Farve to Report this Weekend (1 Viewer)

[ScottyFargo]

seems to me that favre holds the cards.

favre- "i want to play again"

packers- "sorry, rodgers is our qb now"

favre- "ok, then please release me"

packers- "no"

favre- "ok, then i'll show up and you can pay me $12 million to be the backup"

packers- "More time, we'll all be fired!"

favre- "time's up."

And the fired line has been slightly disputed by Thompson too.Without just coming out and insinuating that Favre was lying as Favre did about Thompson.

Favre is just too honest for his own good.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

But that's just it Andrew: They can't. Brett Favre wants to come back and start at QB for a team with a good chance at the Super Bowl, like the Packers. Or maybe the Vikings. Most of the other SB contending teams have no need for Favre. Most of the non-SB contending teams have no reason to trade for him since they are building up with youth. Ted Thompson wants Aaron Rodgers to be the Packers starting QB in 2008. He will not allow Favre to go to Minnesota. Period. So where do you see any compromise there? I'd say that Favre could compromise by accepting a trade to Tampa. Thompson can compromise by allowing an honest QB competition in Packers training camp. Which one will happen first? And do the Bucs even want Favre? And if they do, will Thompson trade him for a reasonable price? Or will he just make a sham effort?Edit to add: I see both sides being at fault, but I just can't see how Favre is more at fault. In fact, when he said that TT told him he would only be a backup when he first called him a couple of weeks ago, I think most people here thought Favre was lying. Some have even said that and said he has lied or exaggerated other statements. But now Thompson pretty much admits that Favre can only be a backup. Which makes me lean toward Favre not lying quite as much as people think. So why is everyone so mad at Favre instead of Thompson?

this does seem to have become a real ego thing hasn't it. Favre won't back down, Thompson won't back down - maybe you can change both 'won'ts' to 'can't'. I would guess the only way to compromise are the two ways you outlined and both would cause a powerful ego to lose (or risk losing) face.RE: what Thompson wants - according to reports yesterday he says he was looking for a 3rd and a player. But I would think there are teams who might pay that. It's not like LaMont Jordan where you knew the Raiders had to release him. Green bay can't afford to - Favre to Minny is much worse than Jordan to <insert AFC West Team here>.I guess at this point my take is just this - if Favre really wants to play - and I believe he does and still can - why not work with the franchise for a trade that puts you in at least a good situation? Sure, TT could give in and welcoem him to camp and open the QB competition up - maybe he should. But Favre has complained more than once he doesn't feel wanted - so why stay in Green Bay if you feel so unloved? I bet both Buc and Jets fans would welcome him like a conquering hero if he showed up. Unless Favre just can't contemplate life as anything but a Packer. Which doesn't seem the case.Instead it seems like he's just sitting back waiting to be released which should never, ever happen. Not because TT is a jerk - but because it would be career suicide for anyone to allow Favre to go within the division, which it appears is what he wants (aside from his old job back).Maybe there is no compromise. Maybe it's mutually assured destruction.

So which one is the US and which is the USSR?

 

[Crippler]

I read in another thread that Favre just wants a release so he is 100% in control of where he goes (like Minny, where he probably won't get traded).

He might fear that if he gives a list of teams, that he will be traded right away instead of released.

Stupid, but it sort of makes sense.

It still strikes me as incredibly selfish or arrogant that he thinks he can force a release so he can play potentially in the division. If I were he, I would be working with TT closely to figure out where he can go so he can play in a decent situation - rather than just sit at home and make the process slow.

What should he do? They basically want to deny him any right to play this year unless it's under THEIR terms.What would you do?

He's UNDER CONTRACT. He can only play on their terms.What is unclear about that? Why should he get to say 'I know it would be a bad idea for you to let me play for another team in our division but I really want to...'? Why should the team bow to him? Why is he more special than say, the left tackle? Because he's Brett Favre?

I don't get you guys at all. He has made his choice - repeatedly - and the choices he makes are nothing but self serving and myopic. He's like my pre-schooler - he wants what he wants when he wants it and if he doesn't get it, he just keeps asking or pushing in the hopes he'll get it anyway. Doesn't work for my kid, shouldn't work for Favre.

What would I do? Quit (stay retired) or play out my contract then move on. THOSE ARE HIS CHOICES.

He doesn't get to dictate to his employer - that's not how it works.

The Packers tried to give him a shot - He retired. He wanted to come back in March. They welcomed him by all accounts. He flip flopped again! And here we are.

But now he's being wronged?

Tell me - are you honestly saying that the Pack should release him - even if itmeans he plays against them - just because he is Brett Favre?

Do you really believe that? How does that makes sense at all?

Exactly, but they won't let him play with their team.Yes he is now being wronged. He's UNDER CONTRACT, so he should be allowed to compete for the job, and if not they should let him play elsewhere.

I have come a full 360 on this. Favre caused this, he did. The Packers handled it the way they should have, in the beginning...... But now Thompson has totally dropped the ball. Favre said he would come in and compete, that's the best you could hope for. But nooooo, TT said no way to that. Not only is that ignorant but it just shows you how big of an EGO TT really has. I as a Packer fan want the best damn QB out there on opening day, I don't care who it is. TT doesn't want that, he wants HIS guy in there. That's total BS.

This might very well be what takes TT down. It's a total lack of leadership. If Ron Wolf was there, no chance this cluster..... happens.

He should be allowed to wear the uniform on Sunday and draw his check. That's all he's owed. How many QB positions are really "open to competition" this offseason? Not that many. Teams pick starters and let the backups compete for roster spots all the time. I'm not aware of any "right to start" or even a "right to compete" clause in anyone's contract. They have no obligation to let him "play".

He knows that. That's why he's called their bluff and asked for reinstatement and he will be the cause of the most destructive thing that could happen to their offseason. Even more exposure and media circus than what they are experiencing right now. That isn't the last thing they are saying they want (the last thing they want is Favre to play for a divisional opponent) but it could be strong enough to force them to cut the ties.

As if any of this media attention or pressure or watchful eyes on every Rodgers pass will change no matter what happens.If Favre stayed retired...each Rodgers pass would be analyzed and some might call for Brett at the first sign of trouble.

If Favre is the backup...each Rodgers pass would be analyzed and some might call for Brett at the first sign of trouble.

If Favre is traded or released...each Rodgers pass would be analyzed and some might call for Brett at the first sign of trouble.

Its already a circus...nothing at this point is going to change that.

Cant call for Brett if he is with another team. Either of the first 2 scenarios is the reason it just wont work for Rodgers. Brett must be gotten rid of or made the starter in the end. I still dont mind the idea of keeping Brett and trading Rodgers instead. I think the Packers would come out with much more in the end.

 

[CommishCurd]

I think we are all missing the most important part of the argument.....The madden jinx. Even if Brett Farve comes back he will have a terrile season because he is the face on the Madden cover this year. I sure wouldn't trade for him

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Edit to add: I see both sides being at fault, but I just can't see how Favre is more at fault. In fact, when he said that TT told him he would only be a backup when he first called him a couple of weeks ago, I think most people here thought Favre was lying. Some have even said that and said he has lied or exaggerated other statements. But now Thompson pretty much admits that Favre can only be a backup. Which makes me lean toward Favre not lying quite as much as people think. So why is everyone so mad at Favre instead of Thompson?

Because Favre forced TT into this with his own actions and waffling long ago?Where TT had to start to prepare for when Favre was around.Then Favre did retire...then almost unretired by decided to stay retired...at that point...the team Had to move on. Its Thompson and several other people in that organization's opinion that once they moved on, there was no turning back.I think some people have said that there has not been a single direct quote from TT until most recently...and even still Favre's accounts of some of these conversations do not go exactly the same as Thompson's accounts of those conversations.Because Favre is the one who forced the issue here...Thompson is working with what was given and with what was around most all of the offseason.

You're saying he is forcing the issue because he wants to play again? He has every right to play again. He is under contract with the Packers, right?

 

[T Bell]

seems to me that favre holds the cards.

favre- "i want to play again"

packers- "sorry, rodgers is our qb now"

favre- "ok, then please release me"

packers- "no"

favre- "ok, then i'll show up and you can pay me $12 million to be the backup"

packers- "More time, we'll all be fired!"

favre- "time's up."

And the fired line has been slightly disputed by Thompson too.Without just coming out and insinuating that Favre was lying as Favre did about Thompson.

Favre is just too honest for his own good.

I don't think Favre is even honest with himself, which is why we've had this four-years-running soap opera.

I also think it's funny how much everyone seems to think the Packers simply won't tolerate him on the roster as a backup. You talk about it as "calling their bluff", as if they couldn't just do it. That would put Favre in a bad spot because if he's anything but unsupportive of Rodgers, he'll come off looking bad too.

