Farve to Report this Weekend (1 Viewer)

[GreenNGold]

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.

I agree that I was exagerating the bolded part. Most people tend to give him either all of the blame, or all of the credit, while ignoring how the rest of the team performed.

 

[datonn]

1.) Noone knows how good Rodgers will be

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

Again, good posting! Your comments are at the core of this issue.The key though is this: Is the Packers organization making the decision to go with Rodgers because they feel he gives them the best chance to win?

Packer brass (and fans) immediately fire back with "Rodgers will be better a few years from now after Favre is long-gone!" However, that's not really the question. An NFC Championship Game team shouldn't have "a few years from now" as their primary focus! Rather, they should be focused on taking that next step and adding another wing to the Packers museum. Why they are not, to outsiders (non-Packer fans) is simple:

- Ego (Ted Thompson)

- Pride (see "ego")

- Coping/Defense Mechanism (what one HAS to say to feel better about the situation)

I'm all for the Vikings grooming T-Jax, Booty, et al too! However, give me a chance at a massive upgrade at the QB position with the RBs, O-Line and D-Line that we have and T-Jax can wait another year. Rodgers could be the real deal! However, folks outside Green Bay just can't understand how one can kick Favre to the curb when they were SO close to a title and they have NO idea (good or bad) what they'll be getting in Rodgers. For every one Tom Brady or Big Ben, there are 15-20 Brodie Croyles or T-Jaxes out there, just waiting to underwhelm.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Here's in some ways how this boils down and why the Pack won't back down easily.

What does it say to every other player - every other big ego player - if they back off now? Who does it say is in control - the organization or the player?

This is, at heart a management/labor struggle many Americans (and many parents) go through daily. The tail cannot wag the dog - otherwise, any time they take a hard line (or unpopular line) with a player he only needs point to Favre and say 'But Brett.....'

Just because they may not be as good as his Favreness doesn't really matter - because they caved once. evry player with an axe to grind will make TT and the GM staff's lives hell until they leave.

Now right or wrong - and regardless of fault (with both sides sharing tons of blame here) - this is the corner the organization has been backed into. (or backed themselves into - you;re call)

Who controls the franchise? The Franchise or Brett Favre?

That's what this is boiling down to.

It's why they may trade him, but they will go down swinging to avoid trading him to Minny or installing him as a starter or release him.

That's - at least - how it feels looking at it right now.

Maybe Construxboy was right yesterday - maybe there is no compromise left. Sure doesn't seem like either side cares to find one.....

 

[AnonymousBob]

Any player rather controls the franchise they're with...at least if they're that good. Peyton Manning/Tom Brady/LaDanian Tomlinson...they hold a lot more weight with their respective teams than a 3rd string fringe talent.

So the message the Packers would be sending would be the same message that is sent all the time. We won't put up with your nonsense unless you're an exceptional talent.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Any player rather controls the franchise they're with...at least if they're that good. Peyton Manning/Tom Brady/LaDanian Tomlinson...they hold a lot more weight with their respective teams than a 3rd string fringe talent.So the message the Packers would be sending would be the same message that is sent all the time. We won't put up with your nonsense unless you're an exceptional talent.

And I guess taking it further - they no longer think Favre is that exceptional talent.I can't call them crazy just based on last year tho I still think Favre gives them the best chance at The Big Game but somewhere along the line he and Thompson really started disliking each other (for sure Favre dislikes TT) and it all went to heck in a handbasket from there....I mean this really comes down to the tail end of a power struggle that has been fought not quite in the shadows for many years.....

 

[ookook]

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.

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".

There is no question of this.

Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Packer brass (and fans) immediately fire back with "Rodgers will be better a few years from now after Favre is long-gone!"

That is not what the "Packer brass" has said.This is what Thompson said yesterday:"We believe this is the best thing in the best interest of the organization, both in the short term and the long term."

 

[ScottyFargo]

Visit to Favre Could Be Blunder By PackersAccording to reports by media outlets in Wisconsin, Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy has traveled to Mississippi to meet with quarterback Brett Favre and his agent, Bus Cook.The Green Bay Press-Gazette reported that Murphy will ask Favre not to show up for the Packers' training camp.If that report is true, the Packers could be making a major blunder.Under NFL rules, the Packers cannot prevent Favre from playing if he wants to play. They can reinstate him to their roster. They can trade him. They can release him. But they can't make him stay home.And if they do--or perhaps even if they just try--the NFL Players Association could file a grievance on Favre's behalf. The union perhaps could ask an arbitrator to make Favre a free agent. Maybe this is the way that Favre gets to his apparently chosen team, the Minnesota Vikings.The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.Presumably, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will reinstate Favre today. If he does, the Packers will have until the close of business Thursday to put Favre back on their roster, trade him or release him.By Mark Maske | July 30, 2008; 12:10 PM ET

 

[CletiusMaximus]

lol at "Blunder"

Mark Maske = Moron

 

[T Bell]

Visit to Favre Could Be Blunder By PackersAccording to reports by media outlets in Wisconsin, Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy has traveled to Mississippi to meet with quarterback Brett Favre and his agent, Bus Cook.The Green Bay Press-Gazette reported that Murphy will ask Favre not to show up for the Packers' training camp.If that report is true, the Packers could be making a major blunder.Under NFL rules, the Packers cannot prevent Favre from playing if he wants to play. They can reinstate him to their roster. They can trade him. They can release him. But they can't make him stay home.And if they do--or perhaps even if they just try--the NFL Players Association could file a grievance on Favre's behalf. The union perhaps could ask an arbitrator to make Favre a free agent. Maybe this is the way that Favre gets to his apparently chosen team, the Minnesota Vikings.The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.Presumably, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will reinstate Favre today. If he does, the Packers will have until the close of business Thursday to put Favre back on their roster, trade him or release him.By Mark Maske | July 30, 2008; 12:10 PM ET

I'm not sure that anyone truly knows the content of their communications outside of the Packers, Favre and Cook. Assuming this take is accurate, however, how is this a "blunder" if they ask him to stay away and he agrees? They're not locking him out of camp over his desire to attend, so what's the problem here?

