Favre likely to return.. (1 Viewer)

[gbill2004]

Dylan B. Tomlinson, of PackersNews.com, reports agent James "Bus" Cook, said in a televised interview that Green Bay Packers QB Brett Favre is more likely to return for another season if the Packers hired Steve Mariucci as head coach. As it stands, Packers general manager Ted Thompson plans to interview eight candidates, but Mariucci isn't on the list. In November, Favre said he didn't think Mariucci would coach during the 2006 season, but it is believed Mariucci has told those close to him that he would be interested in coaching the Packers.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think the days of the GB front office making moves just to appease Brett Favre are over, which is a good thing in this case since Mariucci isn't that good of a head coach.

 

[trader jake]

mooch will NOT be the next head coach of the green bay packers. gm ted thompson wants to bring in "his guy" (whoever that might be) and that decision will have nothing to do with brett favre and/or ties to the packers recent past

 

[offdee]

the conspiracy theory in GB is that they actually fired Sherman in an effort to push Favre out the door to retirement.This was the only way to save face as an organization, because if they literally cut Favre or told him to retire or traded him or whatever, the backlash from GB fans and football fans in general would be devastating to everyone in the GB organization.By firing Sherman they more or less would accomplish what they wanted to do, which is have Favre move on, without directly doing it.So hiring Mooch would probably not be an option if that was something that would actually prevent Favre from retiring.Don't you think the Packers would've already hired Mooch if they really wanted Favre to come back?

 

[gbill2004]

the conspiracy theory in GB is that they actually fired Sherman in an effort to push Favre out the door to retirement.

This was the only way to save face as an organization, because if they literally cut Favre or told him to retire or traded him or whatever, the backlash from GB fans and football fans in general would be devastating to everyone in the GB organization.

By firing Sherman they more or less would accomplish what they wanted to do, which is have Favre move on, without directly doing it.

So hiring Mooch would probably not be an option if that was something that would actually prevent Favre from retiring.

Don't you think the Packers would've already hired Mooch if they really wanted Favre to come back?

 

[KingPrawn]

the conspiracy theory in GB is that they actually fired Sherman in an effort to push Favre out the door to retirement.

This was the only way to save face as an organization, because if they literally cut Favre or told him to retire or traded him or whatever, the backlash from GB fans and football fans in general would be devastating to everyone in the GB organization.

By firing Sherman they more or less would accomplish what they wanted to do, which is have Favre move on, without directly doing it.

So hiring Mooch would probably not be an option if that was something that would actually prevent Favre from retiring.

Don't you think the Packers would've already hired Mooch if they really wanted Favre to come back?

I'm from the GB area and haven't heard this "conspiracy" theory yet. I think the Packers would welcome Favre back but as Ghost Rider has said the days of the Packers making moves to appease him are long gone. Thompson will hire the guy he feels is the best fit for the job and in the best interests of the Packers, regardless of what it means for Favre's future.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

I think the days of the GB front office making moves just to appease Brett Favre are over

Oh really? When did they start?

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

the conspiracy theory in GB is that they actually fired Sherman in an effort to push Favre out the door to retirement.

This was the only way to save face as an organization, because if they literally cut Favre or told him to retire or traded him or whatever, the backlash from GB fans and football fans in general would be devastating to everyone in the GB organization.

By firing Sherman they more or less would accomplish what they wanted to do, which is have Favre move on, without directly doing it.

So hiring Mooch would probably not be an option if that was something that would actually prevent Favre from retiring.

Don't you think the Packers would've already hired Mooch if they really wanted Favre to come back?

I think the Packers would welcome Favre back but as Ghost Rider has said the days of the Packers making moves to appease him are long gone.

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Name the moves the Packers made to "appease" Favre. In fact, Favre has gone out of his way to make sure everyone knows that he doesn't give any input on decisions made by the front office/staff. If you are from GB, you should know that. The only comment he ever made was about Sherman and later Favre clarified that it was taken out of context.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

the conspiracy theory in GB is that they actually fired Sherman in an effort to push Favre out the door to retirement.

