Farve to Report this Weekend (1 Viewer)

[sho nuff]

Favre and Thompson don't like each other. Period. It's pretty clear Favre does not want to play for Green Bay. Period. If you read this situation any other way, you're missing the venom he's spewing at the front office.

Yes, he should play if he wants to. The problem is he isn't donig this just because he wants to play. He's doing it because he wants to play, but just not for Green Bay.

And he's going about it in a such way that spares his reputation as he attempts to put the blame squarely on Green Bay.

Once again, don't let the good ol' boy pull one over on you.

Much of that dislike seems to be Favre's issue with how Thompson runs the team.And no...he should not just be given anything just because he wants to play.

He does not just want to play either...as he is refusing to give the Packers a list of teams he would approve of being traded to and refused to talk to any of the teams GB has mentioned.

So far, he is going about it in a way that many see through and is hurting his reputation far more than it is really hurting the franchise.

Well, he SHOULD be given his spot on the team since he is UNDER CONTRACT. And if he isn't asking to be traded and we know the Packers cannot release him, then perhaps he is comfortable being the best backup QB in the NFL? If that is the case, Packers should welcome him back with open arms, yes? Hugs and kisses?

Where has he not been given a spot on the roster?His papers have yet to be approved.

Murphy isn't waiting for him in Green Bay, unless he flew out to pick him up, eh?

You have no clue exactly why Murphy is there.

 

[sho nuff]

I bet the Packers' "plan" for Favre in camp is not that he gets to work out with the second team even.That whole "he can be a backup" and "he can be part of the team" is now shown to be false as far as I can tell, to shift balme to Favre. Otherwise, why are they trying so hard to prevent him from caoming to camp?

Again...you are only taking Favre's word as far as them preventing him from coming to camp.According to Thompson...it was Favre who offered to stay away while they worked on trying to resolved this/trade him.And from several accounts in the journal sentinel, Rodgers would continue to get about 50% of the snaps and the rest would be split between Favre and Brohm and Flynn some...with Flynn most likely released or kept to be on the practice squad later.

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

Wow. Just wow.

Things like that are tough to see when your head is completely surrounded by sand.

That and they are often misinterpreted as appears to be the case with Chachi.I think he must have watched "The Negotiator" too many times.

 

[sho nuff]

I, as a True Packer fan, will back whomever the future GB QB is going to be. I just can't bring myself to believe that Favre does not give the best chance at a super bowl. I personally think Rodgers is more of whiner than Favre. Has everyone forgotten the "Get on Board" comments? He is not proven and Favre has come out and has asked to compete for the starting job although he does not believe he should have too. The only one that gets the shaft in this whole deal will be Rodgers anyway. I also brought myself to the reality that the legend was over and a new era was starting, but if the guys wants to come back let him! He has earned it and if he can compete and win the nod I say start him.

Why this isn't every Packer fan's point of view is beyond me.

Because Rodgers has yet to show he is a whiner.His get on board comment was out of frustration and dumb to say for sure.But Rodgers has handled this better than I could possibly have imagined he would have.

He is following a script, nothing more. When Michael Vick comes back and answers all the questions right, I'll dish out some credit, that might actually take some cajones to stand up there and listen to the questions. How hard is it really when you hear in the media "Oh, that poor Aaron Rodgers, this is so unfair" all the time. What he's doing is acting and it's a script he didn't even write, ok, he's a good actor. Now when Vick stands up there and people start thinking this guy has changed and deserves a chance, that will really be something. He has had 2 major injuries in a backup role already, man of steel. When he goes out for the season in week 2 I guess people will turn on him once again. Even if he's healthy I seen enough of him at Cal and was not surprised his stock fell during the draft, this guy has bust written all over him. When he does get hurt in week 2 and Brohm comes in and stinks it up you can bet the three most common words in Green Bay will be "Fire Ted Thompson".

I saw him at Cal too...shredding a USC defense that was damn good.Keep up your posts though...they are amusing.

Keep up your posts, Ted Thompson may call you and ask you out on a date. Your posts are even more amusing.

Your sig line is quite fitting for your posts.And no...Ted might not like my words for him about how he is handling the Ryan Grant situation.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

I bet the Packers' "plan" for Favre in camp is not that he gets to work out with the second team even.That whole "he can be a backup" and "he can be part of the team" is now shown to be false as far as I can tell, to shift balme to Favre. Otherwise, why are they trying so hard to prevent him from caoming to camp?

Again...you are only taking Favre's word as far as them preventing him from coming to camp.According to Thompson...it was Favre who offered to stay away while they worked on trying to resolved this/trade him.And from several accounts in the journal sentinel, Rodgers would continue to get about 50% of the snaps and the rest would be split between Favre and Brohm and Flynn some...with Flynn most likely released or kept to be on the practice squad later.

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

Wow. Just wow.

I hope you're saying WOW because you researched it and now realize Thompson is a liar. I'm not saying anything earth shattering here. It's about as hard to understand as if I was to say that sexual predators once released from jail are likely to reoffend, hope that's not a shock to you, oh yeah, the sun rises in the East, Trust me.

Nothing but rumors. If it gives Brett a free pass to say that, same goes here.

 

[sho nuff]

But here's the problem if Favre is on the Packers roster he IS the starter. The Packers want to move on I think that much is clear. I think Thompson is in a no win situation I can't see any way this works out in his favor. With Favre's papers in the NFL offices and his reinstatement coming some time today we will see how this all plays out.....I would be great if the pack and Favre can work something out that works for both of them...but I think the only thing that works for the Pack is Favre riding off into the sunset......which again I don't understand because Favre give them the best chance to win.

To win what, double digit wins during the season just to blow it in the playoffs? So where are the Packers next year? No better off than they are today. Sounds like a great plan for an NFL franchise. The old man is not capable of winning another SB.