 

[ScottyFargo]

lol at "Blunder"Mark Maske = Moron

The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.

I think it's a mistake, if not a blunder, to try so vigorously to keep Favre out of camp. Goodell gifted them with an extra day after Favre was so kind as to wait to file the papers. They are not on an even keel.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Visit to Favre Could Be Blunder By PackersAccording to reports by media outlets in Wisconsin, Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy has traveled to Mississippi to meet with quarterback Brett Favre and his agent, Bus Cook.The Green Bay Press-Gazette reported that Murphy will ask Favre not to show up for the Packers' training camp.If that report is true, the Packers could be making a major blunder.Under NFL rules, the Packers cannot prevent Favre from playing if he wants to play. They can reinstate him to their roster. They can trade him. They can release him. But they can't make him stay home.And if they do--or perhaps even if they just try--the NFL Players Association could file a grievance on Favre's behalf. The union perhaps could ask an arbitrator to make Favre a free agent. Maybe this is the way that Favre gets to his apparently chosen team, the Minnesota Vikings.The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.Presumably, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will reinstate Favre today. If he does, the Packers will have until the close of business Thursday to put Favre back on their roster, trade him or release him.By Mark Maske | July 30, 2008; 12:10 PM ET

I'm not sure that anyone truly knows the content of their communications outside of the Packers, Favre and Cook. Assuming this take is accurate, however, how is this a "blunder" if they ask him to stay away and he agrees? They're not locking him out of camp over his desire to attend, so what's the problem here?

Hey man, you could be absolutely right. However, they didn't need to fly down to ask him to stay away. They're protesting a bit much.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Visit to Favre Could Be Blunder By PackersAccording to reports by media outlets in Wisconsin, Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy has traveled to Mississippi to meet with quarterback Brett Favre and his agent, Bus Cook.The Green Bay Press-Gazette reported that Murphy will ask Favre not to show up for the Packers' training camp.If that report is true, the Packers could be making a major blunder.Under NFL rules, the Packers cannot prevent Favre from playing if he wants to play. They can reinstate him to their roster. They can trade him. They can release him. But they can't make him stay home.And if they do--or perhaps even if they just try--the NFL Players Association could file a grievance on Favre's behalf. The union perhaps could ask an arbitrator to make Favre a free agent. Maybe this is the way that Favre gets to his apparently chosen team, the Minnesota Vikings.The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.Presumably, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will reinstate Favre today. If he does, the Packers will have until the close of business Thursday to put Favre back on their roster, trade him or release him.By Mark Maske | July 30, 2008; 12:10 PM ET

I'm not sure that anyone truly knows the content of their communications outside of the Packers, Favre and Cook. Assuming this take is accurate, however, how is this a "blunder" if they ask him to stay away and he agrees? They're not locking him out of camp over his desire to attend, so what's the problem here?

Well, his speculation is of course backed up by the McNair situation he notes, except that McNair showed up at training camp and was asked to leave, and of course he ended up being traded rather than becoming a free agent.btw - Maske immediately corrected himself in his next blog post:

No Grievance Planned Yet in Favre CaseNFL Players Association officials say they won't file a grievance on behalf of Brett Favre if he merely is asked today not to show up at training camp.The Packers can ask Favre not to attend camp.What they can't do is keep him from attending camp if Favre shows up.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

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.

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".There is no question of this.Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The evidence does indeed support that. Favre demanded a trade just last year. I know you all want to gloss over that and believe Favre's "It's just rumors" BS, but I don't buy his excuse on that one.And you're right, they did say they'd moved on. As they should've.Favre knew their timetable. And you can be damn sure he knew how they'd respond in June.This has been brewing for a long time. Anyone who thinks this just bubbled up now because Brett changed his mind is fooling themselves.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

lol at "Blunder"Mark Maske = Moron

The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.

I think it's a mistake, if not a blunder, to try so vigorously to keep Favre out of camp. Goodell gifted them with an extra day after Favre was so kind as to wait to file the papers. They are not on an even keel.

The McNair situation in no way supports the conclusion that the Packers are making a mistake. The idea that the purpose of this trip is to "vigorously keep Favre out of camp" is pure speculation based on an anonymous report. It is quite likely that Favre himself has no desire to be in Green Bay under present circumstances. Goodell fully supports these efforts by the Packers and Favre to find a mutually agreeable resolution. It is absured of Maske to suggest there are grounds for a player grievance under these circumstances.

 

[ookook]

I agree with that Scotty. Mostly it is a blunder because it shows the Packers have been actively misrepresenting the situaiton from the beginning.

He was never welcome. He wanted to play at GB and was told he was not welcome. Then they turned to the media and said he was.

They did not want to trade him, did not want him in camp, did not want him to play period.

They sent someone down from FO to ask him to stay retired.

Now to ask him to VOLUNTARILY stay out of camp.

And then they lie about it to the fans.

This is some of the worst management decisions in the history of the league.

I am embarrassed. And ashamed.

What is the worst is that so many Favre haters blame him so much for wanting to unretire. He made a mistake. He admitted it. He has not been selfish, he JUST WANTS TO PLAY.

Thompson should be "hung in effigy". For me, it ruins the success he has had putting togethor the team. I might rather have been a worse team last year and never had this nonsense clouding an organization that was once respected and is now a laughing stock. Better to lose with integrity than win by being dishonest and disrespectful to someone who has given so much.

There it is. Public opinion in Packland can go to hell.

They could simply have taken him back in June. Period. They chose not to and were arrogant enough to think they could convince him not to play. Thomspon = Arrogant SOB.

