was retired for one year, out of football for a year, get it? Do you comprehend the words that are being typed here??? TOTALLY different situation.

Lombardi retired from coaching and was the GM for a year before wanting to coach again. Again, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE TYPED OUT HERE?????

Apples and Oranges........ Your Packer hatred is making you look like a complete fool here.
Lombardi retired from coaching, I am assuming the Packers moved on and got themselves a new Head Coach. Lombardi remained with the team, (not out of the NFL) and I can only assume that as G.M. he was integral to the team and new a lot of proprietary information about them. And still, with all that, and knowing what a great coach he was, (the type that gets a Superbowl Trophy named after him!) they released him. They didn't force him into retirement. They didn't make him stay on as assistant coach. They released him, instead of being afraid of what he could do coaching for another team and playing games in the media trying to make him look wishy washy for retiring and then unretiring.This doesn't sound similar to you, at all? I mean, we're not talking about a physically demanding job, where once you hit a certain age, you simply CAN'T compete with the younger guys. We're talking about coaching now. He could very well have been dangerous to play against for several seasons, not just one or two like we're talking about Favre. But he got his unconditional release.

But O.k. Even though I don't agree with you that the time off is the most important factor in the way those two situations played out, I will bite. What about Don Hutson? Forrest Gregg? Does the history not matter because it was before your time? Don Hutson is still argued about being one of the top WR's of all time. Looks to me like he was afforded a lot of leeway.

 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
I have mentioned White...he left the NFL for a whole year before coming back.And comparing Favre to anything in the 60s is quite foolish too...as if anything is the same as it was in that era.

And Lombardi coached for what...one year before basically dying.

Nice comparisons. :popcorn:
What does the length of time have to do with anything? In both situations the teams have moved on and had replacement players at the ready.And Lombardi apparently succeeded in taking the 'Skins to their first winning season in 14 years. Yeah, very insignificant. By the way, how many more years do you think Favre has left in him? Lombardi died of cancer, not of old age, so that is simply ridiculous. Are you assuming the Packers knew he had cancer and didn't care what he did in his "final" season of life? Wow.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Am not sure why Favre's version of the conversation with Thompson is accepted as gospel. Favre is a great quarterback with tremendous heart, but, to me, he has as much credibility in speaking to the media as Roger Clemens. That is not to say Thompson hasn't erred in this situation. But Brett has played reporters for chumps before. Am sure Chris Mortensen ran with it since it gave him an exclusive. Did Mortensen contact Thompson for corroboration on Favre's account of the dialogue? Probably not. It might have interfered with the idea of being the reporter to get the tale out there first.

By the way, on ESPN radio about a week or so ago, Ryan Grant was a guest and said that he, Ryan, wouldn't hold out and would report to camp on time.

Players use the media. The front offices use the media. Examine actions instead of words or intentions. No papers have been filed with the league for reinstatement, even though they've been "signed."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
Man you REALLY need to just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.Reggie White was retired for one year, out of football for a year, get it? Do you comprehend the words that are being typed here??? TOTALLY different situation.

Lombardi retired from coaching and was the GM for a year before wanting to coach again. Again, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE TYPED OUT HERE?????

Apples and Oranges........ Your Packer hatred is making you look like a complete fool here.
Lombardi retired from coaching, I am assuming the Packers moved on and got themselves a new Head Coach. Lombardi remained with the team, (not out of the NFL) and I can only assume that as G.M. he was integral to the team and new a lot of proprietary information about them. And still, with all that, and knowing what a great coach he was, (the type that gets a Superbowl Trophy named after him!) they released him. They didn't force him into retirement. They didn't make him stay on as assistant coach. They released him, instead of being afraid of what he could do coaching for another team and playing games in the media trying to make him look wishy washy for retiring and then unretiring.This doesn't sound similar to you, at all? I mean, we're not talking about a physically demanding job, where once you hit a certain age, you simply CAN'T compete with the younger guys. We're talking about coaching now. He could very well have been dangerous to play against for several seasons, not just one or two like we're talking about Favre. But he got his unconditional release.

But O.k. Even though I don't agree with you that the time off is the most important factor in the way those two situations played out, I will bite. What about Don Hutson? Forrest Gregg? Does the history not matter because it was before your time? Don Hutson is still argued about being one of the top WR's of all time. Looks to me like he was afforded a lot of leeway.
How can the history matter even in the slightest bit? You have a new President, a new GM a new HC, and that was over 40 years ago!. This is like saying back in the 80's, well the Packers are a better franchise than Minnesota because we won all those Super Bowls and the Vikings haven't won one yet. Dude, the history of the teams and the personnel mean nothing right now, nothing.

 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
I have mentioned White...he left the NFL for a whole year before coming back.And comparing Favre to anything in the 60s is quite foolish too...as if anything is the same as it was in that era.

And Lombardi coached for what...one year before basically dying.