 

[ScottyFargo]

seems to me that favre holds the cards.

favre- "i want to play again"

packers- "sorry, rodgers is our qb now"

favre- "ok, then please release me"

packers- "no"

favre- "ok, then i'll show up and you can pay me $12 million to be the backup"

packers- "More time, we'll all be fired!"

favre- "time's up."

And the fired line has been slightly disputed by Thompson too.Without just coming out and insinuating that Favre was lying as Favre did about Thompson.

Favre is just too honest for his own good.

I don't think Favre is even honest with himself, which is why we've had this four-years-running soap opera.

I also think it's funny how much everyone seems to think the Packers simply won't tolerate him on the roster as a backup. You talk about it as "calling their bluff", as if they couldn't just do it. That would put Favre in a bad spot because if he's anything but unsupportive of Rodgers, he'll come off looking bad too.

I know, I just like throwing the same cliche'd Favre-isms back at those who used them as shields up until about a week ago.The Packers can't have Favre riding the bench. It would be suicide for their season.

 

[Kruppe]

seems to me that favre holds the cards.

favre- "i want to play again"

packers- "sorry, rodgers is our qb now"

favre- "ok, then please release me"

packers- "no"

favre- "ok, then i'll show up and you can pay me $12 million to be the backup"

packers- "More time, we'll all be fired!"

favre- "time's up."

And the fired line has been slightly disputed by Thompson too.Without just coming out and insinuating that Favre was lying as Favre did about Thompson.

Favre is just too honest for his own good.

I don't think Favre is even honest with himself, which is why we've had this four-years-running soap opera.

I also think it's funny how much everyone seems to think the Packers simply won't tolerate him on the roster as a backup. You talk about it as "calling their bluff", as if they couldn't just do it. That would put Favre in a bad spot because if he's anything but unsupportive of Rodgers, he'll come off looking bad too.

I'd say there is 0.1% chance at this point of Favre ever suiting up for GB again.

 

[fatness]

Adam Schefter of NFL Network reports that Commissioner Roger Goodell won’t take action today on the reinstatement request that has been made by quarterback Brett Favre. Though Favre never filed retirement papers, the team’s placement of him on the reserve/retired list requires him to be reinstated. Goodell previously has said that he would grant any such request.

Once the request is granted, the Packers will have to put Favre on the roster (and allow him to participate in training camp), trade him, or cut him. Once he’s reinstated, Favre won’t be able to block a trade — unless the team that hopes to acquire him needs to re-work his $12 million base salary in order to fit him under the cap.

There are rumblings in league circles that Bucs G.M. Bruce Allen is enough of a free-thinker/mad scientist to be willing to trade for Favre even if Favre doesn’t want to be traded to Tampa. And the Bucs have more than enough cap space to accommodate his contract.

Information and speculation from PFT

 

[T Bell]

Adam Schefter of NFL Network reports that Commissioner Roger Goodell won’t take action today on the reinstatement request that has been made by quarterback Brett Favre. Though Favre never filed retirement papers, the team’s placement of him on the reserve/retired list requires him to be reinstated. Goodell previously has said that he would grant any such request.

Once the request is granted, the Packers will have to put Favre on the roster (and allow him to participate in training camp), trade him, or cut him. Once he’s reinstated, Favre won’t be able to block a trade — unless the team that hopes to acquire him needs to re-work his $12 million base salary in order to fit him under the cap.

There are rumblings in league circles that Bucs G.M. Bruce Allen is enough of a free-thinker/mad scientist to be willing to trade for Favre even if Favre doesn’t want to be traded to Tampa. And the Bucs have more than enough cap space to accommodate his contract.

Information and speculation from PFT

This is really the whole ballgame right here, and I have yet to hear a definitive statement amidst all of the conflicting statements. Does or does not Favre have a no-trade clause in his contract? If he doesn't, he's got virtually no leverage in this situation; if he does, then he has a good amount of leverage because Thompson can make no move aside from simply reinstating him without Favre's permission. This is the pressure point. Does anyone know?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Adam Schefter of NFL Network reports that Commissioner Roger Goodell won’t take action today on the reinstatement request that has been made by quarterback Brett Favre. Though Favre never filed retirement papers, the team’s placement of him on the reserve/retired list requires him to be reinstated. Goodell previously has said that he would grant any such request.

Once the request is granted, the Packers will have to put Favre on the roster (and allow him to participate in training camp), trade him, or cut him. Once he’s reinstated, Favre won’t be able to block a trade — unless the team that hopes to acquire him needs to re-work his $12 million base salary in order to fit him under the cap.

There are rumblings in league circles that Bucs G.M. Bruce Allen is enough of a free-thinker/mad scientist to be willing to trade for Favre even if Favre doesn’t want to be traded to Tampa. And the Bucs have more than enough cap space to accommodate his contract.

Information and speculation from PFT

This is really the whole ballgame right here, and I have yet to hear a definitive statement amidst all of the conflicting statements. Does or does not Favre have a no-trade clause in his contract? If he doesn't, he's got virtually no leverage in this situation; if he does, then he has a good amount of leverage because Thompson can make no move aside from simply reinstating him without Favre's permission. This is the pressure point. Does anyone know?

Very good questions. If he can't really block it, and just pull a Plummer, then they should trade him to Tampa post haste.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Adam Schefter of NFL Network reports that Commissioner Roger Goodell won’t take action today on the reinstatement request that has been made by quarterback Brett Favre. Though Favre never filed retirement papers, the team’s placement of him on the reserve/retired list requires him to be reinstated. Goodell previously has said that he would grant any such request.

Once the request is granted, the Packers will have to put Favre on the roster (and allow him to participate in training camp), trade him, or cut him. Once he’s reinstated, Favre won’t be able to block a trade — unless the team that hopes to acquire him needs to re-work his $12 million base salary in order to fit him under the cap.

There are rumblings in league circles that Bucs G.M. Bruce Allen is enough of a free-thinker/mad scientist to be willing to trade for Favre even if Favre doesn’t want to be traded to Tampa. And the Bucs have more than enough cap space to accommodate his contract.

Information and speculation from PFT

This is really the whole ballgame right here, and I have yet to hear a definitive statement amidst all of the conflicting statements. Does or does not Favre have a no-trade clause in his contract? If he doesn't, he's got virtually no leverage in this situation; if he does, then he has a good amount of leverage because Thompson can make no move aside from simply reinstating him without Favre's permission. This is the pressure point. Does anyone know?

Very good questions. If he can't really block it, and just pull a Plummer, then they should trade him to Tampa post haste.

pretty sure he doesnt have that clause as i've heard that theory from two different networks now (Fox and NFLN).All i know is that this just keeps getting better.

 

[vitaflo]

This is really the whole ballgame right here, and I have yet to hear a definitive statement amidst all of the conflicting statements. Does or does not Favre have a no-trade clause in his contract? If he doesn't, he's got virtually no leverage in this situation; if he does, then he has a good amount of leverage because Thompson can make no move aside from simply reinstating him without Favre's permission. This is the pressure point. Does anyone know?

He does NOT have a no trade clause. Per the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/...rade-stuff.aspx

One thing I haven't addressed in all this trade talk is whether Favre has the right to void a trade.

He does not have a no-trade clause and there is no rule that veterans with 10 or more years can dictate where they are traded.

 

[Tau837]

The 49ers decided it was time to "move on" from Montana to Young. Montana wanted to play still. The 49ers did not "open" a competition, instead they wanted him to retire. I don't recall Montana going on a news channel and calling his boss a liar, and essentially a scum bag. I don't remember him demanding to be released with no strings attached. I don't recall him talking to the Falcons, Saints, Rams about being their starting QB. But he wanted to play. He ultimately gave the 49ers a list of teams to which he would be traded and played two years. IIRC he garnered a 1st round pick. There were some issues, but I don't remembere the circus that the Favre situation is causing.

I wish people would quit comparing these situations. Montana was injured and unable to play for 2 seasons before they traded him. During that time, Steve Young proved himself to be the best QB in the NFL. Also, there was no salary cap. The issues were not the same.

 

[sho nuff]

seems to me that favre holds the cards.

favre- "i want to play again"

packers- "sorry, rodgers is our qb now"

favre- "ok, then please release me"

packers- "no"

favre- "ok, then i'll show up and you can pay me $12 million to be the backup"

packers-

The problem is that the Packers were willing to do that. Brett said no and insisted he be traded.

And then the Packers showed their cards when he asked if he'd be welcome if he came to TC. They freaked out because they really don't want or need the distraction and commotion. They tried to strong arm him back into retirement because that's the only easy solution for them.But Favre and his camp are aware they can't have him there creating an even bigger media circus at the camp when they are trying to focus with the most inexperienced roster in the NFL.

