What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

Missing Element-Brett Favre & The Packers (1 Viewer)

Ookie Pringle said:
bcr8f said:
That's not what Favre said in June. His story changes with the tide. In spring Favre said he got a call when he was changing his mind(at the owners meeting). TT and McCarthy were going to fly to see him but he called back and changed his mind.

Even if what Favre now says is true why didn't he say he didn't want the locker. He wants to play?

Too many stories too little time to debunk them all.
Sure Thompson wanted Favre back......here is your locker Brett!! Show us where Favre stated he had contact with Thompson prior to his retirement.
Favre shot down reports that Thompson and McCarthy had chartered a flight to Mississippi to talk to the quarterback in late March about finalizing his comeback, only to have Favre back out at the last minute. Favre said McCarthy told him they were heading to Orlando, Fla., for the owners' meetings and wanted to stop by to speak with him.

"The next day I told him, 'Mike, don't worry about coming down or dropping by. I still can't commit,'" he said. "They made it sound like they had chartered a plane just to see me and I had made a call and said, 'I'm coming back,' which is not true."
So let's look at the substance of what Favre admitted to in YOUR quotes...That TT and McCarthy were going to come by and see him but Favre said not to because he couldn't commit to coming back.

So, again, how is that different from what bcr8f posted?

What Favre "disputes" is that "they made it sound like they had chartered a plane just to see me". That's the dispute!?!?! Whether or not they were only coming to see Brett or were coming to see him and attend the owners' meeting. That was important for Brett to clear up? Well, thanks for clearing up that detail, Brett!

The fact that it bothered Brett that TT's tickets weren't in fact round trip from Wisconsin to Missisippi wouldn't at all support the accusation that Favre is a spoiled prima donna who was really only concerned with having the Packers beg him to come back. :goodposting:
It did needed to be cleared up because many of the Favre haters/TT lovers want to think that they were making a special trip just to see Brett when the reality was they were heading to the owners meetings. Of course Favre couldn't commit. He knew that he wasn't wanted back in Green Bay. I guess that trip by Thompson to give Favre his locker to him was the perfect way to say..."Hi Brett we really want you back but here is your locker". :goodposting:
For the sake of argument, put me in the hater camp. You know what? I don't care whether or not TT was also heading to the owners meeting. I don't know a hater who cares. But I know who does care. Favre. Because he felt like he was snubbed because TT didn't want him back enough to book a special trip to Mississippi to kiss his ring and beg him to come back.What we haters care about is that Favre still couldn't commit. What, do you think they were going to give him a locker as a retirement gift if he decided to come back and play? That's ridiculous. Unless you're Brett Favre and are insulted that TT isn't there to kiss your ring and beg you to come back. So again, Brett becomes insulted that TT is still taking Favre at his word and considering him retired instead of begging him to come back.

You are making my case for me.

 
Are you really this ignorant? You have to be to not acknowledge the leadership that Favre displayed on the field. Ask anyone that knows anything about the NFL and they will agree. You're hatred of Favre is really, really pathetic.
I am. I'm so ignorant that I'm asking you, no, begging you, Brett...err, Stinger, to describe for me what leadership Favre provided on (or off) the field that Rodgers isn't.Seriously. I'm ignorant and an open mind waiting for enlightenment. If you're up to the challenge, I'm eager for the lesson. If you can't, I'd like to know why you can't.I'll give you the courtesy of reserving judgment on whether or not your adherence to a position "so obvious" but which you cannot articulate or defend is pathetic until after you've replied.
 