The reason it is called a conspiracy theory is because it isn't true. The organization wants Favre back.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

If that's the case, I will pray for this to happen at church tomorrow.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

If that's the case, I will pray for this to happen at church tomorrow.

You may want to stick to praying for the Bears.

 

[Texasmouth]

the conspiracy theory in GB is that they actually fired Sherman in an effort to push Favre out the door to retirement.

This was the only way to save face as an organization, because if they literally cut Favre or told him to retire or traded him or whatever, the backlash from GB fans and football fans in general would be devastating to everyone in the GB organization.

By firing Sherman they more or less would accomplish what they wanted to do, which is have Favre move on, without directly doing it.

So hiring Mooch would probably not be an option if that was something that would actually prevent Favre from retiring.

Don't you think the Packers would've already hired Mooch if they really wanted Favre to come back?

I'm from the GB area and haven't heard this "conspiracy" theory yet. I think the Packers would welcome Favre back but as Ghost Rider has said the days of the Packers making moves to appease him are long gone. Thompson will hire the guy he feels is the best fit for the job and in the best interests of the Packers, regardless of what it means for Favre's future.

I don't think the mess in Detroit is Mooch's mess. I think Matt Millen is at fault. I also think Mooch in Green Bay would be a great fit and he could stick it to the Lions twice a year. Mooch is a good coach but has been in two bad situations that were made bad by his GM. I don't see why everyone seems to think Favre needs to retire. Sure, he had a ton of inteceptions but half of his team was injured. He was throwing to receivers that had no business being on the field. He was trying to force things to make plays. How many close games did Green Bay lose? Does anyone think Aaron Rodgers would have won those games? Favre needs to come back and give Rodgers one more year on the bench to learn. I think it will be a sad day when Favre hangs it up.

 

[KingPrawn]

the conspiracy theory in GB is that they actually fired Sherman in an effort to push Favre out the door to retirement.

This was the only way to save face as an organization, because if they literally cut Favre or told him to retire or traded him or whatever, the backlash from GB fans and football fans in general would be devastating to everyone in the GB organization.

By firing Sherman they more or less would accomplish what they wanted to do, which is have Favre move on, without directly doing it.

So hiring Mooch would probably not be an option if that was something that would actually prevent Favre from retiring.

Don't you think the Packers would've already hired Mooch if they really wanted Favre to come back?

I think the Packers would welcome Favre back but as Ghost Rider has said the days of the Packers making moves to appease him are long gone.

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Name the moves the Packers made to "appease" Favre. In fact, Favre has gone out of his way to make sure everyone knows that he doesn't give any input on decisions made by the front office/staff. If you are from GB, you should know that. The only comment he ever made was about Sherman and later Favre clarified that it was taken out of context.

Flavved, I am from the Green Bay area and follow the Packers closely. I know Favre is not the type of player to go to management and demand that we need to sign this player, make this move, etc. And I also know that he doesn't give any input on decisions made by the front office/staff. But it is not so much the moves that they have made to appease him but the lack of moves because of him. I do think that the Packer front office has been paralyzed in the recent past by being overly concerned with what effect a coaching move would have on Favre's future. I believe that Sherman may have been gone last year had it not been for this concern. This year they have decided to make the move regardless of what effect it may have. And they don't seem to be limiting themselves to coaching candidates that might make Favre happy. They are concentrating on what is best for the organization, with or without Favre.And when was the last time you saw any coach confront Favre over some of his boneheaded interceptions? Was he ever held accountable for them? That would be "appeasing" Favre. Favre was at his best when he had a coach that could keep him in check (Holmgren).

I, for one, am glad they fired Sherman. I think his play calling lacked imagination and the team became static and unemotional under him. With him as coach I think they were a playoff caliber team but never anything more than a first or second round team. They would never be a serious Super Bowl contender.

And I hope Favre comes back for another season or two or three. I think he still has the skills to be a top 5 QB. And the Packers could be a decent bounce back team next year with a favorable schedule, good health, a decent draft, and Favre at the helm.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

the conspiracy theory in GB is that they actually fired Sherman in an effort to push Favre out the door to retirement.