Most inexperienced roster in the NFL? Link?Funny how most of that roster was 13-3 last year and now has playoff experience into the NFC Title game.

I am pretty sure you argued with a bears fan about the ages of your respective ballclubs, and you've been touting this "youngest team in the NFL" thing since last season. So you're my link.

And this is why I say you spin things.Yes...they were one of the youngest teams in the NFL (I don't recall me touting this youngest team in the NFL)....that does not mean that right now they are the least experienced team in the NFL. You made the statement as if it were fact...and this is your best explanation? Because people touted their youth "LAST YEAR"? You realize that the youth on the Oline is now in their 3rd year, that guys like Jennings and Jones while young, are not so much just inexperienced at this point. Same with guys like Rouse and Bigby.

So, either retract it...or provide some sort of actual source for your bogus statement.

 

[sho nuff]

seems to me that favre holds the cards.

favre- "i want to play again"

packers- "sorry, rodgers is our qb now"

favre- "ok, then please release me"

packers- "no"

favre- "ok, then i'll show up and yo can pay me $12 million to be the backup"

packers- "More time, we'll all be fired!"

favre- "time's up."

And the fired line has been slightly disputed by Thompson too.Without just coming out and insinuating that Favre was lying as Favre did about Thompson.

Favre is just too honest for his own good.

In other words...as long as its negative about Green Bay...you will simply believe that to be the truth. Thanks.Thats what I thought.

 

[sho nuff]

I read in another thread that Favre just wants a release so he is 100% in control of where he goes (like Minny, where he probably won't get traded).

He might fear that if he gives a list of teams, that he will be traded right away instead of released.

Stupid, but it sort of makes sense.

It still strikes me as incredibly selfish or arrogant that he thinks he can force a release so he can play potentially in the division. If I were he, I would be working with TT closely to figure out where he can go so he can play in a decent situation - rather than just sit at home and make the process slow.

What should he do? They basically want to deny him any right to play this year unless it's under THEIR terms.What would you do?

He's UNDER CONTRACT. He can only play on their terms.What is unclear about that? Why should he get to say 'I know it would be a bad idea for you to let me play for another team in our division but I really want to...'? Why should the team bow to him? Why is he more special than say, the left tackle? Because he's Brett Favre?

I don't get you guys at all. He has made his choice - repeatedly - and the choices he makes are nothing but self serving and myopic. He's like my pre-schooler - he wants what he wants when he wants it and if he doesn't get it, he just keeps asking or pushing in the hopes he'll get it anyway. Doesn't work for my kid, shouldn't work for Favre.

What would I do? Quit (stay retired) or play out my contract then move on. THOSE ARE HIS CHOICES.

He doesn't get to dictate to his employer - that's not how it works.

The Packers tried to give him a shot - He retired. He wanted to come back in March. They welcomed him by all accounts. He flip flopped again! And here we are.

But now he's being wronged?

Tell me - are you honestly saying that the Pack should release him - even if itmeans he plays against them - just because he is Brett Favre?

Do you really believe that? How does that makes sense at all?

Exactly, but they won't let him play with their team.Yes he is now being wronged. He's UNDER CONTRACT, so he should be allowed to compete for the job, and if not they should let him play elsewhere.

I have come a full 360 on this. Favre caused this, he did. The Packers handled it the way they should have, in the beginning...... But now Thompson has totally dropped the ball. Favre said he would come in and compete, that's the best you could hope for. But nooooo, TT said no way to that. Not only is that ignorant but it just shows you how big of an EGO TT really has. I as a Packer fan want the best damn QB out there on opening day, I don't care who it is. TT doesn't want that, he wants HIS guy in there. That's total BS.

This might very well be what takes TT down. It's a total lack of leadership. If Ron Wolf was there, no chance this cluster..... happens.

He should be allowed to wear the uniform on Sunday and draw his check. That's all he's owed. How many QB positions are really "open to competition" this offseason? Not that many. Teams pick starters and let the backups compete for roster spots all the time. I'm not aware of any "right to start" or even a "right to compete" clause in anyone's contract. They have no obligation to let him "play".

He knows that. That's why he's called their bluff and asked for reinstatement and he will be the cause of the most destructive thing that could happen to their offseason. Even more exposure and media circus than what they are experiencing right now. That isn't the last thing they are saying they want (the last thing they want is Favre to play for a divisional opponent) but it could be strong enough to force them to cut the ties.

As if any of this media attention or pressure or watchful eyes on every Rodgers pass will change no matter what happens.If Favre stayed retired...each Rodgers pass would be analyzed and some might call for Brett at the first sign of trouble.

If Favre is the backup...each Rodgers pass would be analyzed and some might call for Brett at the first sign of trouble.

If Favre is traded or released...each Rodgers pass would be analyzed and some might call for Brett at the first sign of trouble.

Its already a circus...nothing at this point is going to change that.

Cant call for Brett if he is with another team. Either of the first 2 scenarios is the reason it just wont work for Rodgers. Brett must be gotten rid of or made the starter in the end. I still dont mind the idea of keeping Brett and trading Rodgers instead. I think the Packers would come out with much more in the end.

If he is with another team the calls will be there as in a "should have kept Brett". Or they could be.The point is...at this point, as far as it has gotten...there is no avoiding the pressure on Rodgers. It will all be in how he handles it. So far, he has handled it better than I would have imagined.

 

[sho nuff]

Edit to add: I see both sides being at fault, but I just can't see how Favre is more at fault. In fact, when he said that TT told him he would only be a backup when he first called him a couple of weeks ago, I think most people here thought Favre was lying. Some have even said that and said he has lied or exaggerated other statements. But now Thompson pretty much admits that Favre can only be a backup. Which makes me lean toward Favre not lying quite as much as people think. So why is everyone so mad at Favre instead of Thompson?

Because Favre forced TT into this with his own actions and waffling long ago?Where TT had to start to prepare for when Favre was around.Then Favre did retire...then almost unretired by decided to stay retired...at that point...the team Had to move on. Its Thompson and several other people in that organization's opinion that once they moved on, there was no turning back.I think some people have said that there has not been a single direct quote from TT until most recently...and even still Favre's accounts of some of these conversations do not go exactly the same as Thompson's accounts of those conversations.Because Favre is the one who forced the issue here...Thompson is working with what was given and with what was around most all of the offseason.

You're saying he is forcing the issue because he wants to play again? He has every right to play again. He is under contract with the Packers, right?

Im saying he forced this issue with years of uncertainty of when he would actually retire.Im saying he forced this by actually retiring.Im saying he forced this by telling the Packers not long after the retirement that he was ready to return...only to then decide again to stay retired.Im saying he forced this by again telling Thompson in May that he was staying retired.

 

[sho nuff]

seems to me that favre holds the cards.

favre- "i want to play again"

packers- "sorry, rodgers is our qb now"

favre- "ok, then please release me"

packers- "no"

favre- "ok, then i'll show up and you can pay me $12 million to be the backup"

packers- "More time, we'll all be fired!"

favre- "time's up."

And the fired line has been slightly disputed by Thompson too.Without just coming out and insinuating that Favre was lying as Favre did about Thompson.

Favre is just too honest for his own good.

I don't think Favre is even honest with himself, which is why we've had this four-years-running soap opera.

I also think it's funny how much everyone seems to think the Packers simply won't tolerate him on the roster as a backup. You talk about it as "calling their bluff", as if they couldn't just do it. That would put Favre in a bad spot because if he's anything but unsupportive of Rodgers, he'll come off looking bad too.

I know, I just like throwing the same cliche'd Favre-isms back at those who used them as shields up until about a week ago.The Packers can't have Favre riding the bench. It would be suicide for their season.

Only problem is people have not used that Favre-ism to excuse everything...never have. (well...maybe a few complete and total irrational homers...but those were few and far between).Its just your usual spin because you simply don't have much to back most of what you have said in these threads.

 

[Tau837]

He should be allowed to wear the uniform on Sunday and draw his check. That's all he's owed. How many QB positions are really "open to competition" this offseason? Not that many. Teams pick starters and let the backups compete for roster spots all the time. I'm not aware of any "right to start" or even a "right to compete" clause in anyone's contract. They have no obligation to let him "play".

Please identify all the teams that are not allowing an open competition for their starting QB position and have not chosen the best QB currently on their team as that starter. The only one I can think of that might fit is Leinart/Warner, but I'm not aware the Cards have definitively said Leinart is the starter this season at this point.I agree that the team has no obligation to start Favre, but don't act like what is happening here is a common occurrence.