Stop acting like Favre is the only reason they lost that game. Just ridiculous. I'm sure it had nothing to do with blown coverages or that they only were able to rush Ryan Grant 13 times for 29 yards. Favre was the only reason they made it to overtime.

The teams inexperience alllowed them to survive a deep deficit against the Seahawks because they simply didn't know how bad off they were. Their inexperience probably had something to do with how they performed against the Giants, only Favre was unable to pull their fat out of the fire that week like he had against the Seahawks. But to place the blame on Favre solely is silly.

I don't blame Favre solely for the Giants game...nor do I give him all that credit for the Seahawks game.The Oline dominated that game.

How'd the Oline perform against the Giants? I am not fishing here, I promise. I watched the game I just don't remember sacks, but it sounded like Grant had more trouble. I know the Giants D-line was the strongest part about their play last year and what ultimately helped them beat the Pats.

PRetty good in the pass protection...but poorly in run blocking. Some of the consistency issues they really had all year.

 

[Chachi]

I bet the Packers' "plan" for Favre in camp is not that he gets to work out with the second team even.That whole "he can be a backup" and "he can be part of the team" is now shown to be false as far as I can tell, to shift balme to Favre. Otherwise, why are they trying so hard to prevent him from caoming to camp?

Again...you are only taking Favre's word as far as them preventing him from coming to camp.According to Thompson...it was Favre who offered to stay away while they worked on trying to resolved this/trade him.And from several accounts in the journal sentinel, Rodgers would continue to get about 50% of the snaps and the rest would be split between Favre and Brohm and Flynn some...with Flynn most likely released or kept to be on the practice squad later.

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

Which way did he look after looking down?Also...part of learning body language...as an auditor I have taken many classes on this.Up and right you are accessing the creative portions of your brain...meaning you are probably lying and making something up.Up and left, you are accessing the memory functions and are probably telling the truth.If they look straight to the left, they are remembering something they actually said...down and right they are remembering something they actually heard.If they look right...they probably making something up.Down and right they are probably giving personal feelings.So no...looking down is no sole indicator of any lies or untruthfulness.The only research I needed was finding my training manual from the class I took earlier this year.

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

 

[AnonymousBob]

This thread, much like this Favre/Packer situation, has turned into a

 

[Phurfur]

I, as a True Packer fan, will back whomever the future GB QB is going to be. I just can't bring myself to believe that Favre does not give the best chance at a super bowl. I personally think Rodgers is more of whiner than Favre. Has everyone forgotten the "Get on Board" comments? He is not proven and Favre has come out and has asked to compete for the starting job although he does not believe he should have too. The only one that gets the shaft in this whole deal will be Rodgers anyway. I also brought myself to the reality that the legend was over and a new era was starting, but if the guys wants to come back let him! He has earned it and if he can compete and win the nod I say start him.

Why this isn't every Packer fan's point of view is beyond me.

Because Rodgers has yet to show he is a whiner.His get on board comment was out of frustration and dumb to say for sure.But Rodgers has handled this better than I could possibly have imagined he would have.

He is following a script, nothing more. When Michael Vick comes back and answers all the questions right, I'll dish out some credit, that might actually take some cajones to stand up there and listen to the questions. How hard is it really when you hear in the media "Oh, that poor Aaron Rodgers, this is so unfair" all the time. What he's doing is acting and it's a script he didn't even write, ok, he's a good actor. Now when Vick stands up there and people start thinking this guy has changed and deserves a chance, that will really be something. He has had 2 major injuries in a backup role already, man of steel. When he goes out for the season in week 2 I guess people will turn on him once again. Even if he's healthy I seen enough of him at Cal and was not surprised his stock fell during the draft, this guy has bust written all over him. When he does get hurt in week 2 and Brohm comes in and stinks it up you can bet the three most common words in Green Bay will be "Fire Ted Thompson".

I saw him at Cal too...shredding a USC defense that was damn good.Keep up your posts though...they are amusing.

Keep up your posts, Ted Thompson may call you and ask you out on a date. Your posts are even more amusing.

Maybe they can double with you and Favre. Wa! Wa! Wa!

 

[sho nuff]

On the whole eye thing...

Chachi...I am going to have to ask you why you think he looked down?

As I am watching the clip on the Packers website now...and when he mentions that Favre stated he was going to delay coming...his eyes were forward to the crowd.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

I bet the Packers' "plan" for Favre in camp is not that he gets to work out with the second team even.That whole "he can be a backup" and "he can be part of the team" is now shown to be false as far as I can tell, to shift balme to Favre. Otherwise, why are they trying so hard to prevent him from caoming to camp?

Again...you are only taking Favre's word as far as them preventing him from coming to camp.According to Thompson...it was Favre who offered to stay away while they worked on trying to resolved this/trade him.And from several accounts in the journal sentinel, Rodgers would continue to get about 50% of the snaps and the rest would be split between Favre and Brohm and Flynn some...with Flynn most likely released or kept to be on the practice squad later.

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

Which way did he look after looking down?Also...part of learning body language...as an auditor I have taken many classes on this.Up and right you are accessing the creative portions of your brain...meaning you are probably lying and making something up.Up and left, you are accessing the memory functions and are probably telling the truth.If they look straight to the left, they are remembering something they actually said...down and right they are remembering something they actually heard.If they look right...they probably making something up.Down and right they are probably giving personal feelings.So no...looking down is no sole indicator of any lies or untruthfulness.The only research I needed was finding my training manual from the class I took earlier this year.

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

You totally remind me of this:Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You've made your decision then? Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?

 

[sho nuff]

I bet the Packers' "plan" for Favre in camp is not that he gets to work out with the second team even.That whole "he can be a backup" and "he can be part of the team" is now shown to be false as far as I can tell, to shift balme to Favre. Otherwise, why are they trying so hard to prevent him from caoming to camp?