if you deny Favre's leadership having any effect on this team at all you must also believe...That rivalries mean nothing to a players mindset and performance.That there is no such thing as bulletin board material.That defending a championship is just as easy as winning one.That the mental fatigue of a season has no effects on performance.That a good locker room has no effect on performance.That TO is not a cancer.
I don't think too many people are denying that.I deny its had enough of an effect to change this season from crap to any huge success though.
Why did the Cowboys look so good this weekend with Romo yet looked so bad early in the season with Romo?
:goodposting: The Cowboys started the season 4-1 and he got hurt at the end of the next game against Arizona. The team struggled when Romo wasn't in the lineup.
They lost to Washington and Arizona and beat Cleveland, Cincy, Green Bay and Philly. What are the records of those teams they got W's against? They gave up lots of points to Philly and Arizona and too many to Cincy. Sure, Romo had nice stats, but what kind of leadership was he providing to the rest of team (and the D) when after 6 weeks they have almost matched their loss total from 2007 with the tough part of their schedule still to get through? To say this team hasn't regressed this season, despite being largely unchanged, would be crazy, right? To be blaming the QB for the difference in how other players are producing despite the fact that he is putting up nice stats, comparable to last year in fact, isn't crazy is it? :goodposting:
I think you're nuts.
And I think your applying a double standard. As long as Romo's stats look good but the team suffers more losses, he's still A-OK. But if Rodger's stats look good, but the team isn't winning as much, it's obviously his lack of leadership.
 
I drafted Farve late on two of my teams thinking that he would be the Farve of old.Farve had one fluke 6 TD game. Other than that I think he has a 14-17 INT ratio, has not thrown for 300 yards in a single game, had had 3 games without a TD pass, and for the most part looks like an old QB.Farve was one of the all-time greats, but the Farve of today is not even close to a great QB.Rodgers has a future, Farve only has a past. The Pack drafted Rodgers three years ago because Farve kept saying how tired he was.
Yes, because stats correlate directly to leadership. After all Favre is the Favre of old... he is winning.
Pennington would have done just fine this year with the Jets.I am not bashing Farve at all..only to say it was time. The Pack were not going to win this year and now Rodgers has a year under his belt. Rodgers has upside.
 
Are you really this ignorant? You have to be to not acknowledge the leadership that Favre displayed on the field. Ask anyone that knows anything about the NFL and they will agree. You're hatred of Favre is really, really pathetic.
I am. I'm so ignorant that I'm asking you, no, begging you, Brett...err, Stinger, to describe for me what leadership Favre provided on (or off) the field that Rodgers isn't.Seriously. I'm ignorant and an open mind waiting for enlightenment. If you're up to the challenge, I'm eager for the lesson. If you can't, I'd like to know why you can't.I'll give you the courtesy of reserving judgment on whether or not your adherence to a position "so obvious" but which you cannot articulate or defend is pathetic until after you've replied.
High comedy :rant:
 
Ookie Pringle said:
Favre sensed that Thompson didn't want him back and I think that is one of the main reasons that Favre decided to retire Favre unretired. Because he was angry that TT didn't beg him to come back. Brett admitted tried to explain away his own words from his own retirement press conference by trying to convince us he wasn't ready to announce his retirement when he did.
I fixed it for you. :lmao:
How is that leadership in sports studying going for ya?
Apparently as well as that logic class did for you. Can I expect some substantive, logical disagreement with my position in your reply or should I just mark you down for an ad hominem? :rant:
I'd say it looks like you are getting :rant:
I must be cause you say I am.Man, can I call them or what?

 
Are you really this ignorant? You have to be to not acknowledge the leadership that Favre displayed on the field. Ask anyone that knows anything about the NFL and they will agree. You're hatred of Favre is really, really pathetic.
I am. I'm so ignorant that I'm asking you, no, begging you, Brett...err, Stinger, to describe for me what leadership Favre provided on (or off) the field that Rodgers isn't.Seriously. I'm ignorant and an open mind waiting for enlightenment. If you're up to the challenge, I'm eager for the lesson. If you can't, I'd like to know why you can't.I'll give you the courtesy of reserving judgment on whether or not your adherence to a position "so obvious" but which you cannot articulate or defend is pathetic until after you've replied.
I take it you must not read well because I saw some great articles in this thread written about the leadership Favre exhibited while with the Packers and the Jets.I can understand why you ignore them.
 
Ookie Pringle said:
bcr8f said:
That's not what Favre said in June. His story changes with the tide. In spring Favre said he got a call when he was changing his mind(at the owners meeting). TT and McCarthy were going to fly to see him but he called back and changed his mind.