This was the only way to save face as an organization, because if they literally cut Favre or told him to retire or traded him or whatever, the backlash from GB fans and football fans in general would be devastating to everyone in the GB organization.

By firing Sherman they more or less would accomplish what they wanted to do, which is have Favre move on, without directly doing it.

So hiring Mooch would probably not be an option if that was something that would actually prevent Favre from retiring.

Don't you think the Packers would've already hired Mooch if they really wanted Favre to come back?

I think the Packers would welcome Favre back but as Ghost Rider has said the days of the Packers making moves to appease him are long gone.

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Name the moves the Packers made to "appease" Favre. In fact, Favre has gone out of his way to make sure everyone knows that he doesn't give any input on decisions made by the front office/staff. If you are from GB, you should know that. The only comment he ever made was about Sherman and later Favre clarified that it was taken out of context.

Flavved, I am from the Green Bay area and follow the Packers closely. I know Favre is not the type of player to go to management and demand that we need to sign this player, make this move, etc. And I also know that he doesn't give any input on decisions made by the front office/staff. But it is not so much the moves that they have made to appease him but the lack of moves because of him. I do think that the Packer front office has been paralyzed in the recent past by being overly concerned with what effect a coaching move would have on Favre's future. I believe that Sherman may have been gone last year had it not been for this concern. This year they have decided to make the move regardless of what effect it may have.

I have followed the Packers my entire life too. What do you mean by lack of moves? You made the statement that the Packers have made moves in the past to appease Favre. The situation you are referring to is whether or not Mike Sherman was kept in GB last year to appease Favre. I highly doubt that was the case.How has the front office been paralyzed in the recent past? Give some examples please. It is a myth that the front office does things to appease Favre.

 

[KingPrawn]

Flavved, I don't think Favre is calling the shots in GB or there are conspiracy theories to kick Favre out of Green Bay. I don't believe for a second that Favre is in Bob Harlan's or Ted Thompson's office suggesting what they should do. But I do think that what effects a move may have had on Favre's future was taken into account. How could it not? He is the franchise and the fan's favorite. They would be foolish not to take that into account. I don't get that feeling this year so much. No specific examples to be given. It is just my gut feeling and humble opinion.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Flavved, I don't think Favre is calling the shots in GB or there are conspiracy theories to kick Favre out of Green Bay. I don't believe for a second that Favre is in Bob Harlan's or Ted Thompson's office suggesting what they should do. But I do think that what effects a move may have had on Favre's future was taken into account. How could it not? He is the franchise and the fan's favorite. They would be foolish not to take that into account. I don't get that feeling this year so much. No specific examples to be given. It is just my gut feeling and humble opinion.

I agree that the Favre situation has an impact to a certain degree right now. However, that will change the longer he waits to make a decision. My problem is this quote from you.."I think the Packers would welcome Favre back but as Ghost Rider has said the days of the Packers making moves to appease him are long gone."

What moves have the Packers made in the past to appease Favre?

 

[packersfan]

Flavved, I am from the Green Bay area and follow the Packers closely. I know Favre is not the type of player to go to management and demand that we need to sign this player, make this move, etc. And I also know that he doesn't give any input on decisions made by the front office/staff. But it is not so much the moves that they have made to appease him but the lack of moves because of him. I do think that the Packer front office has been paralyzed in the recent past by being overly concerned with what effect a coaching move would have on Favre's future. I believe that Sherman may have been gone last year had it not been for this concern.

Prawn, I wanted Sherman fired as much and maybe more than anyone last season. It was clear the decline was in place and he was not the head coach this team needed. But I don't know how you could have justified firing him after the team rallied from the horrible start to win another division title. If you want to say the Packers hands were tied because of Favre, it was due to his standout play which helped lead them to another division title. That's what kept Sherman around for another season.

This year they have decided to make the move regardless of what effect it may have. And they don't seem to be limiting themselves to coaching candidates that might make Favre happy. They are concentrating on what is best for the organization, with or without Favre.

Which is the right thing to do. Now it's up to Thompson to find the right guy.