Nice comparisons. :rolleyes:
What does the length of time have to do with anything? In both situations the teams have moved on and had replacement players at the ready.And Lombardi apparently succeeded in taking the 'Skins to their first winning season in 14 years. Yeah, very insignificant. By the way, how many more years do you think Favre has left in him? Lombardi died of cancer, not of old age, so that is simply ridiculous. Are you assuming the Packers knew he had cancer and didn't care what he did in his "final" season of life? Wow.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
I have mentioned White...he left the NFL for a whole year before coming back.And comparing Favre to anything in the 60s is quite foolish too...as if anything is the same as it was in that era.

And Lombardi coached for what...one year before basically dying.

Nice comparisons. :rolleyes:
What does the length of time have to do with anything? In both situations the teams have moved on and had replacement players at the ready.And Lombardi apparently succeeded in taking the 'Skins to their first winning season in 14 years. Yeah, very insignificant. By the way, how many more years do you think Favre has left in him? Lombardi died of cancer, not of old age, so that is simply ridiculous. Are you assuming the Packers knew he had cancer and didn't care what he did in his "final" season of life? Wow.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
I understand from the emoticons that you're frustrated...I don't see why because all I am doing is agreeing with an article that was written by somebody else. It wasn't my conclusion, I just agree with it. Unfortunately for you, there isn't much for you to actually back up your assertion that the situations are so different that it doesn't warrant discussion.
 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
I have mentioned White...he left the NFL for a whole year before coming back.And comparing Favre to anything in the 60s is quite foolish too...as if anything is the same as it was in that era.

And Lombardi coached for what...one year before basically dying.

Nice comparisons. :lmao:
What does the length of time have to do with anything? In both situations the teams have moved on and had replacement players at the ready.And Lombardi apparently succeeded in taking the 'Skins to their first winning season in 14 years. Yeah, very insignificant. By the way, how many more years do you think Favre has left in him? Lombardi died of cancer, not of old age, so that is simply ridiculous. Are you assuming the Packers knew he had cancer and didn't care what he did in his "final" season of life? Wow.

:lmao: :lmao: :wall: :wall: :wall:
I understand from the emoticons that you're frustrated...I don't see why because all I am doing is agreeing with an article that was written by somebody else. It wasn't my conclusion, I just agree with it. Unfortunately for you, there isn't much for you to actually back up your assertion that the situations are so different that it doesn't warrant discussion.
If the guy doesn't know the difference between a player and a coach GM he shouldn't be writing articles. No situation compares to Favre's because it is unique.
 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
I have mentioned White...he left the NFL for a whole year before coming back.And comparing Favre to anything in the 60s is quite foolish too...as if anything is the same as it was in that era.

And Lombardi coached for what...one year before basically dying.

Nice comparisons. :own3d:
What does the length of time have to do with anything? In both situations the teams have moved on and had replacement players at the ready.And Lombardi apparently succeeded in taking the 'Skins to their first winning season in 14 years. Yeah, very insignificant. By the way, how many more years do you think Favre has left in him? Lombardi died of cancer, not of old age, so that is simply ridiculous. Are you assuming the Packers knew he had cancer and didn't care what he did in his "final" season of life? Wow.

:lmao: :lmao: :wall: :wall: :wall:
I understand from the emoticons that you're frustrated...I don't see why because all I am doing is agreeing with an article that was written by somebody else. It wasn't my conclusion, I just agree with it. Unfortunately for you, there isn't much for you to actually back up your assertion that the situations are so different that it doesn't warrant discussion.
If the guy doesn't know the difference between a player and a coach GM he shouldn't be writing articles. No situation compares to Favre's because it is unique.
If you honestly feel that way, feel that Favre's retirement indecision is so much different than all the other Packer legends listed in the article, then you have missed the entire point of the article. It again seems to be willful ignorance.
 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
I have mentioned White...he left the NFL for a whole year before coming back.And comparing Favre to anything in the 60s is quite foolish too...as if anything is the same as it was in that era.

And Lombardi coached for what...one year before basically dying.

Nice comparisons. :goodposting:
What does the length of time have to do with anything? In both situations the teams have moved on and had replacement players at the ready.And Lombardi apparently succeeded in taking the 'Skins to their first winning season in 14 years. Yeah, very insignificant. By the way, how many more years do you think Favre has left in him? Lombardi died of cancer, not of old age, so that is simply ridiculous. Are you assuming the Packers knew he had cancer and didn't care what he did in his "final" season of life? Wow.
What does letting a guy go who was out of the league for a year have to do with anything?Yeah...thats the same as a guy not even missing an offseason really.

:mellow:

Cannot help you if you are too blinded by your purple bias and Packer obsession to see that.

Where did I claim it was because of old age? Oh wait...you are spinning that and making things up again.

The comparisons are weak to anyone who has a clue.

 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
I have mentioned White...he left the NFL for a whole year before coming back.And comparing Favre to anything in the 60s is quite foolish too...as if anything is the same as it was in that era.

And Lombardi coached for what...one year before basically dying.