Again...you are only taking Favre's word as far as them preventing him from coming to camp.According to Thompson...it was Favre who offered to stay away while they worked on trying to resolved this/trade him.And from several accounts in the journal sentinel, Rodgers would continue to get about 50% of the snaps and the rest would be split between Favre and Brohm and Flynn some...with Flynn most likely released or kept to be on the practice squad later.

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

Which way did he look after looking down?Also...part of learning body language...as an auditor I have taken many classes on this.Up and right you are accessing the creative portions of your brain...meaning you are probably lying and making something up.Up and left, you are accessing the memory functions and are probably telling the truth.If they look straight to the left, they are remembering something they actually said...down and right they are remembering something they actually heard.If they look right...they probably making something up.Down and right they are probably giving personal feelings.So no...looking down is no sole indicator of any lies or untruthfulness.The only research I needed was finding my training manual from the class I took earlier this year.

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

I just did and posted on it...he was looking forward at the press.Your backtracking and what appears to be a downright lie is laughable.I simply posted the factual statements about eye movement and what they may mean.They are again an inexact science even for people who know what they are doing...you do not appear to know what you are doing when it comes to watching behavioral patterns.

 

[Chachi]

I, as a True Packer fan, will back whomever the future GB QB is going to be. I just can't bring myself to believe that Favre does not give the best chance at a super bowl. I personally think Rodgers is more of whiner than Favre. Has everyone forgotten the "Get on Board" comments? He is not proven and Favre has come out and has asked to compete for the starting job although he does not believe he should have too. The only one that gets the shaft in this whole deal will be Rodgers anyway. I also brought myself to the reality that the legend was over and a new era was starting, but if the guys wants to come back let him! He has earned it and if he can compete and win the nod I say start him.

Why this isn't every Packer fan's point of view is beyond me.

Because Rodgers has yet to show he is a whiner.His get on board comment was out of frustration and dumb to say for sure.But Rodgers has handled this better than I could possibly have imagined he would have.

He is following a script, nothing more. When Michael Vick comes back and answers all the questions right, I'll dish out some credit, that might actually take some cajones to stand up there and listen to the questions. How hard is it really when you hear in the media "Oh, that poor Aaron Rodgers, this is so unfair" all the time. What he's doing is acting and it's a script he didn't even write, ok, he's a good actor. Now when Vick stands up there and people start thinking this guy has changed and deserves a chance, that will really be something. He has had 2 major injuries in a backup role already, man of steel. When he goes out for the season in week 2 I guess people will turn on him once again. Even if he's healthy I seen enough of him at Cal and was not surprised his stock fell during the draft, this guy has bust written all over him. When he does get hurt in week 2 and Brohm comes in and stinks it up you can bet the three most common words in Green Bay will be "Fire Ted Thompson".

I saw him at Cal too...shredding a USC defense that was damn good.Keep up your posts though...they are amusing.

Keep up your posts, Ted Thompson may call you and ask you out on a date. Your posts are even more amusing.

Maybe they can double with you and Favre. Wa! Wa! Wa!

Sit on it Phurfur.

 

[Chachi]

I bet the Packers' "plan" for Favre in camp is not that he gets to work out with the second team even.That whole "he can be a backup" and "he can be part of the team" is now shown to be false as far as I can tell, to shift balme to Favre. Otherwise, why are they trying so hard to prevent him from caoming to camp?

Again...you are only taking Favre's word as far as them preventing him from coming to camp.According to Thompson...it was Favre who offered to stay away while they worked on trying to resolved this/trade him.And from several accounts in the journal sentinel, Rodgers would continue to get about 50% of the snaps and the rest would be split between Favre and Brohm and Flynn some...with Flynn most likely released or kept to be on the practice squad later.

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

Which way did he look after looking down?Also...part of learning body language...as an auditor I have taken many classes on this.Up and right you are accessing the creative portions of your brain...meaning you are probably lying and making something up.Up and left, you are accessing the memory functions and are probably telling the truth.If they look straight to the left, they are remembering something they actually said...down and right they are remembering something they actually heard.If they look right...they probably making something up.Down and right they are probably giving personal feelings.So no...looking down is no sole indicator of any lies or untruthfulness.The only research I needed was finding my training manual from the class I took earlier this year.

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

I just did and posted on it...he was looking forward at the press.Your backtracking and what appears to be a downright lie is laughable.I simply posted the factual statements about eye movement and what they may mean.They are again an inexact science even for people who know what they are doing...you do not appear to know what you are doing when it comes to watching behavioral patterns.

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

 

[sho nuff]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Down and right they are probably giving personal feelings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should be easy for you.

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

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

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

 

[Phurfur]

You guys are all out of your league with this body language thing. Who do you think you are, Judge Judy?

 

[BigJim®]

Brett Favre has almost made up for all the years of disgust he's caused me with the retirement waffling. This is precious. Thanks Brett!

 

[Moe Green]

I, as a True Packer fan, will back whomever the future GB QB is going to be. I just can't bring myself to believe that Favre does not give the best chance at a super bowl. I personally think Rodgers is more of whiner than Favre. Has everyone forgotten the "Get on Board" comments? He is not proven and Favre has come out and has asked to compete for the starting job although he does not believe he should have too. The only one that gets the shaft in this whole deal will be Rodgers anyway. I also brought myself to the reality that the legend was over and a new era was starting, but if the guys wants to come back let him! He has earned it and if he can compete and win the nod I say start him.

Why this isn't every Packer fan's point of view is beyond me.

Because Rodgers has yet to show he is a whiner.His get on board comment was out of frustration and dumb to say for sure.But Rodgers has handled this better than I could possibly have imagined he would have.