And when was the last time you saw any coach confront Favre over some of his boneheaded interceptions? Was he ever held accountable for them? That would be "appeasing" Favre. Favre was at his best when he had a coach that could keep him in check (Holmgren).

Agreed. But that's not making organizational moves based on what Favre wants or does not want. Huge difference there.

I, for one, am glad they fired Sherman.

Me too.

I think his play calling lacked imagination and the team became static and unemotional under him. With him as coach I think they were a playoff caliber team but never anything more than a first or second round team. They would never be a serious Super Bowl contender.

Nope. He was good at getting a team to a certain level but not good enough to get them where they really needed to go. And there were plenty of other behind-the-scenes issues that raised major red flags with regard to Sherman as a head coach as well.

And I hope Favre comes back for another season or two or three. I think he still has the skills to be a top 5 QB. And the Packers could be a decent bounce back team next year with a favorable schedule, good health, a decent draft, and Favre at the helm.

I agree. I think this season was more of a snowball's effect than an indication Favre has lost it. But I still believe he'll retire because I only see him wanting to play if the Packers can have a shot at the Super Bowl and that isn't going to happen in 2006.

 

[Traders2001]

Tell me something , what does it take for Favre to notice that he is finished , washed out .I dont understand how he can play one more year.

 

[SofaKings.]

Tell me something , what does it take for Favre to notice that he is finished , washed out .

I dont understand how he can play one more year.

It is getting to the point where he is hurting his francise.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Tell me something , what does it take for Favre to notice that he is finished , washed out .

I dont understand how he can play one more year.

It is getting to the point where he is hurting his francise.

How? I'd agree with the above statements if the Packers didn't get nailed with all the injuries on offense this year. I'm willing to cut Favre some slack on what took place this year and hope he comes back for at least next season. Do you think Rodgers playing this year would have helped the franchise?Have any of you seen some of the QBs in the league? I'd rather have Favre in there one more year with his weapons back on the offense. Aaron Rodgers? Rodgers struggled this year in practice and some in the organization are not sure he is the long term solution.

 

[SofaKings.]

Tell me something , what does it take for Favre to notice that he is finished , washed out .

I dont understand how he can play one more year.

It is getting to the point where he is hurting his francise.

How? I'd agree with the above statements if the Packers didn't get nailed with all the injuries on offense this year. I'm willing to cut Favre some slack on what took place this year and hope he comes back for at least next season. Do you think Rodgers playing this year would have helped the franchise?Have any of you seen some of the QBs in the league? I'd rather have Favre in there one more year with his weapons back on the offense. Aaron Rodgers? Rodgers struggled this year in practice and some in the organization are not sure he is the long term solution.

So you are willing to put off the QB rebuilding process one more year so Favre can have a goodbye tour? That doesn't really help the team or the new coach much does it?

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Tell me something , what does it take for Favre to notice that he is finished , washed out .

I dont understand how he can play one more year.

It is getting to the point where he is hurting his francise.

How? I'd agree with the above statements if the Packers didn't get nailed with all the injuries on offense this year. I'm willing to cut Favre some slack on what took place this year and hope he comes back for at least next season. Do you think Rodgers playing this year would have helped the franchise?Have any of you seen some of the QBs in the league? I'd rather have Favre in there one more year with his weapons back on the offense. Aaron Rodgers? Rodgers struggled this year in practice and some in the organization are not sure he is the long term solution.

So you are willing to put off the QB rebuilding process one more year so Favre can have a goodbye tour? That doesn't really help the team or the new coach much does it?

No, I'm willing to give the Packers one more year before "rebuilding".The weapons will be back on offense, the line will improve and the defense has shown reasons to be optimistic.

 

[Loomba]

Is it just me, or is Favre only interested in playing for coaches with a "soft touch" and who won't smack him across the head when he comes to the sidelines after throwing another idiot pass?I like Mooch though and hope he gets another shot. I just don't believe it will improve Favre's play much unless someone sits him down and convinces him not to press so much.

 

[Foosball God]

Tell me something , what does it take for Favre to notice that he is finished , washed out .

I dont understand how he can play one more year.

It is getting to the point where he is hurting his francise.