Bring it on Haters, because it seems pretty obvious to those playing close attention.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

I agree with that Scotty. Mostly it is a blunder because it shows the Packers have been actively misrepresenting the situaiton from the beginning.He was never welcome. He wanted to play at GB and was told he was not welcome. Then they turned to the media and said he was. They did not want to trade him, did not want him in camp, did not want him to play period.They sent someone down from FO to ask him to stay retired.Now to ask him to VOLUNTARILY stay out of camp. And then they lie about it to the fans.This is some of the worst management decisions in the history of the league.I am embarrassed. And ashamed. What is the worst is that so many Favre haters blame him so much for wanting to unretire. He made a mistake. He admitted it. He has not been selfish, he JUST WANTS TO PLAY.Thompson should be "hung in effigy". For me, it ruins the success he has had putting togethor the team. I might rather have been a worse team last year and never had this nonsense clouding an organization that was once respected and is now a laughing stock. Better to lose with integrity than win by being dishonest and disrespectful to someone who has given so much.There it is. Public opinion in Packland can go to hell. They could simply have taken him back in June. Period. They chose not to and were arrogant enough to think they could convince him not to play. Thomspon = Arrogant SOB.Bring it on Haters, because it seems pretty obvious to those playing close attention.

Pretty clear I'm never going to convince you otherwise, so I give up on this thread.Considering Bus Cook's history of success with this EXACT tactic with the Titans and McNair, I can't believe that you won't even entertain the thought that this is all posturing by Favre to secure his release.

 

[ookook]

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.

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".There is no question of this.Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The evidence does indeed support that. Favre demanded a trade just last year. I know you all want to gloss over that and believe Favre's "It's just rumors" BS, but I don't buy his excuse on that one.And you're right, they did say they'd moved on. As they should've.Favre knew their timetable. And you can be damn sure he knew how they'd respond in June.This has been brewing for a long time. Anyone who thinks this just bubbled up now because Brett changed his mind is fooling themselves.

Actually, if Favre had demanded a trade he would have been traded or sat out.What he did was say he would like to be traded (once) if they were not going to try to win sooner rather than later.He then took it back.All evidence says he wanted to still play for the Packers. He said it, McCarthy said it, even Thompson said it.But yeah, Favre is no TT fan. But he was not "damn sure" what they would say in June. Sorry you cannot take him at his word, but at least take McCarthy and TT at theirs. There surely was a chance they would take him back, since they were willing to in late March when he said the same thing.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Visit to Favre Could Be Blunder By PackersAccording to reports by media outlets in Wisconsin, Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy has traveled to Mississippi to meet with quarterback Brett Favre and his agent, Bus Cook.The Green Bay Press-Gazette reported that Murphy will ask Favre not to show up for the Packers' training camp.If that report is true, the Packers could be making a major blunder.Under NFL rules, the Packers cannot prevent Favre from playing if he wants to play. They can reinstate him to their roster. They can trade him. They can release him. But they can't make him stay home.And if they do--or perhaps even if they just try--the NFL Players Association could file a grievance on Favre's behalf. The union perhaps could ask an arbitrator to make Favre a free agent. Maybe this is the way that Favre gets to his apparently chosen team, the Minnesota Vikings.The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.Presumably, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will reinstate Favre today. If he does, the Packers will have until the close of business Thursday to put Favre back on their roster, trade him or release him.By Mark Maske | July 30, 2008; 12:10 PM ET

I'm not sure that anyone truly knows the content of their communications outside of the Packers, Favre and Cook. Assuming this take is accurate, however, how is this a "blunder" if they ask him to stay away and he agrees? They're not locking him out of camp over his desire to attend, so what's the problem here?

Well, his speculation is of course backed up by the McNair situation he notes, except that McNair showed up at training camp and was asked to leave, and of course he ended up being traded rather than becoming a free agent.btw - Maske immediately corrected himself in his next blog post:

No Grievance Planned Yet in Favre CaseNFL Players Association officials say they won't file a grievance on behalf of Brett Favre if he merely is asked today not to show up at training camp.The Packers can ask Favre not to attend camp.What they can't do is keep him from attending camp if Favre shows up.

That's more of a clarification, but probably a good one to make.

 

[ookook]

I agree with that Scotty. Mostly it is a blunder because it shows the Packers have been actively misrepresenting the situaiton from the beginning.He was never welcome. He wanted to play at GB and was told he was not welcome. Then they turned to the media and said he was. They did not want to trade him, did not want him in camp, did not want him to play period.They sent someone down from FO to ask him to stay retired.Now to ask him to VOLUNTARILY stay out of camp. And then they lie about it to the fans.This is some of the worst management decisions in the history of the league.I am embarrassed. And ashamed. What is the worst is that so many Favre haters blame him so much for wanting to unretire. He made a mistake. He admitted it. He has not been selfish, he JUST WANTS TO PLAY.Thompson should be "hung in effigy". For me, it ruins the success he has had putting togethor the team. I might rather have been a worse team last year and never had this nonsense clouding an organization that was once respected and is now a laughing stock. Better to lose with integrity than win by being dishonest and disrespectful to someone who has given so much.There it is. Public opinion in Packland can go to hell. They could simply have taken him back in June. Period. They chose not to and were arrogant enough to think they could convince him not to play. Thomspon = Arrogant SOB.Bring it on Haters, because it seems pretty obvious to those playing close attention.

Pretty clear I'm never going to convince you otherwise, so I give up on this thread.Considering Bus Cook's history of success with this EXACT tactic with the Titans and McNair, I can't believe that you won't even entertain the thought that this is all posturing by Favre to secure his release.

Now it is. Just wasn't then. I do not believe he contrived retirement so he could play elsewhere. He could have just asked "demanded" a trade in the off season.But since he was, by ALL accounts, informed he would not play for the Packers he surely started trying to engineer being released.We differ on WHEN he started that process. Of course, I take him at his word and you do not.

 

[Dexter Manley]

The point of no return for Farve was when he was all wishy washy in saying he wanted to come back earlier this year, then finally told McCarthy he couldn't be 100% committed. At that point the franchise moved on, as they should of, and started doing everything possible to put Aaron Rodgers in the best position to succeed.

I don't know Ted Thompson personally, but I do know this, the guy's no dummy. I think TT knows that even if they took Favre back and named him the starter today, the Pack would still be underdogs to win their division, and obviously a long shot to win the Super Bowl.