He is following a script, nothing more. When Michael Vick comes back and answers all the questions right, I'll dish out some credit, that might actually take some cajones to stand up there and listen to the questions. How hard is it really when you hear in the media "Oh, that poor Aaron Rodgers, this is so unfair" all the time. What he's doing is acting and it's a script he didn't even write, ok, he's a good actor. Now when Vick stands up there and people start thinking this guy has changed and deserves a chance, that will really be something. He has had 2 major injuries in a backup role already, man of steel. When he goes out for the season in week 2 I guess people will turn on him once again. Even if he's healthy I seen enough of him at Cal and was not surprised his stock fell during the draft, this guy has bust written all over him. When he does get hurt in week 2 and Brohm comes in and stinks it up you can bet the three most common words in Green Bay will be "Fire Ted Thompson".

I saw him at Cal too...shredding a USC defense that was damn good.Keep up your posts though...they are amusing.

Keep up your posts, Ted Thompson may call you and ask you out on a date. Your posts are even more amusing.

Maybe they can double with you and Favre. Wa! Wa! Wa!

 

[Phurfur]

Brett Favre has almost made up for all the years of disgust he's caused me with the retirement waffling. This is precious. Thanks Brett!

Me too and I'm a Packer Fan.

 

[Moe Green]

You guys are all out of your league with this body language thing. Who do you think you are, Judge Judy?

Tonya Reiman?

 

[sho nuff]

You guys are all out of your league with this body language thing. Who do you think you are, Judge Judy?

One person is out of his league (the one that keeps backtracking and is unwilling to provide video).The other does some of that for a living and knows what he is talking about. He picked on topic that I actually have a pretty good grasp of.It appears he is willing to continue this mistake and keep going with it though.

 

[jurrassic]

I, as a True Packer fan, will back whomever the future GB QB is going to be. I just can't bring myself to believe that Favre does not give the best chance at a super bowl. I personally think Rodgers is more of whiner than Favre. Has everyone forgotten the "Get on Board" comments? He is not proven and Favre has come out and has asked to compete for the starting job although he does not believe he should have too. The only one that gets the shaft in this whole deal will be Rodgers anyway. I also brought myself to the reality that the legend was over and a new era was starting, but if the guys wants to come back let him! He has earned it and if he can compete and win the nod I say start him.

Why this isn't every Packer fan's point of view is beyond me.

This was my position 2 months. Favre has burned way to many bridges to come into camp. The guy has repeatedly bashed his boss. He can't be in camp with such an impressionable young team. Favre has repeatedly complained about Thompson's approach to building the team (which has been incredibly successful). I don't view Rodgers as a whiner at all. I think the guy is incredibly frustrated. His "Get on Board" comment was strictly an either your with me or against me point. If you are fan of the name on the front of the jersey you will support the guy. People everywhere are bashing him, and he hasn't even really had a chance to get on the field and show what he can. The organization gave him the job. The organization decided to move forward with him. Quite honestly, I would like to see a little more fan support for Rodgers. The guy is getting no love from anyone. Regarding Favre, I agree that this year he probably gives them the best chance to win. However, the Packers have a long term view on this whole situtaiton. I also think they are concerned with Favre's true dedication to the whole year and the amount of time he is willing to put in. I really think if he wouldn't have pulled the Fox news move he may have had a chance to come back. That pretty much put an end to that chance.

 

[BigJim®]

Classic Profootballtalk.com comment:

A Favre spokesperson said that the meeting between Favre, Murphy, and agent Bus Cook would last most of the day. But we’re having trouble understanding why it would take so long, especially when it will go something like this . . . .Murphy: “Will you not come back?”Favre: “No. Will you release me?”Murphy: “No. Will you not come back?”Favre: “No. Will you release me?”Murphy: “No. Will you not come back?”Favre: “No. Will you release me?”Murphy: “No. Will you not come back?”Cook: “These pretzels are making me thirsty.”

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

So why not just start Favre this season?

 

[T Bell]

Classic Profootballtalk.com comment:

A Favre spokesperson said that the meeting between Favre, Murphy, and agent Bus Cook would last most of the day. But we’re having trouble understanding why it would take so long, especially when it will go something like this . . . .Murphy: “Will you not come back?”Favre: “No. Will you release me?”Murphy: “No. Will you not come back?”Favre: “No. Will you release me?”Murphy: “No. Will you not come back?”Favre: “No. Will you release me?”Murphy: “No. Will you not come back?”Cook: “These pretzels are making me thirsty.”

 

[3nOut]

Its pretty clear to me that Favre, at this point, would prefer to go to Minnesota, especially if he wouldn't be the starter in GB. That said, I am curious as to what Favre supporters think would be fair compensation for Favre in a trade, especially to a division rival. What would the Vikings have to give up to make any deal fair? A first? A fourth? A fifth? A bag of footballs? Nothing? What is the best business sense for GB? What would settle for if you were GM in GB?

If its a fourth or fifth rounder, then are you admitting thats all he's worth? If so, then why would you want him back n GB? If he's worth a first, what would you do if Minnesota doesn't accept? What would you do with Favre?

 

[sho nuff]

Classic Profootballtalk.com comment:

A Favre spokesperson said that the meeting between Favre, Murphy, and agent Bus Cook would last most of the day. But we’re having trouble understanding why it would take so long, especially when it will go something like this . . . .

Murphy: “Will you not come back?”

Favre: “No. Will you release me?”

Murphy: “No. Will you not come back?”

Favre: “No. Will you release me?”

Murphy: “No. Will you not come back?”

Favre: “No. Will you release me?”

Murphy: “No. Will you not come back?”

Cook: “These pretzels are making me thirsty.”

 

[T Bell]

You guys are all out of your league with this body language thing. Who do you think you are, Judge Judy?

One person is out of his league (the one that keeps backtracking and is unwilling to provide video).The other does some of that for a living and knows what he is talking about. He picked on topic that I actually have a pretty good grasp of.It appears he is willing to continue this mistake and keep going with it though.