How? I'd agree with the above statements if the Packers didn't get nailed with all the injuries on offense this year. I'm willing to cut Favre some slack on what took place this year and hope he comes back for at least next season. Do you think Rodgers playing this year would have helped the franchise?Have any of you seen some of the QBs in the league? I'd rather have Favre in there one more year with his weapons back on the offense. Aaron Rodgers? Rodgers struggled this year in practice and some in the organization are not sure he is the long term solution.

So you are willing to put off the QB rebuilding process one more year so Favre can have a goodbye tour? That doesn't really help the team or the new coach much does it?

No, I'm willing to give the Packers one more year before "rebuilding".The weapons will be back on offense, the line will improve and the defense has shown reasons to be optimistic.

GF'nB rose colored glasses.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Is it just me, or is Favre only interested in playing for coaches with a "soft touch" and who won't smack him across the head when he comes to the sidelines after throwing another idiot pass?

I like Mooch though and hope he gets another shot.  I just don't believe it will improve Favre's play much unless someone sits him down and convinces him not to press so much.

Yes, it's just you!1. Did Mike Holmgren have a "soft touch"?

2. Mooch was a key person during Favre's early years with the Packers.

3. Name these coaches that Favre is only interested in playing for?

Do you clowns go to a special class to come up with this crap? What's next, a comment that Favre only wants to play for coaches that have the first name of "Mike"?

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Tell me something , what does it take for Favre to notice that he is finished , washed out .

I dont understand how he can play one more year.

It is getting to the point where he is hurting his francise.

How? I'd agree with the above statements if the Packers didn't get nailed with all the injuries on offense this year. I'm willing to cut Favre some slack on what took place this year and hope he comes back for at least next season. Do you think Rodgers playing this year would have helped the franchise?Have any of you seen some of the QBs in the league? I'd rather have Favre in there one more year with his weapons back on the offense. Aaron Rodgers? Rodgers struggled this year in practice and some in the organization are not sure he is the long term solution.

So you are willing to put off the QB rebuilding process one more year so Favre can have a goodbye tour? That doesn't really help the team or the new coach much does it?

No, I'm willing to give the Packers one more year before "rebuilding".The weapons will be back on offense, the line will improve and the defense has shown reasons to be optimistic.

GF'nB rose colored glasses.

Really? Tell us why GB should start to rebuild NOW instead of trying for next year after they bring back so much that was missing.

 

[Traders2001]

Tell me something , what does it take for Favre to notice that he is finished , washed out .

I dont understand how he can play one more year.

It is getting to the point where he is hurting his francise.

How? I'd agree with the above statements if the Packers didn't get nailed with all the injuries on offense this year. I'm willing to cut Favre some slack on what took place this year and hope he comes back for at least next season. Do you think Rodgers playing this year would have helped the franchise?Have any of you seen some of the QBs in the league? I'd rather have Favre in there one more year with his weapons back on the offense. Aaron Rodgers? Rodgers struggled this year in practice and some in the organization are not sure he is the long term solution.

So you are willing to put off the QB rebuilding process one more year so Favre can have a goodbye tour? That doesn't really help the team or the new coach much does it?

No, I'm willing to give the Packers one more year before "rebuilding".The weapons will be back on offense, the line will improve and the defense has shown reasons to be optimistic.

Even if god were to play as wr for the Packers , you could see that Favre was just throwimg the ball away anywhere and of course got Picked.He doesnt have it anymore too bad , but anyone not agreeing is simply not facing reality.

 

[Irish]

the conspiracy theory in GB is that they actually fired Sherman in an effort to push Favre out the door to retirement.

This was the only way to save face as an organization, because if they literally cut Favre or told him to retire or traded him or whatever, the backlash from GB fans and football fans in general would be devastating to everyone in the GB organization.

By firing Sherman they more or less would accomplish what they wanted to do, which is have Favre move on, without directly doing it.

So hiring Mooch would probably not be an option if that was something that would actually prevent Favre from retiring.

Don't you think the Packers would've already hired Mooch if they really wanted Favre to come back?