Think about it, everything broke right for the Packers last season: they were able to beat Philly because the Eagles had no one on their roster who could catch a kick, Santana Moss singlehandily lifted the Packers to victory over the Skins, Dallas chokes in the playoffs (again) so they get HFA in the NFCCG against a team they destroyed earlier in the season, Farve had one of his best statistical seasons ever miraculously playing mistake free football most of the year, Ryan Grant came out of nowhere to have a monster second half of the season, etc.

All these things broke GB's way and they still couldn't get to the Super Bowl. At this point, with or without Farve, Green Bay is a long shot to win the Super Bowl this season -- at best I would put them at 30 - 1. Right now, it would be idiotic for them to mortgage their future this season by starting Favre over Rodgers, imo.

 

[T Bell]

Visit to Favre Could Be Blunder By PackersAccording to reports by media outlets in Wisconsin, Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy has traveled to Mississippi to meet with quarterback Brett Favre and his agent, Bus Cook.The Green Bay Press-Gazette reported that Murphy will ask Favre not to show up for the Packers' training camp.If that report is true, the Packers could be making a major blunder.Under NFL rules, the Packers cannot prevent Favre from playing if he wants to play. They can reinstate him to their roster. They can trade him. They can release him. But they can't make him stay home.And if they do--or perhaps even if they just try--the NFL Players Association could file a grievance on Favre's behalf. The union perhaps could ask an arbitrator to make Favre a free agent. Maybe this is the way that Favre gets to his apparently chosen team, the Minnesota Vikings.The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.Presumably, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will reinstate Favre today. If he does, the Packers will have until the close of business Thursday to put Favre back on their roster, trade him or release him.By Mark Maske | July 30, 2008; 12:10 PM ET

I'm not sure that anyone truly knows the content of their communications outside of the Packers, Favre and Cook. Assuming this take is accurate, however, how is this a "blunder" if they ask him to stay away and he agrees? They're not locking him out of camp over his desire to attend, so what's the problem here?

Hey man, you could be absolutely right. However, they didn't need to fly down to ask him to stay away. They're protesting a bit much.

Or maybe, just maybe, the point of the trip is to see how they can work out a trade to another team . . . Nah, that couldn't be it, could it?

 

[T Bell]

lol at "Blunder"

Mark Maske = Moron

The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.

I think it's a mistake, if not a blunder, to try so vigorously to keep Favre out of camp. Goodell gifted them with an extra day after Favre was so kind as to wait to file the papers. They are not on an even keel.

The McNair situation contrasts with this one due to exactly what I was pointing out - the Titans tried to force McNair to stay away from the facility, locking him out because IIRC they were worried about him getting injured and being on the hook for an injury settlement with him if they wanted to move him. This story - again, if it is to be believed, which I have strong doubts about - has the Packers seeking Favre's agreement on this; Favre's not at the facility or even reinstated yet. In other words, they're trying to avoid the McNair situation.

 

[GreenNGold]

No decision on Favre reinstatement today

By Tom Silverstein

Wednesday, Jul 30 2008, 03:57 PM

Green Bay -- In a statement released a few minutes ago, an NFL spokesman said that commissioner Roger Goodell would not take action on quarterback Brett Favre's reinstatement.

The statement reads:

"The commissioner is taking no action today. He wants to give both the Packers and Brett an appropriate amount of time to make decisions, including decisions impacting the team's roster and salary cap. When Brett is reinstated by the commissioner, we will announce it."

 

[AnonymousBob]

No decision on Favre reinstatement today

By Tom Silverstein

Wednesday, Jul 30 2008, 03:57 PM

Green Bay -- In a statement released a few minutes ago, an NFL spokesman said that commissioner Roger Goodell would not take action on quarterback Brett Favre's reinstatement.

The statement reads:

"The commissioner is taking no action today. He wants to give both the Packers and Brett an appropriate amount of time to make decisions, including decisions impacting the team's roster and salary cap. When Brett is reinstated by the commissioner, we will announce it."

WTF is going on???

 

[T Bell]

No decision on Favre reinstatement today

By Tom Silverstein

Wednesday, Jul 30 2008, 03:57 PM

Green Bay -- In a statement released a few minutes ago, an NFL spokesman said that commissioner Roger Goodell would not take action on quarterback Brett Favre's reinstatement.

The statement reads:

"The commissioner is taking no action today. He wants to give both the Packers and Brett an appropriate amount of time to make decisions, including decisions impacting the team's roster and salary cap. When Brett is reinstated by the commissioner, we will announce it."

WTF is going on???

Goodell is preventing a scene, at least for now. This is fully in keeping with his role as the caretaker of the league. This won't go on forever though, and he'll ultimately have to approve the reinstatement and allow Favre to report.

 

[T Man]

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.

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".There is no question of this.Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The evidence does indeed support that. Favre demanded a trade just last year. I know you all want to gloss over that and believe Favre's "It's just rumors" BS, but I don't buy his excuse on that one.And you're right, they did say they'd moved on. As they should've.Favre knew their timetable. And you can be damn sure he knew how they'd respond in June.This has been brewing for a long time. Anyone who thinks this just bubbled up now because Brett changed his mind is fooling themselves.

Actually, if Favre had demanded a trade he would have been traded or sat out.What he did was say he would like to be traded (once) if they were not going to try to win sooner rather than later.He then took it back.All evidence says he wanted to still play for the Packers. He said it, McCarthy said it, even Thompson said it.But yeah, Favre is no TT fan. But he was not "damn sure" what they would say in June. Sorry you cannot take him at his word, but at least take McCarthy and TT at theirs. There surely was a chance they would take him back, since they were willing to in late March when he said the same thing.