 

[ScottyFargo]

seems to me that favre holds the cards.

favre- "i want to play again"

packers- "sorry, rodgers is our qb now"

favre- "ok, then please release me"

packers- "no"

favre- "ok, then i'll show up and you can pay me $12 million to be the backup"

packers-

The problem is that the Packers were willing to do that. Brett said no and insisted he be traded.

And then the Packers showed their cards when he asked if he'd be welcome if he came to TC. They freaked out because they really don't want or need the distraction and commotion. They tried to strong arm him back into retirement because that's the only easy solution for them.But Favre and his camp are aware they can't have him there creating an even bigger media circus at the camp when they are trying to focus with the most inexperienced roster in the NFL.

Most inexperienced roster in the NFL? Link?Funny how most of that roster was 13-3 last year and now has playoff experience into the NFC Title game.

I am pretty sure you argued with a bears fan about the ages of your respective ballclubs, and you've been touting this "youngest team in the NFL" thing since last season. So you're my link.

And this is why I say you spin things.Yes...they were one of the youngest teams in the NFL (I don't recall me touting this youngest team in the NFL)....that does not mean that right now they are the least experienced team in the NFL. You made the statement as if it were fact...and this is your best explanation? Because people touted their youth "LAST YEAR"? You realize that the youth on the Oline is now in their 3rd year, that guys like Jennings and Jones while young, are not so much just inexperienced at this point. Same with guys like Rouse and Bigby.

So, either retract it...or provide some sort of actual source for your bogus statement.

I don't know what you're going on about. Young means inexperienced. Subtract Favre and throw in Rodgers only adds fuel to that fire. So they've got two extra postseason games under their belt now? They don't have Favre, and that's what got them there.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Edit to add: I see both sides being at fault, but I just can't see how Favre is more at fault. In fact, when he said that TT told him he would only be a backup when he first called him a couple of weeks ago, I think most people here thought Favre was lying. Some have even said that and said he has lied or exaggerated other statements. But now Thompson pretty much admits that Favre can only be a backup. Which makes me lean toward Favre not lying quite as much as people think. So why is everyone so mad at Favre instead of Thompson?

Because Favre forced TT into this with his own actions and waffling long ago?Where TT had to start to prepare for when Favre was around.Then Favre did retire...then almost unretired by decided to stay retired...at that point...the team Had to move on. Its Thompson and several other people in that organization's opinion that once they moved on, there was no turning back.I think some people have said that there has not been a single direct quote from TT until most recently...and even still Favre's accounts of some of these conversations do not go exactly the same as Thompson's accounts of those conversations.Because Favre is the one who forced the issue here...Thompson is working with what was given and with what was around most all of the offseason.

You're saying he is forcing the issue because he wants to play again? He has every right to play again. He is under contract with the Packers, right?

Im saying he forced this issue with years of uncertainty of when he would actually retire.Im saying he forced this by actually retiring.Im saying he forced this by telling the Packers not long after the retirement that he was ready to return...only to then decide again to stay retired.Im saying he forced this by again telling Thompson in May that he was staying retired.

Dude. You were the one touting the "fact" that only once in the past 3 years prior to this season had Favre taken any extra time deciding. Now you're willing to admit that he's forced the issue with "years of uncertainty"? You really want to paint me a certain way, but all I see coming out of your posts is hypocrisy concerning the way you've felt about Mr. Brett Favre ever since he's come out and asked for his release.

 

[sho nuff]

seems to me that favre holds the cards.

favre- "i want to play again"

packers- "sorry, rodgers is our qb now"

favre- "ok, then please release me"

packers- "no"

favre- "ok, then i'll show up and you can pay me $12 million to be the backup"

packers-

The problem is that the Packers were willing to do that. Brett said no and insisted he be traded.

And then the Packers showed their cards when he asked if he'd be welcome if he came to TC. They freaked out because they really don't want or need the distraction and commotion. They tried to strong arm him back into retirement because that's the only easy solution for them.But Favre and his camp are aware they can't have him there creating an even bigger media circus at the camp when they are trying to focus with the most inexperienced roster in the NFL.

Most inexperienced roster in the NFL? Link?Funny how most of that roster was 13-3 last year and now has playoff experience into the NFC Title game.

I am pretty sure you argued with a bears fan about the ages of your respective ballclubs, and you've been touting this "youngest team in the NFL" thing since last season. So you're my link.

And this is why I say you spin things.Yes...they were one of the youngest teams in the NFL (I don't recall me touting this youngest team in the NFL)....that does not mean that right now they are the least experienced team in the NFL. You made the statement as if it were fact...and this is your best explanation? Because people touted their youth "LAST YEAR"? You realize that the youth on the Oline is now in their 3rd year, that guys like Jennings and Jones while young, are not so much just inexperienced at this point. Same with guys like Rouse and Bigby.

So, either retract it...or provide some sort of actual source for your bogus statement.

I don't know what you're going on about. Young means inexperienced. Subtract Favre and throw in Rodgers only adds fuel to that fire. So they've got two extra postseason games under their belt now? They don't have Favre, and that's what got them there.

No...young is a measure of age.Some players...even at a young age...have actually gotten real playing time in this league. Like many of the Packers over the past 2-3 years.

The Oline is young...but hardly inexperienced.

Like I said...you have spun it to try and argue...but have nothing to back your claims.

Favre is a big reason why they got where they did.

As is the play of the WRs who were great after the catch, the play of the defense that kept them in many games, the play of the Oline down the stretch paving the way for..., the play of Ryan Grant, and very good coaching.

There was no one man or one reason they got where they did.

You should stop before you dig yourself in more of a hole (AGAIN).

 

[sho nuff]

Edit to add: I see both sides being at fault, but I just can't see how Favre is more at fault. In fact, when he said that TT told him he would only be a backup when he first called him a couple of weeks ago, I think most people here thought Favre was lying. Some have even said that and said he has lied or exaggerated other statements. But now Thompson pretty much admits that Favre can only be a backup. Which makes me lean toward Favre not lying quite as much as people think. So why is everyone so mad at Favre instead of Thompson?

Because Favre forced TT into this with his own actions and waffling long ago?Where TT had to start to prepare for when Favre was around.Then Favre did retire...then almost unretired by decided to stay retired...at that point...the team Had to move on. Its Thompson and several other people in that organization's opinion that once they moved on, there was no turning back.I think some people have said that there has not been a single direct quote from TT until most recently...and even still Favre's accounts of some of these conversations do not go exactly the same as Thompson's accounts of those conversations.Because Favre is the one who forced the issue here...Thompson is working with what was given and with what was around most all of the offseason.

You're saying he is forcing the issue because he wants to play again? He has every right to play again. He is under contract with the Packers, right?

Im saying he forced this issue with years of uncertainty of when he would actually retire.Im saying he forced this by actually retiring.Im saying he forced this by telling the Packers not long after the retirement that he was ready to return...only to then decide again to stay retired.Im saying he forced this by again telling Thompson in May that he was staying retired.

Dude. You were the one touting the "fact" that only once in the past 3 years prior to this season had Favre taken any extra time deciding. Now you're willing to admit that he's forced the issue with "years of uncertainty"? You really want to paint me a certain way, but all I see coming out of your posts is hypocrisy concerning the way you've felt about Mr. Brett Favre ever since he's come out and asked for his release.

Uncertainty as in not knowing at the end of each year when it will be his last. It has nothing to do with length of time he took or did not take to make his decision.The point being...after him considering it so many times...the Packers had to begin to prepare for the day when he was gone...now they are blasted for doing so.There is no hypocrisy.Im not blaming Favre for taking so much time any year in making his decision.Im saying his discussing it each year has led to them having to prepare for life when he was gone.Then he retired...and re-affirmed that at least 2 more times after his retirement speech. The team was forced to act.But I don't expect you would understand that. You will instead spin things around again as much as you can. You are all too predictable which is not shocking for a Vikings fan who discusses the Packers far more than even his own team.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Edit to add: I see both sides being at fault, but I just can't see how Favre is more at fault. In fact, when he said that TT told him he would only be a backup when he first called him a couple of weeks ago, I think most people here thought Favre was lying. Some have even said that and said he has lied or exaggerated other statements. But now Thompson pretty much admits that Favre can only be a backup. Which makes me lean toward Favre not lying quite as much as people think. So why is everyone so mad at Favre instead of Thompson?

Because Favre forced TT into this with his own actions and waffling long ago?Where TT had to start to prepare for when Favre was around.Then Favre did retire...then almost unretired by decided to stay retired...at that point...the team Had to move on. Its Thompson and several other people in that organization's opinion that once they moved on, there was no turning back.I think some people have said that there has not been a single direct quote from TT until most recently...and even still Favre's accounts of some of these conversations do not go exactly the same as Thompson's accounts of those conversations.Because Favre is the one who forced the issue here...Thompson is working with what was given and with what was around most all of the offseason.