For those of us non-experts in body language, I wanted to provide a handy dandy guide so that we can follow along: = honest; also can be completely stoned on Valium; - dishonest; also can be looking at notes, or a fly in the interview room; - a natural response to any softball question from Anakin Van Susteren; - "No"; exception- it means "yes" when Brett Favre uses it to respond to questions about him coming back; - "Yes"; exception- it means "no" when Brett Favre uses it to to respond to questions about whether the rules about being a good teammate apply to him.HTH

 

[3nOut]

So why not just start Favre this season?

Because then what would you do next year when Favre re-retires and Rodgers' contract expires season after next (I think). If Rodgers becomes the starter for one year (next year), then HE would have GB by their nuts when its time to renegotiate. He might as easily say, 'You didn't give me half a chance, why should I give you one' . And especially with Brohm there, he can walk away and GB would be stuck with a QB with NO game experience as their starter.

 

[sho nuff]

Its pretty clear to me that Favre, at this point, would prefer to go to Minnesota, especially if he wouldn't be the starter in GB. That said, I am curious as to what Favre supporters think would be fair compensation for Favre in a trade, especially to a division rival. What would the Vikings have to give up to make any deal fair? A first? A fourth? A fifth? A bag of footballs? Nothing? What is the best business sense for GB? What would settle for if you were GM in GB? If its a fourth or fifth rounder, then are you admitting thats all he's worth? If so, then why would you want him back n GB? If he's worth a first, what would you do if Minnesota doesn't accept? What would you do with Favre?

Not sure anything would be enough for me to trade him to Minny.TT is totally risking his job if he does so....he either has to get a ridiculously one sided deal...or hope Favre tanks in Minny.

 

[sho nuff]

You guys are all out of your league with this body language thing. Who do you think you are, Judge Judy?

One person is out of his league (the one that keeps backtracking and is unwilling to provide video).The other does some of that for a living and knows what he is talking about. He picked on topic that I actually have a pretty good grasp of.It appears he is willing to continue this mistake and keep going with it though.

For those of us non-experts in body language, I wanted to provide a handy dandy guide so that we can follow along: = honest; also can be completely stoned on Valium; - dishonest; also can be looking at notes, or a fly in the interview room; - a natural response to any softball question from Anakin Van Susteren; - "No"; exception- it means "yes" when Brett Favre uses it to respond to questions about him coming back; - "Yes"; exception- it means "no" when Brett Favre uses it to to respond to questions about whether the rules about being a good teammate apply to him.HTH

Nice one...though...some looking ahead with other gestures can also be a sign of lying. Though...TT usually has that wide open eyed stare from day one.

 

[T Bell]

You guys are all out of your league with this body language thing. Who do you think you are, Judge Judy?

One person is out of his league (the one that keeps backtracking and is unwilling to provide video).The other does some of that for a living and knows what he is talking about. He picked on topic that I actually have a pretty good grasp of.It appears he is willing to continue this mistake and keep going with it though.

For those of us non-experts in body language, I wanted to provide a handy dandy guide so that we can follow along: = honest; also can be completely stoned on Valium; :( - dishonest; also can be looking at notes, or a fly in the interview room; - a natural response to any softball question from Anakin Van Susteren; - "No"; exception- it means "yes" when Brett Favre uses it to respond to questions about him coming back; - "Yes"; exception- it means "no" when Brett Favre uses it to to respond to questions about whether the rules about being a good teammate apply to him.HTH

Nice one...though...some looking ahead with other gestures can also be a sign of lying. Though...TT usually has that wide open eyed stare from day one.

Ok, then we need to add one: - "Hi, I'm Ted Thompson, pass the butter."

 

[ScottyFargo]

You guys are all out of your league with this body language thing. Who do you think you are, Judge Judy?

One person is out of his league (the one that keeps backtracking and is unwilling to provide video).The other does some of that for a living and knows what he is talking about. He picked on topic that I actually have a pretty good grasp of.It appears he is willing to continue this mistake and keep going with it though.

For those of us non-experts in body language, I wanted to provide a handy dandy guide so that we can follow along: = honest; also can be completely stoned on Valium; :( - dishonest; also can be looking at notes, or a fly in the interview room; - a natural response to any softball question from Anakin Van Susteren; - "No"; exception- it means "yes" when Brett Favre uses it to respond to questions about him coming back; - "Yes"; exception- it means "no" when Brett Favre uses it to to respond to questions about whether the rules about being a good teammate apply to him.HTH

 

[sho nuff]

You guys are all out of your league with this body language thing. Who do you think you are, Judge Judy?

One person is out of his league (the one that keeps backtracking and is unwilling to provide video).The other does some of that for a living and knows what he is talking about. He picked on topic that I actually have a pretty good grasp of.It appears he is willing to continue this mistake and keep going with it though.

For those of us non-experts in body language, I wanted to provide a handy dandy guide so that we can follow along: = honest; also can be completely stoned on Valium; - dishonest; also can be looking at notes, or a fly in the interview room; - a natural response to any softball question from Anakin Van Susteren; :( - "No"; exception- it means "yes" when Brett Favre uses it to respond to questions about him coming back; - "Yes"; exception- it means "no" when Brett Favre uses it to to respond to questions about whether the rules about being a good teammate apply to him.HTH

Nice one...though...some looking ahead with other gestures can also be a sign of lying. Though...TT usually has that wide open eyed stare from day one.

Ok, then we need to add one: - "Hi, I'm Ted Thompson, pass the butter."

Excellent.

 

[Flash]

Its pretty clear to me that Favre, at this point, would prefer to go to Minnesota, especially if he wouldn't be the starter in GB. That said, I am curious as to what Favre supporters think would be fair compensation for Favre in a trade, especially to a division rival. What would the Vikings have to give up to make any deal fair? A first? A fourth? A fifth? A bag of footballs? Nothing? What is the best business sense for GB? What would settle for if you were GM in GB? If its a fourth or fifth rounder, then are you admitting thats all he's worth? If so, then why would you want him back n GB? If he's worth a first, what would you do if Minnesota doesn't accept? What would you do with Favre?