OOKOOK I think you are missing the point. Everyone agrees that Favre SAID he wanted to play for the Packers in June. The issue is whether Favre meant it, or if it was part of plan to secure his release.RUMOR -- Favre asks to be traded once Packers did not sign Moss (Favre denies)RUMOR -- Favre retires because of TT (Family member is quoted, but Favre denies)RUMOR -- Favre in March is thinking about returning (Favre denies, but now admits is true)RUMOR -- Favre's agent begins to get feelers from other teams (not the Packers) in April (Bus Cook denies)RUMOR -- In early June Favre wants to return to play football (Favre denies, now admits is true)Taking TT and McCarthy at their word that Favre said he wanted to come back and play for the Pack in late June does not mean that it is what Favre wants. I agree with Yellow, this is the end of a fight that has been played behind the scenes for too long. At this point, the Packers have made mistakes, but I think at the time Favre retired he actually decided he no longer wanted to actually play for TT and the Pack in March. The only question was how to preserve his reputation in GB. I think Favre does treasure this -- and did not figure it would be affected. To maintain his legacy, he figured he would orchestrate a release along the lines of the ones given to prior Packers. He then would go play in Minnesota. I believe this was the plan all along. I could be wrong, and hope I am wrong. But the "RUMORS" seem to add to this. And the fact that Favre refused on several occasions to identify teams to which he would be traded indicates to me bolster that fact (since it seems unlikely he will be traded to Minnesota).The Packers have not attacked Favre as of yet. I suspect that Murphy is explaining to Favre all of the reasons why forcing the Packers hand might not be in Favre's favor. I think the Packers know that Favre is concerned about his legacy in GB (which I think would be unaffected by playing for a team like TB -- but could be affected if he plays for Minny and does well). I also think that Murphy is telling him that if Brett is convinced he wants to play for another team that they will trade him and is asking him whether he will accept that trade to a particular team(s) that the Packers are discussing.Of course, they could be working on a "Retirement Package" or a package where Brett stays retired and under payroll as a "consultant" or "player coach" for the Packers. However, given the things that were said about TT and McCarthy, I just don't see how the latter would work.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Visit to Favre Could Be Blunder By PackersAccording to reports by media outlets in Wisconsin, Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy has traveled to Mississippi to meet with quarterback Brett Favre and his agent, Bus Cook.The Green Bay Press-Gazette reported that Murphy will ask Favre not to show up for the Packers' training camp.If that report is true, the Packers could be making a major blunder.Under NFL rules, the Packers cannot prevent Favre from playing if he wants to play. They can reinstate him to their roster. They can trade him. They can release him. But they can't make him stay home.And if they do--or perhaps even if they just try--the NFL Players Association could file a grievance on Favre's behalf. The union perhaps could ask an arbitrator to make Favre a free agent. Maybe this is the way that Favre gets to his apparently chosen team, the Minnesota Vikings.The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.Presumably, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will reinstate Favre today. If he does, the Packers will have until the close of business Thursday to put Favre back on their roster, trade him or release him.By Mark Maske | July 30, 2008; 12:10 PM ET

I'm not sure that anyone truly knows the content of their communications outside of the Packers, Favre and Cook. Assuming this take is accurate, however, how is this a "blunder" if they ask him to stay away and he agrees? They're not locking him out of camp over his desire to attend, so what's the problem here?

Hey man, you could be absolutely right. However, they didn't need to fly down to ask him to stay away. They're protesting a bit much.

Or maybe, just maybe, the point of the trip is to see how they can work out a trade to another team . . . Nah, that couldn't be it, could it?

Why can't they work on a trade while he's at camp?

 

[AnonymousBob]

No decision on Favre reinstatement today

By Tom Silverstein

Wednesday, Jul 30 2008, 03:57 PM

Green Bay -- In a statement released a few minutes ago, an NFL spokesman said that commissioner Roger Goodell would not take action on quarterback Brett Favre's reinstatement.

The statement reads:

"The commissioner is taking no action today. He wants to give both the Packers and Brett an appropriate amount of time to make decisions, including decisions impacting the team's roster and salary cap. When Brett is reinstated by the commissioner, we will announce it."

WTF is going on???

Goodell is preventing a scene, at least for now. This is fully in keeping with his role as the caretaker of the league. This won't go on forever though, and he'll ultimately have to approve the reinstatement and allow Favre to report.

It's already a scene. Has been for awhile. I wonder if Favre gave the okay on the delay. If not, shouldn't the players union get involved soon?

 

[mozzy84]

The point of no return for Farve was when he was all wishy washy in saying he wanted to come back earlier this year, then finally told McCarthy he couldn't be 100% committed. At that point the franchise moved on, as they should of, and started doing everything possible to put Aaron Rodgers in the best position to succeed.I don't know Ted Thompson personally, but I do know this, the guy's no dummy. I think TT knows that even if they took Favre back and named him the starter today, the Pack would still be underdogs to win their division, and obviously a long shot to win the Super Bowl.Think about it, everything broke right for the Packers last season: they were able to beat Philly because the Eagles had no one on their roster who could catch a kick, Santana Moss singlehandily lifted the Packers to victory over the Skins, Dallas chokes in the playoffs (again) so they get HFA in the NFCCG against a team they destroyed earlier in the season, Farve had one of his best statistical seasons ever miraculously playing mistake free football most of the year, Ryan Grant came out of nowhere to have a monster second half of the season, etc. All these things broke GB's way and they still couldn't get to the Super Bowl. At this point, with or without Farve, Green Bay is a long shot to win the Super Bowl this season -- at best I would put them at 30 - 1. Right now, it would be idiotic for them to mortgage their future this season by starting Favre over Rodgers, imo.