You're saying he is forcing the issue because he wants to play again? He has every right to play again. He is under contract with the Packers, right?

Im saying he forced this issue with years of uncertainty of when he would actually retire.Im saying he forced this by actually retiring.Im saying he forced this by telling the Packers not long after the retirement that he was ready to return...only to then decide again to stay retired.Im saying he forced this by again telling Thompson in May that he was staying retired.

Maybe he's just a woman?

 

[sho nuff]

Edit to add: I see both sides being at fault, but I just can't see how Favre is more at fault. In fact, when he said that TT told him he would only be a backup when he first called him a couple of weeks ago, I think most people here thought Favre was lying. Some have even said that and said he has lied or exaggerated other statements. But now Thompson pretty much admits that Favre can only be a backup. Which makes me lean toward Favre not lying quite as much as people think. So why is everyone so mad at Favre instead of Thompson?

Because Favre forced TT into this with his own actions and waffling long ago?Where TT had to start to prepare for when Favre was around.Then Favre did retire...then almost unretired by decided to stay retired...at that point...the team Had to move on. Its Thompson and several other people in that organization's opinion that once they moved on, there was no turning back.I think some people have said that there has not been a single direct quote from TT until most recently...and even still Favre's accounts of some of these conversations do not go exactly the same as Thompson's accounts of those conversations.Because Favre is the one who forced the issue here...Thompson is working with what was given and with what was around most all of the offseason.

You're saying he is forcing the issue because he wants to play again? He has every right to play again. He is under contract with the Packers, right?

Im saying he forced this issue with years of uncertainty of when he would actually retire.Im saying he forced this by actually retiring.Im saying he forced this by telling the Packers not long after the retirement that he was ready to return...only to then decide again to stay retired.Im saying he forced this by again telling Thompson in May that he was staying retired.

Maybe he's just a woman?

Thats one ugly woman then.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I know, I just like throwing the same cliche'd Favre-isms back at those who used them as shields up until about a week ago.The Packers can't have Favre riding the bench. It would be suicide for their season.

Only problem is people have not used that Favre-ism to excuse everything...never have. (well...maybe a few complete and total irrational homers...but those were few and far between).Its just your usual spin because you simply don't have much to back most of what you have said in these threads.

Whatever you say. I know April seems like it was a long time ago, but honestly.

As was stated earlier, Brett just speaks whatever comes to mind when the questions are asked. He's never going to rehearse answers, he speaks from the heart. If you want to hate him for that then so be it.

Favre is just being honest. Of course he's going to have doubts during the season. Of course he'll consider coming back if Rodgers gets hurt. None of this should be surprising, it's human nature. The real problem is that Favre won't be that guy who answers a direct question in platitudes. He just can't do it.If people are so aggravated by this, why bother coming into a thread about Favre? Why not just skip the thread? Why read the ESPN article? Why watch the news clip about it on ESPN? Seriously, if it's that upsetting, ignore it.

Favre is the one who has lied when he denied the report, to the point of alienating WSJ journalists who have also independently verified the report of contact on Favre's behalf. He's the one I don't trust.

You have proof that he lied?There is a difference between him saying to McCarthy that he had an itch...and what was being reported out there.Please don't make accusations that you know damn well you cannot back up.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Edit to add: I see both sides being at fault, but I just can't see how Favre is more at fault. In fact, when he said that TT told him he would only be a backup when he first called him a couple of weeks ago, I think most people here thought Favre was lying. Some have even said that and said he has lied or exaggerated other statements. But now Thompson pretty much admits that Favre can only be a backup. Which makes me lean toward Favre not lying quite as much as people think. So why is everyone so mad at Favre instead of Thompson?

Because Favre forced TT into this with his own actions and waffling long ago?Where TT had to start to prepare for when Favre was around.Then Favre did retire...then almost unretired by decided to stay retired...at that point...the team Had to move on. Its Thompson and several other people in that organization's opinion that once they moved on, there was no turning back.I think some people have said that there has not been a single direct quote from TT until most recently...and even still Favre's accounts of some of these conversations do not go exactly the same as Thompson's accounts of those conversations.Because Favre is the one who forced the issue here...Thompson is working with what was given and with what was around most all of the offseason.

You're saying he is forcing the issue because he wants to play again? He has every right to play again. He is under contract with the Packers, right?

Im saying he forced this issue with years of uncertainty of when he would actually retire.Im saying he forced this by actually retiring.Im saying he forced this by telling the Packers not long after the retirement that he was ready to return...only to then decide again to stay retired.Im saying he forced this by again telling Thompson in May that he was staying retired.

Dude. You were the one touting the "fact" that only once in the past 3 years prior to this season had Favre taken any extra time deciding. Now you're willing to admit that he's forced the issue with "years of uncertainty"? You really want to paint me a certain way, but all I see coming out of your posts is hypocrisy concerning the way you've felt about Mr. Brett Favre ever since he's come out and asked for his release.

Uncertainty as in not knowing at the end of each year when it will be his last. It has nothing to do with length of time he took or did not take to make his decision.The point being...after him considering it so many times...the Packers had to begin to prepare for the day when he was gone...now they are blasted for doing so.There is no hypocrisy.Im not blaming Favre for taking so much time any year in making his decision.Im saying his discussing it each year has led to them having to prepare for life when he was gone.Then he retired...and re-affirmed that at least 2 more times after his retirement speech. The team was forced to act.But I don't expect you would understand that. You will instead spin things around again as much as you can. You are all too predictable which is not shocking for a Vikings fan who discusses the Packers far more than even his own team.

When Adrian Peterson holds out and Cris Carter unretires I guess I'll have more to say about them.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I don't know what you're going on about. Young means inexperienced. Subtract Favre and throw in Rodgers only adds fuel to that fire. So they've got two extra postseason games under their belt now? They don't have Favre, and that's what got them there.

No...young is a measure of age.Some players...even at a young age...have actually gotten real playing time in this league. Like many of the Packers over the past 2-3 years.The Oline is young...but hardly inexperienced.Like I said...you have spun it to try and argue...but have nothing to back your claims.Favre is a big reason why they got where they did.As is the play of the WRs who were great after the catch, the play of the defense that kept them in many games, the play of the Oline down the stretch paving the way for..., the play of Ryan Grant, and very good coaching.There was no one man or one reason they got where they did.You should stop before you dig yourself in more of a hole (AGAIN).

You mean like the hole I dug myself back in April when I tried convincing everyone they were attacking Favre for being an attention whore for no reason? Or the time I tried to convince everyone Favre didn't mean anything when he went on Letterman and uttered those famous words "Something's bound to happen?" Or like the hole I dug myself in early July when I tried to tell people to deal in facts not rumors about his unretirement? That was a pretty deep hole I dug myself into there. If I keep digging, denying and deflecting maybe I will just come out the other side and I can turn my back on Favre and pretend none of that ever happened.

 

[gorf]

seems to me that favre holds the cards.

favre- "i want to play again"

packers- "sorry, rodgers is our qb now"

favre- "ok, then please release me"

packers- "no"

favre- "ok, then i'll show up and you can pay me $12 million to be the backup"

packers-

Packers- Brett you are now the 3rd string qb who will be inactive every gameFavre- I'm coming home Deanna if you want to pay me $12 million to be inactive every game...

like i said, favre holds the cards here. the packers are not going to pay $12 million for the privilege of having that huge distraction all season.

 

[sho nuff]

I know, I just like throwing the same cliche'd Favre-isms back at those who used them as shields up until about a week ago.The Packers can't have Favre riding the bench. It would be suicide for their season.

Only problem is people have not used that Favre-ism to excuse everything...never have. (well...maybe a few complete and total irrational homers...but those were few and far between).Its just your usual spin because you simply don't have much to back most of what you have said in these threads.

Whatever you say. I know April seems like it was a long time ago, but honestly.

As was stated earlier, Brett just speaks whatever comes to mind when the questions are asked. He's never going to rehearse answers, he speaks from the heart. If you want to hate him for that then so be it.

Favre is just being honest. Of course he's going to have doubts during the season. Of course he'll consider coming back if Rodgers gets hurt. None of this should be surprising, it's human nature. The real problem is that Favre won't be that guy who answers a direct question in platitudes. He just can't do it.If people are so aggravated by this, why bother coming into a thread about Favre? Why not just skip the thread? Why read the ESPN article? Why watch the news clip about it on ESPN? Seriously, if it's that upsetting, ignore it.

Favre is the one who has lied when he denied the report, to the point of alienating WSJ journalists who have also independently verified the report of contact on Favre's behalf. He's the one I don't trust.