Nice comparisons. :goodposting:
What does the length of time have to do with anything? In both situations the teams have moved on and had replacement players at the ready.And Lombardi apparently succeeded in taking the 'Skins to their first winning season in 14 years. Yeah, very insignificant. By the way, how many more years do you think Favre has left in him? Lombardi died of cancer, not of old age, so that is simply ridiculous. Are you assuming the Packers knew he had cancer and didn't care what he did in his "final" season of life? Wow.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
I understand from the emoticons that you're frustrated...I don't see why because all I am doing is agreeing with an article that was written by somebody else. It wasn't my conclusion, I just agree with it. Unfortunately for you, there isn't much for you to actually back up your assertion that the situations are so different that it doesn't warrant discussion.
If the guy doesn't know the difference between a player and a coach GM he shouldn't be writing articles. No situation compares to Favre's because it is unique.
If you honestly feel that way, feel that Favre's retirement indecision is so much different than all the other Packer legends listed in the article, then you have missed the entire point of the article. It again seems to be willful ignorance.
Wow....... No point in continuing this discussion with you. You are blinded by your Packer hate, and you just cannot discuss this intelligently.

Good day sir

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
I have mentioned White...he left the NFL for a whole year before coming back.And comparing Favre to anything in the 60s is quite foolish too...as if anything is the same as it was in that era.

And Lombardi coached for what...one year before basically dying.

Nice comparisons. :goodposting:
What does the length of time have to do with anything? In both situations the teams have moved on and had replacement players at the ready.And Lombardi apparently succeeded in taking the 'Skins to their first winning season in 14 years. Yeah, very insignificant. By the way, how many more years do you think Favre has left in him? Lombardi died of cancer, not of old age, so that is simply ridiculous. Are you assuming the Packers knew he had cancer and didn't care what he did in his "final" season of life? Wow.
What does letting a guy go who was out of the league for a year have to do with anything?Yeah...thats the same as a guy not even missing an offseason really.

:wall:

Cannot help you if you are too blinded by your purple bias and Packer obsession to see that.

Where did I claim it was because of old age? Oh wait...you are spinning that and making things up again.

The comparisons are weak to anyone who has a clue.
So...enlighten us or ad hominem label me a hater? You said Lombardi was practically dead when he was released. What was your point then?
Wow.......

No point in continuing this discussion with you. You are blinded by your Packer hate, and you just cannot discuss this intelligently.

Good day sir
O.k. more ad hominem "hater" instead of backing up your assertions. I've stated my opinion clearly and without malice.
 
KingPrawn said:
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.
 
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.
I agree with every word of that article.That said, I can understand what his thinking is from a business stand point. With all of Favres waffling, you have to draw a line, and not continue to be held hostage by one player. I get that, BUT all of that is under the bridge now and Favre came out and said he caused this, but wants another chance.

I think he deserves that second chance.

 
KingPrawn said:
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.
Seriously???? You have to know that he was asking Brett to let the guys report [without the distraction of him being there]. Talk about a fishing trip....
 
Packers should come back to their senses, by retiring their fears.

"The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again."
I don't know why that portion of the article was ignored in favor of the smaller notation about Longwell and Sharper.
I have mentioned White...he left the NFL for a whole year before coming back.And comparing Favre to anything in the 60s is quite foolish too...as if anything is the same as it was in that era.

And Lombardi coached for what...one year before basically dying.

Nice comparisons. :rolleyes:
What does the length of time have to do with anything? In both situations the teams have moved on and had replacement players at the ready.And Lombardi apparently succeeded in taking the 'Skins to their first winning season in 14 years. Yeah, very insignificant. By the way, how many more years do you think Favre has left in him? Lombardi died of cancer, not of old age, so that is simply ridiculous. Are you assuming the Packers knew he had cancer and didn't care what he did in his "final" season of life? Wow.
What does letting a guy go who was out of the league for a year have to do with anything?Yeah...thats the same as a guy not even missing an offseason really.

:rolleyes:

Cannot help you if you are too blinded by your purple bias and Packer obsession to see that.

Where did I claim it was because of old age? Oh wait...you are spinning that and making things up again.

The comparisons are weak to anyone who has a clue.
So...enlighten us or ad hominem label me a hater? You said Lombardi was practically dead when he was released. What was your point then?
Wow.......

No point in continuing this discussion with you. You are blinded by your Packer hate, and you just cannot discuss this intelligently.

Good day sir
O.k. more ad hominem "hater" instead of backing up your assertions. I've stated my opinion clearly and without malice.
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.

 
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.
I agree with every word of that article.That said, I can understand what his thinking is from a business stand point. With all of Favres waffling, you have to draw a line, and not continue to be held hostage by one player. I get that, BUT all of that is under the bridge now and Favre came out and said he caused this, but wants another chance.

I think he deserves that second chance.
I can't agree with the part saying TT has bungled it more than anyone...nor can I agree that it would be wise to just trade him to Minny (unless the package is just outstanding...its not about thinking Rodgers is the right guy..its about not giving your major divisional rival a key to winning it all in front of you....that would just be dumb).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top