 

[ScottyFargo]

OOKOOK I think you are missing the point. Everyone agrees that Favre SAID he wanted to play for the Packers in June. The issue is whether Favre meant it, or if it was part of plan to secure his release.RUMOR -- Favre asks to be traded once Packers did not sign Moss (Favre denies)RUMOR -- Favre retires because of TT (Family member is quoted, but Favre denies)RUMOR -- Favre in March is thinking about returning (Favre denies, but now admits is true)RUMOR -- Favre's agent begins to get feelers from other teams (not the Packers) in April (Bus Cook denies)RUMOR -- In early June Favre wants to return to play football (Favre denies, now admits is true)Taking TT and McCarthy at their word that Favre said he wanted to come back and play for the Pack in late June does not mean that it is what Favre wants. I agree with Yellow, this is the end of a fight that has been played behind the scenes for too long. At this point, the Packers have made mistakes, but I think at the time Favre retired he actually decided he no longer wanted to actually play for TT and the Pack in March. The only question was how to preserve his reputation in GB. I think Favre does treasure this -- and did not figure it would be affected. To maintain his legacy, he figured he would orchestrate a release along the lines of the ones given to prior Packers. He then would go play in Minnesota. I believe this was the plan all along. I could be wrong, and hope I am wrong. But the "RUMORS" seem to add to this. And the fact that Favre refused on several occasions to identify teams to which he would be traded indicates to me bolster that fact (since it seems unlikely he will be traded to Minnesota).The Packers have not attacked Favre as of yet. I suspect that Murphy is explaining to Favre all of the reasons why forcing the Packers hand might not be in Favre's favor. I think the Packers know that Favre is concerned about his legacy in GB (which I think would be unaffected by playing for a team like TB -- but could be affected if he plays for Minny and does well). I also think that Murphy is telling him that if Brett is convinced he wants to play for another team that they will trade him and is asking him whether he will accept that trade to a particular team(s) that the Packers are discussing.Of course, they could be working on a "Retirement Package" or a package where Brett stays retired and under payroll as a "consultant" or "player coach" for the Packers. However, given the things that were said about TT and McCarthy, I just don't see how the latter would work.

I don't think the idea about a retirement package is along the right lines. He isn't looking for a payoff. He wants to play. He knows he still can play. He just wants everything on his terms.

 

[mozzy84]

No decision on Favre reinstatement today

By Tom Silverstein

Wednesday, Jul 30 2008, 03:57 PM

Green Bay -- In a statement released a few minutes ago, an NFL spokesman said that commissioner Roger Goodell would not take action on quarterback Brett Favre's reinstatement.

The statement reads:

"The commissioner is taking no action today. He wants to give both the Packers and Brett an appropriate amount of time to make decisions, including decisions impacting the team's roster and salary cap. When Brett is reinstated by the commissioner, we will announce it."

boooo start the real circus already

 

[FunkyPlutos]

No decision on Favre reinstatement today

By Tom Silverstein

Wednesday, Jul 30 2008, 03:57 PM

Green Bay -- In a statement released a few minutes ago, an NFL spokesman said that commissioner Roger Goodell would not take action on quarterback Brett Favre's reinstatement.

The statement reads:

"The commissioner is taking no action today. He wants to give both the Packers and Brett an appropriate amount of time to make decisions, including decisions impacting the team's roster and salary cap. When Brett is reinstated by the commissioner, we will announce it."

WTF is going on???

I agree...plus, why can't they put an end (one way or the other) to the tampering charge?

 

[T Man]

Wouldn't this be a simple solution:

Favre goes on record with everyone and says: "I understand the Packer's position regarding moving forward. I also understand I want to play again. As a longtime member of the Packers organization, I have no interest in playing for an archrival of my current teammates. I have requested a release, and if the Packers release me, my promise to all my fans in Green Bay is that I will not sign with a team within the Packer's division".

If he said that, I could see the Packers responding:

"Brett has meant a lot to this organization and out of respect for his desire to continue his career we have decided to release him. We do so because we know Brett is a man of his word and will always be a Packer"/

Granted it requires the packers to "give in" by releasing a valuable commodity without compensation; but it also forces Favre to "give in" regarding his demand for a release "with no strings attached" -- a demand that many saw was the request by Favre to be able to play for the rival Vikings.

Of course, it won't happen. Both sides too stubborn.

 

[T Bell]

Visit to Favre Could Be Blunder By PackersAccording to reports by media outlets in Wisconsin, Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy has traveled to Mississippi to meet with quarterback Brett Favre and his agent, Bus Cook.The Green Bay Press-Gazette reported that Murphy will ask Favre not to show up for the Packers' training camp.If that report is true, the Packers could be making a major blunder.Under NFL rules, the Packers cannot prevent Favre from playing if he wants to play. They can reinstate him to their roster. They can trade him. They can release him. But they can't make him stay home.And if they do--or perhaps even if they just try--the NFL Players Association could file a grievance on Favre's behalf. The union perhaps could ask an arbitrator to make Favre a free agent. Maybe this is the way that Favre gets to his apparently chosen team, the Minnesota Vikings.The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.Presumably, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will reinstate Favre today. If he does, the Packers will have until the close of business Thursday to put Favre back on their roster, trade him or release him.By Mark Maske | July 30, 2008; 12:10 PM ET

I'm not sure that anyone truly knows the content of their communications outside of the Packers, Favre and Cook. Assuming this take is accurate, however, how is this a "blunder" if they ask him to stay away and he agrees? They're not locking him out of camp over his desire to attend, so what's the problem here?

Hey man, you could be absolutely right. However, they didn't need to fly down to ask him to stay away. They're protesting a bit much.

Or maybe, just maybe, the point of the trip is to see how they can work out a trade to another team . . . Nah, that couldn't be it, could it?

Why can't they work on a trade while he's at camp?

You don't think this situation would be worse with Favre reporting to camp? Reporting escalates the situation and makes it more difficult for them to work this out cooperatively.

 

[T Bell]

No decision on Favre reinstatement today

By Tom Silverstein

Wednesday, Jul 30 2008, 03:57 PM

Green Bay -- In a statement released a few minutes ago, an NFL spokesman said that commissioner Roger Goodell would not take action on quarterback Brett Favre's reinstatement.

The statement reads:

"The commissioner is taking no action today. He wants to give both the Packers and Brett an appropriate amount of time to make decisions, including decisions impacting the team's roster and salary cap. When Brett is reinstated by the commissioner, we will announce it."

WTF is going on???

Goodell is preventing a scene, at least for now. This is fully in keeping with his role as the caretaker of the league. This won't go on forever though, and he'll ultimately have to approve the reinstatement and allow Favre to report.

It's already a scene. Has been for awhile. I wonder if Favre gave the okay on the delay. If not, shouldn't the players union get involved soon?

Like I said above, it escalates with him phyiscally present at camp. That's the scene I'm talking about.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Why can't they work on a trade while he's at camp?