You have proof that he lied?There is a difference between him saying to McCarthy that he had an itch...and what was being reported out there.Please don't make accusations that you know damn well you cannot back up.

Ummm....you have 2 quotes from two people...shocking that there was no context included...and as I said...I have not seen people outside of the biggest homers use the excuses for "EVERYTHING".My quote...really...that the best you could do is bring up where I asked you for proof that he lied? Really?Seriously...how many times have you been exposed for doing nothing but spinning things the past few weeks?WIll you ever stop?

 

[sho nuff]

Edit to add: I see both sides being at fault, but I just can't see how Favre is more at fault. In fact, when he said that TT told him he would only be a backup when he first called him a couple of weeks ago, I think most people here thought Favre was lying. Some have even said that and said he has lied or exaggerated other statements. But now Thompson pretty much admits that Favre can only be a backup. Which makes me lean toward Favre not lying quite as much as people think. So why is everyone so mad at Favre instead of Thompson?

Because Favre forced TT into this with his own actions and waffling long ago?Where TT had to start to prepare for when Favre was around.Then Favre did retire...then almost unretired by decided to stay retired...at that point...the team Had to move on. Its Thompson and several other people in that organization's opinion that once they moved on, there was no turning back.I think some people have said that there has not been a single direct quote from TT until most recently...and even still Favre's accounts of some of these conversations do not go exactly the same as Thompson's accounts of those conversations.Because Favre is the one who forced the issue here...Thompson is working with what was given and with what was around most all of the offseason.

You're saying he is forcing the issue because he wants to play again? He has every right to play again. He is under contract with the Packers, right?

Im saying he forced this issue with years of uncertainty of when he would actually retire.Im saying he forced this by actually retiring.Im saying he forced this by telling the Packers not long after the retirement that he was ready to return...only to then decide again to stay retired.Im saying he forced this by again telling Thompson in May that he was staying retired.

Dude. You were the one touting the "fact" that only once in the past 3 years prior to this season had Favre taken any extra time deciding. Now you're willing to admit that he's forced the issue with "years of uncertainty"? You really want to paint me a certain way, but all I see coming out of your posts is hypocrisy concerning the way you've felt about Mr. Brett Favre ever since he's come out and asked for his release.

Uncertainty as in not knowing at the end of each year when it will be his last. It has nothing to do with length of time he took or did not take to make his decision.The point being...after him considering it so many times...the Packers had to begin to prepare for the day when he was gone...now they are blasted for doing so.There is no hypocrisy.Im not blaming Favre for taking so much time any year in making his decision.Im saying his discussing it each year has led to them having to prepare for life when he was gone.Then he retired...and re-affirmed that at least 2 more times after his retirement speech. The team was forced to act.But I don't expect you would understand that. You will instead spin things around again as much as you can. You are all too predictable which is not shocking for a Vikings fan who discusses the Packers far more than even his own team.

When Adrian Peterson holds out and Cris Carter unretires I guess I'll have more to say about them.

Grant is not holding out...he is not under contract.And your Vikings bungled this up especially if they don't land Favre...Im sure Jackson feels great that his coach and OC were out talking to ol #4.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Edit to add: I see both sides being at fault, but I just can't see how Favre is more at fault. In fact, when he said that TT told him he would only be a backup when he first called him a couple of weeks ago, I think most people here thought Favre was lying. Some have even said that and said he has lied or exaggerated other statements. But now Thompson pretty much admits that Favre can only be a backup. Which makes me lean toward Favre not lying quite as much as people think.

So why is everyone so mad at Favre instead of Thompson?

Because Favre forced TT into this with his own actions and waffling long ago?Where TT had to start to prepare for when Favre was around.

Then Favre did retire...then almost unretired by decided to stay retired...at that point...the team Had to move on. Its Thompson and several other people in that organization's opinion that once they moved on, there was no turning back.

I think some people have said that there has not been a single direct quote from TT until most recently...and even still Favre's accounts of some of these conversations do not go exactly the same as Thompson's accounts of those conversations.

Because Favre is the one who forced the issue here...Thompson is working with what was given and with what was around most all of the offseason.

You're saying he is forcing the issue because he wants to play again? He has every right to play again. He is under contract with the Packers, right?

Im saying he forced this issue with years of uncertainty of when he would actually retire.Im saying he forced this by actually retiring.

Im saying he forced this by telling the Packers not long after the retirement that he was ready to return...only to then decide again to stay retired.

Im saying he forced this by again telling Thompson in May that he was staying retired.

Dude. You were the one touting the "fact" that only once in the past 3 years prior to this season had Favre taken any extra time deciding. Now you're willing to admit that he's forced the issue with "years of uncertainty"? You really want to paint me a certain way, but all I see coming out of your posts is hypocrisy concerning the way you've felt about Mr. Brett Favre ever since he's come out and asked for his release.

Uncertainty as in not knowing at the end of each year when it will be his last. It has nothing to do with length of time he took or did not take to make his decision.The point being...after him considering it so many times...the Packers had to begin to prepare for the day when he was gone...now they are blasted for doing so.

There is no hypocrisy.

Im not blaming Favre for taking so much time any year in making his decision.

Im saying his discussing it each year has led to them having to prepare for life when he was gone.

Then he retired...and re-affirmed that at least 2 more times after his retirement speech. The team was forced to act.

But I don't expect you would understand that. You will instead spin things around again as much as you can. You are all too predictable which is not shocking for a Vikings fan who discusses the Packers far more than even his own team.

When Adrian Peterson holds out and Cris Carter unretires I guess I'll have more to say about them.

Grant is not holding out...he is not under contract.And your Vikings bungled this up especially if they don't land Favre...Im sure Jackson feels great that his coach and OC were out talking to ol #4.

Don't you dare start talking about my starting Quarterback that way.

 

[sho nuff]

I don't know what you're going on about. Young means inexperienced. Subtract Favre and throw in Rodgers only adds fuel to that fire. So they've got two extra postseason games under their belt now? They don't have Favre, and that's what got them there.

No...young is a measure of age.Some players...even at a young age...have actually gotten real playing time in this league. Like many of the Packers over the past 2-3 years.The Oline is young...but hardly inexperienced.Like I said...you have spun it to try and argue...but have nothing to back your claims.Favre is a big reason why they got where they did.As is the play of the WRs who were great after the catch, the play of the defense that kept them in many games, the play of the Oline down the stretch paving the way for..., the play of Ryan Grant, and very good coaching.There was no one man or one reason they got where they did.You should stop before you dig yourself in more of a hole (AGAIN).

You mean like the hole I dug myself back in April when I tried convincing everyone they were attacking Favre for being an attention whore for no reason? Or the time I tried to convince everyone Favre didn't mean anything when he went on Letterman and uttered those famous words "Something's bound to happen?" Or like the hole I dug myself in early July when I tried to tell people to deal in facts not rumors about his unretirement? That was a pretty deep hole I dug myself into there. If I keep digging, denying and deflecting maybe I will just come out the other side and I can turn my back on Favre and pretend none of that ever happened.

You have been denying quite a bit...you should work on that.You think this was all Favre predicting this on Letterman? Really?I don't think Favre has been an attention whore way back in April.I still don't think he is.Yes...the hole you dug yourself in when you took everything said about Favre as fact even though several of those things were, in fact, rumors.

 

[ScottyFargo]

You have been denying quite a bit...you should work on that.You think this was all Favre predicting this on Letterman? Really?I don't think Favre has been an attention whore way back in April.I still don't think he is.Yes...the hole you dug yourself in when you took everything said about Favre as fact even though several of those things were, in fact, rumors.

 

[Bizkiteer]

They should bring Favre in and make him fetch Gatorade for everyone during practice. Stuff like that, when he starts to not do it because he's too good for that...they can suspend him for various reasons of their choosing. Brett!

They don't want to tarnish his legacy.

All is fair in love and war. Favre doesn't seem to care what they think or how the organization is perceived, so why should they worry?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Edit to add: I see both sides being at fault, but I just can't see how Favre is more at fault. In fact, when he said that TT told him he would only be a backup when he first called him a couple of weeks ago, I think most people here thought Favre was lying. Some have even said that and said he has lied or exaggerated other statements. But now Thompson pretty much admits that Favre can only be a backup. Which makes me lean toward Favre not lying quite as much as people think. So why is everyone so mad at Favre instead of Thompson?

Because Favre forced TT into this with his own actions and waffling long ago?Where TT had to start to prepare for when Favre was around.Then Favre did retire...then almost unretired by decided to stay retired...at that point...the team Had to move on. Its Thompson and several other people in that organization's opinion that once they moved on, there was no turning back.I think some people have said that there has not been a single direct quote from TT until most recently...and even still Favre's accounts of some of these conversations do not go exactly the same as Thompson's accounts of those conversations.Because Favre is the one who forced the issue here...Thompson is working with what was given and with what was around most all of the offseason.