I think the Packers would welcome Favre back but as Ghost Rider has said the days of the Packers making moves to appease him are long gone.

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Name the moves the Packers made to "appease" Favre. In fact, Favre has gone out of his way to make sure everyone knows that he doesn't give any input on decisions made by the front office/staff. If you are from GB, you should know that. The only comment he ever made was about Sherman and later Favre clarified that it was taken out of context.

Yeah I'm pretty sure Brett Favre was not behind the decision to burn a 1st rd pick on a backup qb.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Tell me something , what does it take for Favre to notice that he is finished , washed out .

I dont understand how he can play one more year.

It is getting to the point where he is hurting his francise.

How? I'd agree with the above statements if the Packers didn't get nailed with all the injuries on offense this year. I'm willing to cut Favre some slack on what took place this year and hope he comes back for at least next season. Do you think Rodgers playing this year would have helped the franchise?Have any of you seen some of the QBs in the league? I'd rather have Favre in there one more year with his weapons back on the offense. Aaron Rodgers? Rodgers struggled this year in practice and some in the organization are not sure he is the long term solution.

So you are willing to put off the QB rebuilding process one more year so Favre can have a goodbye tour? That doesn't really help the team or the new coach much does it?

No, I'm willing to give the Packers one more year before "rebuilding".The weapons will be back on offense, the line will improve and the defense has shown reasons to be optimistic.

Even if god were to play as wr for the Packers , you could see that Favre was just throwimg the ball away anywhere and of course got Picked.He doesnt have it anymore too bad , but anyone not agreeing is simply not facing reality.

Wrong. The people not facing reality are the ones that have no clue as to what took place to the Packers this year. Do you read, watch or listen to any of the media that covers the NFL? They all agree that the Packers were decimated by injuries at the key skill positions. Many of those people stated Favre was surrounded by recievers that were NFL Europe quality and they were down to the 6th string RB.Yes, if Favre had Green, Franks and Walker healthy all year and played like he did then I would agree with you. However, the reality is he didn't and was forced to do too much. Of course he made some bad decisions this year but given the state of QBs in the NFL, I'll take Favre back and many teams would love to have Favre as their QB.

 

[SofaKings.]

Tell me something , what does it take for Favre to notice that he is finished , washed out .

I dont understand how he can play one more year.

It is getting to the point where he is hurting his francise.

How? I'd agree with the above statements if the Packers didn't get nailed with all the injuries on offense this year. I'm willing to cut Favre some slack on what took place this year and hope he comes back for at least next season. Do you think Rodgers playing this year would have helped the franchise?Have any of you seen some of the QBs in the league? I'd rather have Favre in there one more year with his weapons back on the offense. Aaron Rodgers? Rodgers struggled this year in practice and some in the organization are not sure he is the long term solution.

So you are willing to put off the QB rebuilding process one more year so Favre can have a goodbye tour? That doesn't really help the team or the new coach much does it?

No, I'm willing to give the Packers one more year before "rebuilding".The weapons will be back on offense, the line will improve and the defense has shown reasons to be optimistic.

Even if god were to play as wr for the Packers , you could see that Favre was just throwimg the ball away anywhere and of course got Picked.He doesnt have it anymore too bad , but anyone not agreeing is simply not facing reality.

Wrong. The people not facing reality are the ones that have no clue as to what took place to the Packers this year. Do you read, watch or listen to any of the media that covers the NFL? They all agree that the Packers were decimated by injuries at the key skill positions. Many of those people stated Favre was surrounded by recievers that were NFL Europe quality and they were down to the 6th string RB.Yes, if Favre had Green, Franks and Walker healthy all year and played like he did then I would agree with you. However, the reality is he didn't and was forced to do too much. Of course he made some bad decisions this year but given the state of QBs in the NFL, I'll take Favre back and many teams would love to have Favre as their QB.

In the beginning of the year, did the packers have injuries to the offensive line? I just remember them losing two guys to free agency. I'm looking for something that will tell me why the pack couldn't run block for Green the first half of the season.