You don't think this situation would be worse with Favre reporting to camp? Reporting escalates the situation and makes it more difficult for them to work this out cooperatively.

Oh no, I absolutely know that it makes things worse. Which is why I know they are begging him to stay away. He knows how bad it would get too. So the visit is multipurpose, but you can't convince me that they want Favre to stay away from camp more than ever now.

 

[Moe Green]

Link

Murphy meets with Favre, agent in Mississippi

ESPN.com news services

Updated: July 30, 2008, 5:50 PM ET

* Comment

* Email

* Print

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- Green Bay Packers president Mark Murphy traveled to Mississippi to meet with quarterback Brett Favre and his agent James "Bus" Cook on Wednesday, in an apparent attempt to talk Favre out of reporting to camp later this week.

The Hattiesburg (Miss.) American reported on its Web site that the meeting took place at Cook's office in Hattiesburg.

Favre worked out with the Oak Grove High School football team before heading to the meeting. "I'm late for a 9 o'clock meeting and I'm not lying," he told reporters when the workout ended, according to the report.

He was seen leaving the office at about 1:30 p.m. ET.

"Why don't y'all get in the shade?" Favre told members of the media before he drove off.

Neither Cook nor Murphy made themselves available for comment and there was no indication whether the sides would meet again Wednesday afternoon, according to the newspaper.

ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports that commissioner Roger Goodell is unlikely to rule on Favre's request for reinstatement Wednesday in order to give the Packers and Favre more time to work out an agreement on Favre's future.

"The commissioner is taking no action today," the NFL said in a statement Wednesday. "He wants to give both the Packers and Brett an appropriate amount of time to make decisions, including decisions impacting the team's roster and salary cap. When Brett is reinstated by the commissioner, we will announce it."

About 1,000 miles north in Green Bay, Packers coach Mike McCarthy would not discuss the nature of the discussions after practice Wednesday morning.

"I really don't have any thoughts as far as Mark Murphy going to Mississippi," McCarthy said. "That's something you're going to have to ask Mark about. I'm not involved in the specifics of it. I really have no information for you."

The Green Bay Press-Gazette reported on its Web site Tuesday night that Murphy flew to Mississippi in hopes of talking Favre out of reporting to camp, a situation with the potential to cause a major distraction to a team that committed to moving on after Favre retired in March. Murphy declined comment to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter at the Green Bay airport before his flight left Tuesday night.

It was not clear whether Murphy would speak to reporters after he returned from Mississippi.

Nearly five months after his tearful retirement news conference in March, Favre filed for reinstatement with the NFL on Tuesday. He is awaiting approval from commissioner Roger Goodell, which could come as early as Wednesday.

Once he is reinstated, a step considered a formality, the Packers will have 24 hours to decide whether to release him or return him to their active roster. The team has ruled out releasing Favre, fearing he would immediately sign with division rival Minnesota.

The Packers also could trade Favre, although no deal appeared imminent. The Packers hold Favre's rights until his contract expires after the 2010 season.

Despite the apparent nature of Murphy's trip, McCarthy reiterated Wednesday that Favre "absolutely" was still welcome in Packers camp. Team officials have made it clear, both publicly and to Favre, that he would no longer be the starter if he returned to the team.

"I've said it, and I'll just say it again: He was a big part of our history, and he can reinstate, come here and be part of our future," McCarthy said.

McCarthy acknowledged that the ongoing Favre saga puts Aaron Rodgers in a unique situation, but said Rodgers is handling the situation well. Rodgers has been solid in his first few days of camp, although the Packers' defense seems to be ahead of the offense in the first week of camp.

Packers defensive end Aaron Kampman, a close friend of Rodgers and the quarterback's roommate in training camp, said Rodgers is a "tough guy" who will only get tougher under scrutiny.

"He's a grown man," Kampman said. "He's handling it very well. He's done tremendous. I think he continues to validate he's got some special stuff inside of him."

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

 

[T Bell]

Why can't they work on a trade while he's at camp?

You don't think this situation would be worse with Favre reporting to camp? Reporting escalates the situation and makes it more difficult for them to work this out cooperatively.

Oh no, I absolutely know that it makes things worse. Which is why I know they are begging him to stay away. He knows how bad it would get too. So the visit is multipurpose, but you can't convince me that they want Favre to stay away from camp more than ever now.

That's not the way this was first reported, and you know that. I have no idea whether the team has made such a request - frankly, there's evidence that they didn't need to for now because of Goodell's delay in reinstating Favre, so it's just as plausible that this wasn't part of the conversation.

 

[3nOut]

Bump. This was getting dangerously close to the middle of the first page.

 

[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.

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.

From John McClain of the Houston Chronicle today on local sports talk here (because of his ties with the Titans/Oilers...he does a spot)...he stated (and this is paraphrasing)...that back a few months ago, McCarthy went in front of the team.He told them about Favre almost coming out of retirement in March...he told them that they again asked Favre (not sure if that was in April or after Thompson's may meeting with him) if he was coming back...and if he said no, they had to really move on and not look back. Understanding that...Favre still said he was not coming back.

McCarthy then told the team that he and the organization had to move on and turn the page and not look back...and asked all the players to turn the page and not look back.

Now...this is unconfirmed and I have no idea where McClain got this...but the guy is tied in pretty well around the league and is rarely incorrect on such things.

 

[sho nuff]

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".There is no question of this.Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The question comes with my last post and what I had heard on the radio today from John McClain.That being...Favre knew perhaps in April or May...that if he said he was staying retired...that was it...the team was moving on without him. All of a sudden a month or two later...he was ready to come back and just expected them to drop everything for him again.As I have maintained...I don't think the team has done everything perfect at all...but Favre appears to be the most to blame for this.

 

[sho nuff]

lol at "Blunder"Mark Maske = Moron

The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.

I think it's a mistake, if not a blunder, to try so vigorously to keep Favre out of camp. Goodell gifted them with an extra day after Favre was so kind as to wait to file the papers. They are not on an even keel.