Even if what Favre now says is true why didn't he say he didn't want the locker. He wants to play?

Too many stories too little time to debunk them all.
Sure Thompson wanted Favre back......here is your locker Brett!! Show us where Favre stated he had contact with Thompson prior to his retirement.
Favre shot down reports that Thompson and McCarthy had chartered a flight to Mississippi to talk to the quarterback in late March about finalizing his comeback, only to have Favre back out at the last minute. Favre said McCarthy told him they were heading to Orlando, Fla., for the owners' meetings and wanted to stop by to speak with him.

"The next day I told him, 'Mike, don't worry about coming down or dropping by. I still can't commit,'" he said. "They made it sound like they had chartered a plane just to see me and I had made a call and said, 'I'm coming back,' which is not true."
So let's look at the substance of what Favre admitted to in YOUR quotes...That TT and McCarthy were going to come by and see him but Favre said not to because he couldn't commit to coming back.

So, again, how is that different from what bcr8f posted?

What Favre "disputes" is that "they made it sound like they had chartered a plane just to see me". That's the dispute!?!?! Whether or not they were only coming to see Brett or were coming to see him and attend the owners' meeting. That was important for Brett to clear up? Well, thanks for clearing up that detail, Brett!

The fact that it bothered Brett that TT's tickets weren't in fact round trip from Wisconsin to Missisippi wouldn't at all support the accusation that Favre is a spoiled prima donna who was really only concerned with having the Packers beg him to come back. :rant:
It did needed to be cleared up because many of the Favre haters/TT lovers want to think that they were making a special trip just to see Brett when the reality was they were heading to the owners meetings. Of course Favre couldn't commit. He knew that he wasn't wanted back in Green Bay. I guess that trip by Thompson to give Favre his locker to him was the perfect way to say..."Hi Brett we really want you back but here is your locker". :rant:
For the sake of argument, put me in the hater camp. You know what? I don't care whether or not TT was also heading to the owners meeting. I don't know a hater who cares. But I know who does care. Favre. Because he felt like he was snubbed because TT didn't want him back enough to book a special trip to Mississippi to kiss his ring and beg him to come back.What we haters care about is that Favre still couldn't commit. What, do you think they were going to give him a locker as a retirement gift if he decided to come back and play? That's ridiculous. Unless you're Brett Favre and are insulted that TT isn't there to kiss your ring and beg you to come back. So again, Brett becomes insulted that TT is still taking Favre at his word and considering him retired instead of begging him to come back.

You are making my case for me.
There is no case to be made for you other than you are a blind Favre hater.
 
Are you really this ignorant? You have to be to not acknowledge the leadership that Favre displayed on the field. Ask anyone that knows anything about the NFL and they will agree. You're hatred of Favre is really, really pathetic.
I am. I'm so ignorant that I'm asking you, no, begging you, Brett...err, Stinger, to describe for me what leadership Favre provided on (or off) the field that Rodgers isn't.Seriously. I'm ignorant and an open mind waiting for enlightenment. If you're up to the challenge, I'm eager for the lesson. If you can't, I'd like to know why you can't.I'll give you the courtesy of reserving judgment on whether or not your adherence to a position "so obvious" but which you cannot articulate or defend is pathetic until after you've replied.
You don't have an open mind. :rant: I suggest you read some of the articles that others have posted in here if you looking for enlightenment about the leadership Favre brought to the Packers.
 