 

[Balco]

I am a Packer fan that thinks we should continue to rebuild. The window has closed, although I don't think Brett coming back would be a bad thing. It might be blasphemous to say this, but I wouldn't be upset if Brett played for another team (although we all know he would not do that). We owe so much to Favre as Packers fans, and if he wants to go to a championship caliber team, then I wish him luck, and will root for him as long as it isn't against the Pack.With that said, Mariucci would be a horrible hire. he is a players coach who had some pretty good talent offensively in Detorit and could do nothing.Now to the Packers rebuilding:I have said all along that if Haloti Ngata declared for the draft, that is the guy we need to get. Well, he declared, and I hope the Pack drafts him as opposed to Mario Williams. In the 2nd round I would love to get a MLB like DQwell Jackson, so that Barnett could move to the weak side. Mike Flanagan should be let go, and the middle of the offensive line needs to be addressed. Also, do not sign Javon Walker to an extension, until we see how that knee holds up.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Of course he made some bad decisions this year but given the state of QBs in the NFL, I'll take Favre back and many teams would love to have Favre as their QB.

Too bad Green Bay doesn't appear to be one of them anymore since they fired the coach Favre said he wanted to continue playing under and are not giving consideration (yet) to another whom Favre would probably stay to play for, too.

 

[fatness]

Dylan B. Tomlinson, of PackersNews.com, reports agent James "Bus" Cook, said in a televised interview that Green Bay Packers QB Brett Favre is more likely to return for another season if the Packers hired Steve Mariucci as head coach.

How many teams decide who to hire as head coach based on who a player wants?

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Of course he made some bad decisions this year but given the state of QBs in the NFL, I'll take Favre back and many teams would love to have Favre as their QB.

Too bad Green Bay doesn't appear to be one of them anymore since they fired the coach Favre said he wanted to continue playing under and are not giving consideration (yet) to another whom Favre would probably stay to play for, too.

Repeat this slowly........Brett Favre clarified his remarks about Sherman and stated they were taken out of context. He never intended his remarks to mean he wouldn't return if Sherman was fired.

This is only about the 100th time this has had to be explained to people here.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Tell me something , what does it take for Favre to notice that he is finished , washed out .

I dont understand how he can play one more year.

It is getting to the point where he is hurting his francise.

How? I'd agree with the above statements if the Packers didn't get nailed with all the injuries on offense this year. I'm willing to cut Favre some slack on what took place this year and hope he comes back for at least next season. Do you think Rodgers playing this year would have helped the franchise?Have any of you seen some of the QBs in the league? I'd rather have Favre in there one more year with his weapons back on the offense. Aaron Rodgers? Rodgers struggled this year in practice and some in the organization are not sure he is the long term solution.

So you are willing to put off the QB rebuilding process one more year so Favre can have a goodbye tour? That doesn't really help the team or the new coach much does it?

No, I'm willing to give the Packers one more year before "rebuilding".The weapons will be back on offense, the line will improve and the defense has shown reasons to be optimistic.

Even if god were to play as wr for the Packers , you could see that Favre was just throwimg the ball away anywhere and of course got Picked.He doesnt have it anymore too bad , but anyone not agreeing is simply not facing reality.

Wrong. The people not facing reality are the ones that have no clue as to what took place to the Packers this year. Do you read, watch or listen to any of the media that covers the NFL? They all agree that the Packers were decimated by injuries at the key skill positions. Many of those people stated Favre was surrounded by recievers that were NFL Europe quality and they were down to the 6th string RB.Yes, if Favre had Green, Franks and Walker healthy all year and played like he did then I would agree with you. However, the reality is he didn't and was forced to do too much. Of course he made some bad decisions this year but given the state of QBs in the NFL, I'll take Favre back and many teams would love to have Favre as their QB.

I just remember them losing two guys to free agency. I'm looking for something that will tell me why the pack couldn't run block for Green the first half of the season.

"losing two guys to free agency"

There's your answer, slick.

 

[Da Guru]

Farve should retire!

 

[KornKrackedJimy]

Unless I heard wrong....on ESPN earlier someone (Mort ?) said Mooch doesnt want to coach next year. Also, I'd like Favre to stick around another year so I can watch him suck again.