So at this point...we don't know if Murphy did say that...we don't know who asked him to give them an extra day...but Goodell has still not reinstated him so the article is pretty pointless until he does.

 

[sho nuff]

lol at "Blunder"Mark Maske = Moron

The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.

I think it's a mistake, if not a blunder, to try so vigorously to keep Favre out of camp. Goodell gifted them with an extra day after Favre was so kind as to wait to file the papers. They are not on an even keel.

The McNair situation in no way supports the conclusion that the Packers are making a mistake. The idea that the purpose of this trip is to "vigorously keep Favre out of camp" is pure speculation based on an anonymous report. It is quite likely that Favre himself has no desire to be in Green Bay under present circumstances. Goodell fully supports these efforts by the Packers and Favre to find a mutually agreeable resolution. It is absured of Maske to suggest there are grounds for a player grievance under these circumstances.

Shhh...Scotty believes any rumor/speculation based on anonymous reports he can if they shed a poor light on the Packers organization.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

The evidence does not support that. Favre, Thompson, and McCarthy have all agreed that when he called in June to say he wanted to come back and play with the Packers he was told "We have moved on".There is no question of this.Do start players try to influence GMs? Sure. Does this mean they do not want to play there? Not at all.

The question comes with my last post and what I had heard on the radio today from John McClain.That being...Favre knew perhaps in April or May...that if he said he was staying retired...that was it...the team was moving on without him. All of a sudden a month or two later...he was ready to come back and just expected them to drop everything for him again.As I have maintained...I don't think the team has done everything perfect at all...but Favre appears to be the most to blame for this.

and it will blow up on both Favre and Thompson.

 

[ScottyFargo]

lol at "Blunder"

Mark Maske = Moron

The union has a precedent, a previous case in which the Tennessee Titans tried to keep quarterback Steve McNair from working out as their facility during the offseason. McNair, also represented by Cook, ultimately was traded by the Titans to the Baltimore Ravens.

I think it's a mistake, if not a blunder, to try so vigorously to keep Favre out of camp. Goodell gifted them with an extra day after Favre was so kind as to wait to file the papers. They are not on an even keel.

The McNair situation in no way supports the conclusion that the Packers are making a mistake. The idea that the purpose of this trip is to "vigorously keep Favre out of camp" is pure speculation based on an anonymous report. It is quite likely that Favre himself has no desire to be in Green Bay under present circumstances. Goodell fully supports these efforts by the Packers and Favre to find a mutually agreeable resolution. It is absured of Maske to suggest there are grounds for a player grievance under these circumstances.

Shhh...Scotty believes any rumor/speculation based on anonymous reports he can if they shed a poor light on the Packers organization.

It is more likely that Favre is willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants, and if that means creating a media circus around the Packers TC, then so be it. I am sure it isn't his first option, which is why he'd take part in the talks.Also Sho, I am waiting to hear some facts that back up your assertion regarding Berrian and his "dropping problem." Considering he had less drops than Randy Moss, T.O., and Plaxico Burress last year, I really can't wait to hear the revelations you've got to give me.

 

[T Bell]

Also Sho, I am waiting to hear some facts that back up your assertion regarding Berrian and his "dropping problem." Considering he had less drops than Randy Moss, T.O., and Plaxico Burress last year, I really can't wait to hear the revelations you've got to give me.

I just wanted to point out that I had fewer drops than those guys last year. OTOH I had fewer targets too.

 

[fatness]

To maintain his legacy

I am so tired of reading this phrase. No offense intended towards T Man who made a good post.

 

[sho nuff]

I agree with that Scotty. Mostly it is a blunder because it shows the Packers have been actively misrepresenting the situaiton from the beginning.He was never welcome. He wanted to play at GB and was told he was not welcome. Then they turned to the media and said he was.

Shocking that you would agree with him...lol.He was welcome in March right after he retired...he was supposedly welcome after that as well but again said no. They were forced to move on and they did.

They did not want to trade him, did not want him in camp, did not want him to play period.They sent someone down from FO to ask him to stay retired.

They don't have a problem trading him to the right team.They "supposedly" sent someone to ask him to stay retired...please stop reporting that as if it is a fact as to why Murphy went there.

Now to ask him to VOLUNTARILY stay out of camp. And then they lie about it to the fans.

We don't know what was asked...and how the hell do you know its a lie at this point. Where did they lie about this one to the fans? The statements I read was that McCarthy simply does not want to discuss it.

This is some of the worst management decisions in the history of the league.I am embarrassed. And ashamed. What is the worst is that so many Favre haters blame him so much for wanting to unretire. He made a mistake. He admitted it. He has not been selfish, he JUST WANTS TO PLAY.

I am no Favre hater...he is still my favorite player to ever play the game. But to not admit how badly he has screwed this up is just not being honest about the situation.He does not just want to play...he wants to play for only a few certain teams.

Thompson should be "hung in effigy". For me, it ruins the success he has had putting togethor the team. I might rather have been a worse team last year and never had this nonsense clouding an organization that was once respected and is now a laughing stock. Better to lose with integrity than win by being dishonest and disrespectful to someone who has given so much.There it is. Public opinion in Packland can go to hell. They could simply have taken him back in June. Period. They chose not to and were arrogant enough to think they could convince him not to play. Thomspon = Arrogant SOB.Bring it on Haters, because it seems pretty obvious to those playing close attention.

Thompson has been put in a tough position by a player who seemed to think he could be a better GM than Thompson could.I might have rather Favre stayed retired or stayed active in the first place rather than the back and forth that forced the team into moving on and trying not to look back.It seems only obvious to those that are the ones who should be truthfully labeled as haters.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Also Sho, I am waiting to hear some facts that back up your assertion regarding Berrian and his "dropping problem." Considering he had less drops than Randy Moss, T.O., and Plaxico Burress last year, I really can't wait to hear the revelations you've got to give me.

I just wanted to point out that I had fewer drops than those guys last year. OTOH I had fewer targets too.

He had 4 drops on 128 targets. 4 Drops out of 71 receptions. He doesn't have a problem with dropped balls, he had a problem being in a horrific offense. Things might open up for him this year.