A #1 and ADP

 

[Gopher State]

Its pretty clear to me that Favre, at this point, would prefer to go to Minnesota, especially if he wouldn't be the starter in GB. That said, I am curious as to what Favre supporters think would be fair compensation for Favre in a trade, especially to a division rival. What would the Vikings have to give up to make any deal fair? A first? A fourth? A fifth? A bag of footballs? Nothing? What is the best business sense for GB? What would settle for if you were GM in GB? If its a fourth or fifth rounder, then are you admitting thats all he's worth? If so, then why would you want him back n GB? If he's worth a first, what would you do if Minnesota doesn't accept? What would you do with Favre?

As a Viking fan, I would say we should not give up anymore then a 4th round. I would perfer Favre stay in GB and haunt Rogers by being on the bench.

 

[datonn]

Regarding Favre, I agree that this year he probably gives them the best chance to win. However, the Packers have a long term view on this whole situation. I also think they are concerned with Favre's true dedication to the whole year and the amount of time he is willing to put in. I really think if he wouldn't have pulled the Fox news move he may have had a chance to come back. That pretty much put an end to that chance.

I had two comments though on the stuff I have bolded:

1. Long-term view. If there is one thing I have learned about life as I've entered middle age, not to mention the NFL, it's this: NFL stands for "Not For Long." What do I mean by that? First, if you've got a shot to reach the mountain top now, you take it. You don't completely ruin your chances at "later" in the process, but if you're close (i.e. one overtime drive away from the Super Bowl), you ADD pieces rather than subtract them. While Rodgers will be in his prime long after Brett Favre is pimping auto dealerships and restaurants, Favre gives them the best shot at reaching the promised land NOW. Give him another piece or two and give him one more chance at bringing home a title...rather than watch as Driver, Harris, Woodson and others slide downward in their careers by the time Rodgers and other younger players get it together.

2. I think Favre pulled a "Fox News" because of all the stuff that was happening behind the scenes with Thompson. Had Thompson not put Favre in a box, he wouldn't have used his "celebrity status" to get the opportunity to fire back in the media. I'll say that Favre is as responsible for this train wreck as anyone, AKA he helped Thompson shop, buy and ship the box down to Mississippi! That said though, the team hasn't exactly received an A-grade for the way they've handled it either.

 

[ookook]

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.

Sho Nuff, it's you against the world man, not even you and your great debating skills can save Ted Thompsons job with the Packers. The guy is toast.

Ignorance knows no bounds. Do teams often can the reigning Executive of the Year?

About as often as teams can their pro-bowl, MVP runner-up QB?

They did not can him. He retired.

Oh please.

What's so hard to understand here? Favre does not want to play in Green Bay. If he did, he wouldn't be acting like such a jag in the media. If you want to stay employed, it's generally not a good idea to call your boss a liar in the national media and question how he does his job.If I hear one more word from Favre about personnel decisions from four years ago I'm going to vomit.

Favre DID want to play in GB. Both Favre and McCarthy confirmed it. He was told he was not welcome "the team has moved on" has been echoed by Favre, McCarthy, and TT.Does he still? Probably not. But maybe as starteer (which he has earned repeatedly). I might not want to start for such ########s either.

They should have asked for a 2 year committment in June when he first called and made him starteer again. The rest has been a circus easily avoided.

 

[jurrassic]

Regarding Favre, I agree that this year he probably gives them the best chance to win. However, the Packers have a long term view on this whole situation. I also think they are concerned with Favre's true dedication to the whole year and the amount of time he is willing to put in. I really think if he wouldn't have pulled the Fox news move he may have had a chance to come back. That pretty much put an end to that chance.

I had two comments though on the stuff I have bolded:

1. Long-term view. If there is one thing I have learned about life as I've entered middle age, not to mention the NFL, it's this: NFL stands for "Not For Long." What do I mean by that? First, if you've got a shot to reach the mountain top now, you take it. You don't completely ruin your chances at "later" in the process, but if you're close (i.e. one overtime drive away from the Super Bowl), you ADD pieces rather than subtract them. While Rodgers will be in his prime long after Brett Favre is pimping auto dealerships and restaurants, Favre gives them the best shot at reaching the promised land NOW. Give him another piece or two and give him one more chance at bringing home a title...rather than watch as Driver, Harris, Woodson and others slide downward in their careers by the time Rodgers and other younger players get it together.

2. I think Favre pulled a "Fox News" because of all the stuff that was happening behind the scenes with Thompson. Had Thompson not put Favre in a box, he wouldn't have used his "celebrity status" to get the opportunity to fire back in the media. I'll say that Favre is as responsible for this train wreck as anyone, AKA he helped Thompson shop, buy and ship the box down to Mississippi! That said though, the team hasn't exactly received an A-grade for the way they've handled it either.

I agree with alot of this. My only comments are:1.) Noone knows how good Rodgers will be

2.) There is no guarantee Favre will play as well as he did last year

Favre, in recent years, has been on an extensive off-season training program to insure his old body can stand up for a whole season. This year he played with some high school kids. He also has admitted on more than one occassion the grind wore on him so bad, that is why he retired.

Let's not forget guys like Tom Brady and Phillip Rivers who have come in and replaced good qb's and have been productive. In addition to that Eli Manning in his fourth year won a Super Bowl for the Giants. Rodgers is entering his third. I think the Packers have alot more confidence in Rodgers than people know. Maybe this guy is actually good. That is the one point that seems to get lost on everyone. People keep saying nothing is owed to Rodgers, and I agree. However you have a GM, who noone can argue, actually knows how to evaluate talent, and a coach who is a qb guru. Both of these guys think Rodgers can get the job done. Why is noone acknowledging the fact that maybe he can.