You're saying he is forcing the issue because he wants to play again? He has every right to play again. He is under contract with the Packers, right?

Im saying he forced this issue with years of uncertainty of when he would actually retire.Im saying he forced this by actually retiring.Im saying he forced this by telling the Packers not long after the retirement that he was ready to return...only to then decide again to stay retired.Im saying he forced this by again telling Thompson in May that he was staying retired.

Maybe he's just a woman?

Thats one ugly woman then.

"I would have double bagged it"

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

seems to me that favre holds the cards.

favre- "i want to play again"

packers- "sorry, rodgers is our qb now"

favre- "ok, then please release me"

packers- "no"

favre- "ok, then i'll show up and you can pay me $12 million to be the backup"

packers-

Packers- Brett you are now the 3rd string qb who will be inactive every gameFavre- I'm coming home Deanna if you want to pay me $12 million to be inactive every game...

like i said, favre holds the cards here. the packers are not going to pay $12 million for the privilege of having that huge distraction all season.

All 52 of them. TT is the joker.

 

[sho nuff]

You have been denying quite a bit...you should work on that.You think this was all Favre predicting this on Letterman? Really?I don't think Favre has been an attention whore way back in April.I still don't think he is.Yes...the hole you dug yourself in when you took everything said about Favre as fact even though several of those things were, in fact, rumors.

See...denial on your part.Maybe you can start by providing a link to backup your claim that the Packers are the most inexperienced team in the league for us...

 

[ScottyFargo]

You have been denying quite a bit...you should work on that.

You think this was all Favre predicting this on Letterman? Really?

I don't think Favre has been an attention whore way back in April.

I still don't think he is.

Yes...the hole you dug yourself in when you took everything said about Favre as fact even though several of those things were, in fact, rumors.

See...denial on your part.Maybe you can start by providing a link to backup your claim that the Packers are the most inexperienced team in the league for us...

All the rumors became fact. I tried to warn you you were backing the wrong horse, and I am paid back with venom, in spite of the fact that you now, hypocritically, do in fact find the same faults in Favre that we've all been talking about for months, if not years.

Packers await Dallas Cowboys-Giants winner

02:57 AM CST on Sunday, January 13, 2008

GREEN BAY, Wis. – Talent wasn't a concern for the Green Bay Packers heading into the postseason.

The lack of experience was.

The Packers had the talent in 2007 to win 13 games and the NFC North. That talent delivered a first-round bye and a home playoff game against the Seattle Seahawks.

But that talent was inexperienced. The Packers have the youngest roster in the NFL. Twenty-six players on the playoff roster have spent two seasons in the NFL or less and were making their postseason debuts.

Link, Cite, Source, Rumor

IGNORANCE PAYS OFF FOR YOUNG PACKERS

By JAY GREENBERG

January 14, 2008

"GREEN BAY, Wis. - Perhaps the reason why a team with 10 key first-year players was able to overcome a fast two-touchdown deficit was that only the Packers' 17-year veteran realized how much trouble they were in. "

"And for all the Packers' inexperience, they had the most experienced guy on the field at the most critical position. Favre was 18-for-23 with three touchdown passes and no interceptions."

More Everybody's an offseason older now than they were then.

How many vets have Green Bay picked up since then? How many have they lost?

Any big named vets that saved their seasons last year retire, unretire and then ask for his / her release? Got a Vet QB on the roster who isn't asking for his release?

Have you apologized to Chris Mortenson yet?

 

[ScottyFargo]

As if any of this media attention or pressure or watchful eyes on every Rodgers pass will change no matter what happens.

If Favre stayed retired...each Rodgers pass would be analyzed and some might call for Brett at the first sign of trouble.

If Favre is the backup...each Rodgers pass would be analyzed and some might call for Brett at the first sign of trouble.

If Favre is traded or released...each Rodgers pass would be analyzed and some might call for Brett at the first sign of trouble.

Its already a circus...nothing at this point is going to change that.

Murphy Flies to Mississippi to ask Favre to stay home

MURPHY HEADING TO MISSISSIPPI TO TALK FAVRE OUT OF SHOWING UP

Posted by Mike Florio on July 29, 2008, 11:19 p.m. EDT

New Packers president Mark Murphy, who might want to renegotiate his compensation package given the events of the past few weeks, is putting in some overtime in the Brett Favre fiasco.

Specifically, Murphy is flying to Mississippi in a last-ditch attempt to persuade Favre not to report to Packers training camp, according to the Green Bay Press-Gazette.

Murphy will meet with Favre and agent Bus Cook on Wednesday morning.

“They’re asking him not to come up there,” a source tells the Press-Gazette. “They don’t want him up there.”

But what can they offer him to keep him away? Nothing, other than his unconditional release. And our guess is that Favre and Cook will push Murphy hard for an outright release — especially since Murphy’s personal visit to Mississippi is proof positive that the Packers are on the ropes on this one.

Now why would he do that when we all know that Favre being in Green Bay would not cause any extra scrutiny?

 

[trader jake]

sho nuff vs. ScottyFargo

FBG's version of Brett Favre vs. Ted Thompson

Grudge Match!!!

 

[Ghost Rider]

It's pretty obvious that the Packers want to keep Favre out of camp long enough to where no team (that they would actually trade with) will want to trade for him because of how much he would have to learn in a short time before the season, and if that happens, they figure Favre will just stay retired. At this point, Favre should just say, "Release me, or I am coming to camp."

 

[NoFBinLA]

As if any of this media attention or pressure or watchful eyes on every Rodgers pass will change no matter what happens.

If Favre stayed retired...each Rodgers pass would be analyzed and some might call for Brett at the first sign of trouble.

If Favre is the backup...each Rodgers pass would be analyzed and some might call for Brett at the first sign of trouble.

If Favre is traded or released...each Rodgers pass would be analyzed and some might call for Brett at the first sign of trouble.

Its already a circus...nothing at this point is going to change that.

Murphy Flies to Mississippi to ask Favre to stay home

MURPHY HEADING TO MISSISSIPPI TO TALK FAVRE OUT OF SHOWING UP

Posted by Mike Florio on July 29, 2008, 11:19 p.m. EDT

New Packers president Mark Murphy, who might want to renegotiate his compensation package given the events of the past few weeks, is putting in some overtime in the Brett Favre fiasco.

Specifically, Murphy is flying to Mississippi in a last-ditch attempt to persuade Favre not to report to Packers training camp, according to the Green Bay Press-Gazette.

Murphy will meet with Favre and agent Bus Cook on Wednesday morning.

“They’re asking him not to come up there,” a source tells the Press-Gazette. “They don’t want him up there.”

But what can they offer him to keep him away? Nothing, other than his unconditional release. And our guess is that Favre and Cook will push Murphy hard for an outright release — especially since Murphy’s personal visit to Mississippi is proof positive that the Packers are on the ropes on this one.

Now why would he do that when we all know that Favre being in Green Bay would not cause any extra scrutiny?

Releasing Favre would be just about the dumbest thing they could do. He would get torn apart when Minny beat them this year not once but twice - if he lasted THAT long.Maybe he's going to talk him into a trade or talk to him about trade possibilities.

I dunno if anything would stun me anymore though....

 

[ScottyFargo]

sho nuff vs. ScottyFargoFBG's version of Brett Favre vs. Ted Thompson Grudge Match!!!

I don't condone violence of any kind!

 

[massraider]

Murphy heads south, asking Favre to stay home

The Green Bay Packers on Tuesday night sent team president and CEO Mark Murphy on a private plane to visit Brett Favre in Mississippi in an attempt to persuade the quarterback to stay home rather than report to training camp this week.

Advertisement

A source told the Press-Gazette that Murphy will meet Wednesday morning with Favre and his agent, Bus Cook, at Cook’s law office in Hattiesburg, Miss.

“They’re asking him not to come up there,” the source said. “They don’t want him up there.”

Favre faxed the NFL on Tuesday requesting reinstatement, and an NFL spokesman said Commissioner Roger Goodell won’t act on the request until Wednesday. Goodell apparently wanted to give the sides another day to come to some sort of agreement before reinstating Favre.

Packers General Manager Ted Thompson by all appearances has wanted Favre to stay retired, but Favre’s strong desire to return to the NFL has forced Thompson’s hand.

If Favre reports, Thompson faces only options that he has to consider undesirable, and Murphy’s visit to Favre is an attempt to help Thompson avoid that.

It’s unclear what Murphy can do or offer to entice Favre to not show up. One possibility is persuading him to wait for an attractive starting job to open in the NFL because of an injury. However, if Favre wants to play badly enough, he might be unwilling to wait to get on the field.