 

[Boone22]

From KFFL...NFL | Mariucci likely to sit out 2006 seasonSun, 8 Jan 2006 10:54:00 -0800ESPN.com's Chris Mortensen reports sources close to former Detroit Lions head coach Steve Mariucci said he's not prepared to re-enter the NFL fray again at this stage and he will likely sit out the 2006 season.

 

[Da Guru]

Mooch will get paid 5 million not to coach! I would take a year of myself for 5 mill.

 

[Loomba]

Is it just me, or is Favre only interested in playing for coaches with a "soft touch" and who won't smack him across the head when he comes to the sidelines after throwing another idiot pass?

I like Mooch though and hope he gets another shot.  I just don't believe it will improve Favre's play much unless someone sits him down and convinces him not to press so much.

Yes, it's just you!1. Did Mike Holmgren have a "soft touch"?

2. Mooch was a key person during Favre's early years with the Packers.

3. Name these coaches that Favre is only interested in playing for?

Do you clowns go to a special class to come up with this crap? What's next, a comment that Favre only wants to play for coaches that have the first name of "Mike"?

Let this clown answer your questions:

1. Irrelevant. Holmgren didn't have a soft touch. He would chew Favre out for making bad throws. But since he isn't being discussed as a candidate for the GB job, or coaches like him, that proves my point. Thanks bud.

2. That's nice. They're old friends. Just the kind of coach that won't be a hard ###. Thanks again bud.

3. Sherman and Mooch are the names that have been linked to FAvre's comments. I dont' recall Sherman getting in Favre's face this year when he should have at times. Maybe they discussed things after games, behind the scenes, but didn't seem to have an impact on Favre's bad decision making. Mooch wouldn't be much differend, imho.

cheers,

 

[KingPrawn]

Directly from Favre? No. From his agent. Yes. For Flavved's benefit let me requote the first post of this thread.

Dylan B. Tomlinson, of PackersNews.com, reports agent James "Bus" Cook, said in a televised interview that Green Bay Packers QB Brett Favre is more likely to return for another season if the Packers hired Steve Mariucci as head coach.

And if you don't think players send messages thru their agents then you are naive.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Directly from Favre? No. From his agent. Yes. For Flavved's benefit let me requote the first post of this thread.

Dylan B. Tomlinson, of PackersNews.com, reports agent James "Bus" Cook, said in a televised interview that Green Bay Packers QB Brett Favre is more likely to return for another season if the Packers hired Steve Mariucci as head coach.

And if you don't think players send messages thru their agents then you are naive.

Bus and Steve go back along way too. It could have been the case of Bus just trying to put a plug in for Steve. Brett does think highly of Steve too. However, just remember that Brett Favre has said NOTHING about past or potential coaches.Favre also has a history of NOT saying anything about personnel or coaching decisions from the front office.

He clarified his remarks about Sherman and has said nothing about a potential new hire.

 

[Loomba]

Hi Fla\/\/ed,Glad to see you (and Johnny U) deleted a number of your old posts on this thread. I don't think you and I were not communicating effectively. I was being critical of the fact that Sherman didn't appear to kick Brett in the backside this season for a number of bad throws. He should have, imho. I was then a little frustrated to hear comments (even if taken out of context and later clarified or made by his agent) that sounded like Favre was being supportive of a couple of coaching candidates that I think would probably be (or continue to be) overly lenient with him. Hopefully McCarthy will help turn things around. Getting some weapons back will obviously help too. Favre is a living legend, but he is not beyond reproach. He still needs some good coaching to be as effective as he can be.BTW, I am a big Favre fan, own his jersey and wore it the last Sunday of the season since it might have been his last game. I hope and think he'll return next year and can put up a few more solid seasons if he gets a little more support and is reminded to not to force the ball as, imho, he clearly was doing much of this year.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Hi Fla\/\/ed,

Glad to see you (and Johnny U) deleted a number of your old posts on this thread.

Huh? I didn't delete anything and I don't think the mods did either.

 

[Loomba]

The mods must have removed them, probably due to some of the content. cheers.