 

[ookook]

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.

It's evident that this source is from the Favre camp, (again) by the use of the words "come up there". So of course it's going to have a spin towards Favre's favor. And once again, every conversation by Favre with the Packers is taken straight to the media by Favre with his spin on it. Can't wait for his press-conference on Wednesday night/Thursday how he tells us that Murphy offered him the Packer's presidency.Not sure how this shows they are desperate. To me it shows that they are willing to have an open dialogue and come up with a reasonable solution to satisfy both parties. The Packers have been seeking a trade for Favre and Favre has refused to speak to any interested parties. Favre will not accept anything other than his outright release, which would just be stupid on the Packer's part.

Uhm. The Packers have tried to get Favre to stay retired since this started. Now, ever since he's threatened to come to camp, they haven't welcomed him there. At all. They have asked him for more time. If that isn't desperation, and a sure sign that they don't really want him to be there, then I don't know what they are waiting for. If it's no big deal then why fly Murphy to Mississippi? Favre's gotta come up to Green Bay anyway, right?

You are again taking only what Favre has said about them asking him not to be there. Again...the other side to that is that Thompson states that it was Favre's idea to hold off.And right now, its still in Goodell's hand until he approves the reinstatement.

We don't know for sure why Murphy went there. That is kind of the point.

But you speculate on one source...because it fits with your beliefs...pretty much what you have been doing this entire time with this situation.

What does Favre gain by being untruthful about the situation? If Favre was welcome with open arms he would be in Green Bay already. The Packers don't want Favre to play in Green Bay or anywhere else. I have been saying for 3 years that I thought Favre should retire. But if he wants to play.....he should play.....the thing that I don't get most of all is.....Favre will give the Pack the best chance to win....and it's not close

Favre and Thompson don't like each other. Period. It's pretty clear Favre does not want to play for Green Bay. Period. If you read this situation any other way, you're missing the venom he's spewing at the front office.Yes, he should play if he wants to. The problem is he isn't donig this just because he wants to play. He's doing it because he wants to play, but just not for Green Bay.

And he's going about it in a such way that spares his reputation as he attempts to put the blame squarely on Green Bay.

Once again, don't let the good ol' boy pull one over on you.

But here's the problem if Favre is on the Packers roster he IS the starter. The Packers want to move on I think that much is clear. I think Thompson is in a no win situation I can't see any way this works out in his favor. With Favre's papers in the NFL offices and his reinstatement coming some time today we will see how this all plays out.....I would be great if the pack and Favre can work something out that works for both of them...but I think the only thing that works for the Pack is Favre riding off into the sunset......which again I don't understand because Favre give them the best chance to win.

To win what, double digit wins during the season just to blow it in the playoffs? So where are the Packers next year? No better off than they are today. Sounds like a great plan for an NFL franchise. The old man is not capable of winning another SB.

Stop acting like Favre is the only reason they lost that game. Just ridiculous. I'm sure it had nothing to do with blown coverages or that they only were able to rush Ryan Grant 13 times for 29 yards. Favre was the only reason they made it to overtime.

Actually, if I were to blame that loss on one player it might be Al Harris...

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

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.

Sho Nuff, it's you against the world man, not even you and your great debating skills can save Ted Thompsons job with the Packers. The guy is toast.

Ignorance knows no bounds. Do teams often can the reigning Executive of the Year?

About as often as teams can their pro-bowl, MVP runner-up QB?

They did not can him. He retired.

Oh please.

What's so hard to understand here? Favre does not want to play in Green Bay. If he did, he wouldn't be acting like such a jag in the media. If you want to stay employed, it's generally not a good idea to call your boss a liar in the national media and question how he does his job.If I hear one more word from Favre about personnel decisions from four years ago I'm going to vomit.

Favre DID want to play in GB. Both Favre and McCarthy confirmed it. He was told he was not welcome "the team has moved on" has been echoed by Favre, McCarthy, and TT.Does he still? Probably not. But maybe as starteer (which he has earned repeatedly). I might not want to start for such ########s either.

They should have asked for a 2 year committment in June when he first called and made him starteer again. The rest has been a circus easily avoided.

If you buy that, so be it. I don't.He's openly questioned the front office for the better part of three years. He demanded a trade last year when they didn't land Moss, then passed it off as just rumors. Then this.

When you put it all together, it just doesn't appear to me to be a guy that wants to play in Green Bay. Or at least for Thompson.

And honestly, if he would've just come out and said that instead of playing games, then this situation could've been avoided.

Problem is, he's more interested in saving face than admitting what many of us know. He's wanted out for a long time. Long before this stuff happened.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

From 07 - Favre Wants Out

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2869070

Amid public grousing from Favre about the state of his team over the weekend, a report on the Fox Sports Web site, citing anonymous sources, said Favre's agent called Packers general manager Ted Thompson to request a trade a few days after last month's draft.

According to the report, Packers coach Mike McCarthy later called the quarterback and was able to calm his anger, getting Favre to admit that he didn't really want to play elsewhere.

In a statement posted on the Packers' Web site, Thompson said he would not address the specifics of the report but understood the frustration Favre vented in interviews over the weekend.

"I think it's natural for a player to be frustrated from time to time -- that's simply being human," Thompson said. "Everyone knows that Brett Favre is all about winning. As an organization, we share that commitment. And we want to win now."

Other Packers officials and Favre's agent, James "Bus" Cook, did not return telephone messages from The Associated Press on Sunday.

 

[sholditch]

predictions on when he will be traded? I say by Thursday afternoon, to the Bucs.

The packers have been asking for way too much and now they have to get their butts in gear and get a reasonable asking price out to interested teams. Shouldn't take too long.

Also at Garcia. "I'm the quarterback." Yeah, until they bring in someone with talent, then you're back to the clipboard buddy.