If Murphy’s mission fails, Thompson will have to determine the least objectionable course for handling the quarterback’s return to the NFL.

Perhaps that would be to do nothing and have Favre ride the Packers’ bench as Aaron Rodgers’ insanely expensive backup. The $12 million cost alone would have to appall the budget-conscious Thompson. Also, the Packers' training camp would become a soap opera and bring an unrivaled level of scrutiny and second-guessing to Thompson's and coach Mike McCarthy’s adamant stance that the starting quarterback job isn’t open for competition.

Perhaps it’s trading Favre for next to nothing to a team outside the NFC North Division, keeping in mind they need him to accept the club for the deal to go through.

Perhaps it’s doing the previously unthinkable and trading him to a team that probably would give the greatest value, the Minnesota Vikings or the Chicago Bears, even though both are bitter NFC North rivals and the Vikings are a possible Super Bowl contender.

Perhaps it’s even a less thinkable option to cut Favre, which would allow him to sign with the Vikings without the Packers getting anything in return.

Thompson didn’t return a phone message on Tuesday, but the Packers appear to be bracing for Favre to return to their roster, at least for the short term.

“What’s happened here in the last week, 10 days, whenever we jumped into this fray, it really doesn’t factor in us changing our direction (with Rodgers at quarterback),” coach Mike McCarthy said after Tuesday's practice. “This is all part of a football team and an organization setting a direction, and we’re moving forward. If Brett Favre reinstates, then he’ll be part of the plan for the future of this football team. It’s as simple as that.”

An NFL spokesman said the league received Favre’s reinstatement request at 4 p.m. CDT and Goodell did not act on it Tuesday.

Since Thompson has ruled out releasing Favre, and there were no signs he was anywhere near trading the quarterback, there’s a real possibility Favre will end up on the Packers’ 80-man roster despite the increasing bitterness of his rift with Thompson.

“We’ve got to open up a (roster) spot, so we have to figure out who it’s going to be,” said Reggie McKenzie, the Packers’ director-football operations.

Whether this leads to Favre actually taking the Packers’ practice field, and setting off a potentially chaotic scene at training camp, remains to be seen. The Packers have tried to avoid that, because if Favre eventually is taking snaps in a practice setting, the Packers’ workouts almost surely will draw crowds two or three times the size so far in camp. Just as surely, some fans will be openly rooting for or against Favre and Rodgers.

“It’s going to be an interesting situation,” receiver Greg Jennings said.

McCarthy said he hasn’t talked to Favre but will as soon as the commissioner reinstates him. He said the two will work out a preliminary plan for his return to practice.

Assuming Favre ends up on the Packers’ roster in the next day or two, he will undergo a physical examination and running test that all players perform before the start of camp. If he passes both, he’ll be ready for the practice field.

It’s not clear when Favre would travel to Green Bay, but considering he won’t be reinstated until Wednesday and the team doesn’t have practice Thursday, then it appears the earliest he could possibly practice is Friday, when the Packers have two practices. Favre has been working out on his own and throwing to players on a high school team in Hattiesburg, Miss., so he probably will be in good shape.

“Physically, I don’t expect anything different to be honest with you,” McKenzie said. “I do expect more determination. The fire in his eyes will probably be a little bit more.”

If Favre eventually takes the Packers’ practice field, McCarthy will determine his role in workouts. He and Thompson have made clear Rodgers is their starter and will get the majority of snaps at practice, so iRodgers’ workload won’t lessen. Favre perhaps could push rookies Brian Brohm and Matt Flynn to Nos. 3 and 4 on the depth chart, but the Packers also could keep Favre from getting many, if any, snaps.

Because Favre missed the start of camp, McCarthy might limit him to individual and small-group drills for a day or two. But if Favre isn’t traded or released quickly, McCarthy will have to decide how many snaps to give him in each drill behind Rodgers.

“Brett Favre is still a very good football player,” McCarthy said. “He is an asset to our football team. Once again, I'm going to answer this question for the last time. The plan for Brett Favre will be discussed with Brett Favre first, and then we'll make it aware to the public.”

The question is whether it ever will get to the point where Favre is wearing a Packers helmet again, and if so, is there much chance the Packers could open the regular season with Rodgers as their starter and Favre as his backup?

As it was with Favre retired, Rodgers faced a daunting task as successor to one of the NFL’s all-time great quarterbacks. But to go a season, or even part of a season, with Favre on the bench would add enormous pressure and scrutiny to an already difficult endeavor.

Rodgers, though, doesn’t see it getting to that point.

“From what I’ve heard, I’d be surprised if he wanted to be here as a backup the entire season,” Rodgers said after practice Tuesday.

Rodgers has maintained an even-keeled air through the first two days of camp as Favre’s possible return has dominated the news around the team. He’s had the full backing of McCarthy and Thompson as the starter.

“I’m not as affected as you guys think I am or should be (by Favre’s possible arrival),” Rodgers said. “They told me I’m the starter and until that changes that’s going to be my focus.”

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/p...1/80729136/1978

 

[ScottyFargo]

Murphy heads south, asking Favre to stay home

The Green Bay Packers on Tuesday night sent team president and CEO Mark Murphy on a private plane to visit Brett Favre in Mississippi in an attempt to persuade the quarterback to stay home rather than report to training camp this week.

Advertisement

A source told the Press-Gazette that Murphy will meet Wednesday morning with Favre and his agent, Bus Cook, at Cook’s law office in Hattiesburg, Miss.

“They’re asking him not to come up there,” the source said. “They don’t want him up there.”

Favre faxed the NFL on Tuesday requesting reinstatement, and an NFL spokesman said Commissioner Roger Goodell won’t act on the request until Wednesday. Goodell apparently wanted to give the sides another day to come to some sort of agreement before reinstating Favre.

...

If Favre eventually takes the Packers’ practice field, McCarthy will determine his role in workouts. He and Thompson have made clear Rodgers is their starter and will get the majority of snaps at practice, so iRodgers’ workload won’t lessen. Favre perhaps could push rookies Brian Brohm and Matt Flynn to Nos. 3 and 4 on the depth chart, but the Packers also could keep Favre from getting many, if any, snaps.

Because Favre missed the start of camp, McCarthy might limit him to individual and small-group drills for a day or two. But if Favre isn’t traded or released quickly, McCarthy will have to decide how many snaps to give him in each drill behind Rodgers.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/p...1/80729136/1978

The Packers are extremely desperate. If they sent Murphy down to plead with Favre to not come after TT begged him to stay home this weekend, Favre can only be so far away from getting the release he wants. They really must want to avoid having him at camp.

 

[massraider]

The Packers are extremely desperate. If they sent Murphy down to plead with Favre to not come after TT begged him to stay home this weekend, Favre can only be so far away from getting the release he wants. They really must want to avoid having him at camp.

That's what it sounds like to me.At some point, the Pack is going to figure out that they can't have their cake and eat it too, they are going to have to release him at some point. Unless they trade him, but I think Favre knows they don't want him there on opening day. I think if he sticks to his guns, they will eventually cut him, or trade him where he wants to go. No way do they want to have him at camp all August, and guarantee his salary by having him on the opening day roster.

 

[ScottyFargo]

The Packers are extremely desperate. If they sent Murphy down to plead with Favre to not come after TT begged him to stay home this weekend, Favre can only be so far away from getting the release he wants. They really must want to avoid having him at camp.

That's what it sounds like to me.At some point, the Pack is going to figure out that they can't have their cake and eat it too, they are going to have to release him at some point. Unless they trade him, but I think Favre knows they don't want him there on opening day. I think if he sticks to his guns, they will eventually cut him, or trade him where he wants to go. No way do they want to have him at camp all August, and guarantee his salary by having him on the opening day roster.

Adam Schefter goes insane on NFL Live; Rich Eisen discusses "possible" Packer - Viking TradeSo good I had to watch it twice.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

The Packers are extremely desperate. If they sent Murphy down to plead with Favre to not come after TT begged him to stay home this weekend, Favre can only be so far away from getting the release he wants. They really must want to avoid having him at camp.

That's what it sounds like to me.At some point, the Pack is going to figure out that they can't have their cake and eat it too, they are going to have to release him at some point. Unless they trade him, but I think Favre knows they don't want him there on opening day. I think if he sticks to his guns, they will eventually cut him, or trade him where he wants to go. No way do they want to have him at camp all August, and guarantee his salary by having him on the opening day roster.

i think the Pack know that they are gonna have to release Favre. They're just stalling as long as possible to make it difficult for a team to bring him in. I cant see a playoff caliber team bringing in a new starting QB halfway through exhibition season.Then again, maybe they are desperate. Either way, this is the best exhibition season ever....and its probably only going to get better