 

[sholditch]

From 07 - Favre Wants Out

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2869070

Amid public grousing from Favre about the state of his team over the weekend, a report on the Fox Sports Web site, citing anonymous sources, said Favre's agent called Packers general manager Ted Thompson to request a trade a few days after last month's draft.

According to the report, Packers coach Mike McCarthy later called the quarterback and was able to calm his anger, getting Favre to admit that he didn't really want to play elsewhere.

In a statement posted on the Packers' Web site, Thompson said he would not address the specifics of the report but understood the frustration Favre vented in interviews over the weekend.

"I think it's natural for a player to be frustrated from time to time -- that's simply being human," Thompson said. "Everyone knows that Brett Favre is all about winning. As an organization, we share that commitment. And we want to win now."

Other Packers officials and Favre's agent, James "Bus" Cook, did not return telephone messages from The Associated Press on Sunday.

By not allowing your HOF QB to compete for a starting job, and by not offering your most productive rusher a decent contract. Yeah, really win-now moves. Favre and Grant accounted for something like 75% of that teams offense last year, and they are planning to win-now by not allowing one guy back and screwing with the other by lowballing him. At first I was on the mgmt side, but the more this goes on the bigger idiot Thompson appears.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

From 07 - Favre Wants Out

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2869070

Amid public grousing from Favre about the state of his team over the weekend, a report on the Fox Sports Web site, citing anonymous sources, said Favre's agent called Packers general manager Ted Thompson to request a trade a few days after last month's draft.

According to the report, Packers coach Mike McCarthy later called the quarterback and was able to calm his anger, getting Favre to admit that he didn't really want to play elsewhere.

In a statement posted on the Packers' Web site, Thompson said he would not address the specifics of the report but understood the frustration Favre vented in interviews over the weekend.

"I think it's natural for a player to be frustrated from time to time -- that's simply being human," Thompson said. "Everyone knows that Brett Favre is all about winning. As an organization, we share that commitment. And we want to win now."

Other Packers officials and Favre's agent, James "Bus" Cook, did not return telephone messages from The Associated Press on Sunday.

By not allowing your HOF QB to compete for a starting job, and by not offering your most productive rusher a decent contract. Yeah, really win-now moves. Favre and Grant accounted for something like 75% of that teams offense last year, and they are planning to win-now by not allowing one guy back and screwing with the other by lowballing him. At first I was on the mgmt side, but the more this goes on the bigger idiot Thompson appears.

You do know that's from 2007 right? What am I missing? Didn't they go 13-3? They did 'WIN NOW'. Yet he wanted out prior to the season even starting, all because they didn't get Randy Moss.

 

[gruecd]

predictions on when he will be traded? I say by Thursday afternoon, to the Bucs.

Except that Brett has already reportedly said taht he doesn't want to play in TB. Pretty sure that he's at Packer camp on Friday unless he gets released.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

More from 07, Tom Silverstein a prophet...

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=604873

If Favre really wants to be traded, he could pressure the Packers into doing it, given his stature in the game. The Packers don't think they're in a rebuilding mode and want Favre to lead their team next season, but if he is truly unhappy, they could find takers for his services.

Last off-season, he also second-guessed Thompson for not adding any offensive talent in free agency or trades, and almost decided to retire.

Favre's trade request certainly won't sit well with some teammates. In essence, Favre is saying he doesn't think the current players are good enough for the Packers to be a contending team.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

What would the Vikings have to give up to make any deal fair? A first? A fourth? A fifth? A bag of footballs? Nothing? What is the best business sense for GB? What would settle for if you were GM in GB?

Favre to the Vikings? Think "Herschel Walker".

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...whitlock/060907

By dragging out his retirement decision all winter and into the spring, Favre gave the Packers a clear indication that he wanted to be traded. He just didn't want to be the bad guy and demand a trade.

-----

Someone that got it in 06.

 

[T Man]

After 15 pages it is all so very clear . . . . .

Favre is right and the Packers are wrong.

Wait. I mean ....

The Packers are right and Favre is wrong.

My thought has been and remains ... that the Packers are mostly right in their stance that it is time to move forward. Playing the games with Brett take there toll. However, they clearly could have handled it better. In particular, TT should have said that the Packers have installed Rogers as the starting QB as they have made the move to move forward. But if Brett wants to come in, we are receptive to that. None of the hooey that he said, and then tried to resay.

TT has done himself no favors, but I believe he actually thinks he is doing the best for the Packers. I don't think it is all about TT in this affair. TT has not come out and openly attacked Brett Favre. My thought is that it is because to do so would not be in the interests of the Packers, just TT.

As for Brett, I think that he has every right to decide he wants to play. People who retire should have the right to decide they want to work again. People make errors in decision all the time. Its how he has gone about doing it. He says one thing, but everything he does shows he means another.

1. He retires and says that he does not have the desire to train anymore -- he can and likes to play, just not go through the grind, but in April his agent puts out "feelers" with other teams (NOT THE PACKERS)

2. He says in May and early June that he does not want to unretire after reports surface that he wants to play. Reports that apparently were accurate. But as soon as Rogers tells the Packer faithful to get on board, he states he wants to come back.

3. He calls his boss a liar and asks to be released. He claims he is receptive to a trade, but he refuses several requests for him to name the teams that he would be willing to be traded to -- although to do so would assist the team in honoring his request.

Brett's actions seem to be all for Brett.

That said, I still love the way he played the game. I just don't like how all this has played out.

Long story short -- both sides are wrong, but something has left a dirtier taste in my mouth about the way Brett has handled it.

 

[Aaronstory]

Stop acting like Favre is the only reason they lost that game. Just ridiculous. I'm sure it had nothing to do with blown coverages or that they only were able to rush Ryan Grant 13 times for 29 yards.

Favre was the only reason they made it to overtime.

The first part is spot on.The bolded part is completely incorrect.