Mr.Pack said:
Da Guru said:
It sure was a shame when Favre retired... who knows how this season would have gone if he had simply said "Sure, I'll play another year" to the Packers? :unsure:
Exactly. All Farve had to say after last year was "We had a great year and I can`t wait to get to camp" The Packers would have welcomed him back.Instead Farve did what he has done the last 3-4 years..and sometimes he did it in season. Saying " I am tired, I am not sure I can prepare like I used to. The game is draining."Is that what you want to hear if you are the Packers?I like Farve, but he was as much or more to blame for this than the Packers.
These are two damn :rolleyes: Everyone wants to blame the Packers, but they DID welcome him back, even after his games. But FAVRE was the one who had his little feelings hurt and told McCarthy he couldn't give it 100% to play for Green Bay. THAT is when they made the decision to trade him.All the detractors in here conveniently forget about this.The Defense (Or lack there of) is the single biggest reason they are 5-9 this year. Rodgers HAS led them to "come from behind" scores, only to have the Defense let their opponents walk right on down the field to score again, making Rodgers have to lead another drive. The people in here conveniently leave that out too. Yes yesterday there was enough time to drive again, and that was a terrible pass. I don't absolve Rodgers of everything, but those in here that place everything on his shoulders, zdragon, springroll, okie pringle, phase of the game......just to name a few, well you guys make yourselves look foolish. try watching a whole season of games, not just what you read. And if you are watching, open your mind, not to mention your eyes.
You ask us to open our minds yet you don't seem to won't to and call others foolish for seeing what I believe to be the complete picture. Offense Drive StatsCategory Number (2008,2007)Overall (11th,4th)Yds/drive 29.53 (14th,6th)Pts/Drive 2.00 (13th,5th)Tds/Drive .221 (13th,6th)Drive Success Rate .681 (14th,10th)The defense is not as good as last year but they are not the " the single biggest reason ". Everyone points to points allowed but never at any of the actual reason to why that number has gone up by 6pts. There is plenty of blame to go around and to single out the defense only is being blind to the overall situation.
Agreed...its not just the defense...but the defense is the biggest part of it IMO.
If you want to define biggest part by a small percentage then sure. The offensive stats are looking worse every week.
 
A quote from Leon Washington....

"When you have Brett Favre coming into the huddle, it makes everybody else in the huddle step their games up"

So Favre makes his teammates give a better effort? But you said there was more to leadership than that! Hence, I asked what more was there.

Jerico Cotchery

"It is very special to have a guy like that step into your huddle"

And this is evidence of leadership or Favre being special?

Eric Mangini

" I think Brett just . . . he instills confidence in the group ... There's a sense of ease when he has the ball. You feel he's going to get it to the right place."

Confidence. Nice compliment. So how does this make him better leader than Rodgers? Given the stats, Rodgers seems to put the ball in the right place. The opposite can be argued of Favre this season, however.

From another player

"I didn't see any nervousness on his face; I saw a quiet confidence on his face, so to speak. When he stepped into the huddle, we knew we were going to be able to get it done because that's the way he's been this entire year."

Does Rodgers look nervous in the huddle? Does Rodgers lack confidence?

http://www.daylife.com/quote/0fav1s56wI8vz
 
Da Guru said:
Exactly. All Farve had to say after last year was "We had a great year and I can`t wait to get to camp" The Packers would have welcomed him back.

Instead Farve did what he has done the last 3-4 years..and sometimes he did it in season. Saying " I am tired, I am not sure I can prepare like I used to. The game is draining."

Is that what you want to hear if you are the Packers?

I like Farve, but he was as much or more to blame for this than the Packers.
Isn't it wonderful the leadership Favre brought to the team...Locker apart from the rest of the team...

No mentoring...

Not wanting to invest as much time preparing as before...

Being tired of being depended on...

No wonder the team is struggling. Clearly Favre was showing them what it takes to win in the NFL.
It's obvious you have no concept of the leadership Favre displayed on the field while he played for the Packers.
Funny, I was going to accuse you of having no concept of the leadership Favre or Rodgers display on or off the field because you seem completely unable to define it or describe it despite your asserting that Favre has it and Rodgers lacks it. I certainly understand that it's "intangible" enough that you or any other pro-Favre or anti-Thompson partisan can toss it out there as a Rodger's deficiency and never have to back it up with anything concrete.
The reasons Brett Favre’s retirement filled a 24-hour news cycle are obvious. He was larger than life to the networks because he made good television. No – great, compelling television. Favre had a common denominator with America because he played quarterback the way it was played before coaches stopped trusting anything but their playbook and their tendency charts, scripting the position tighter than a White House press conference. Favre was a superstar who somehow made Joe Blow believe that if Joe Blow were magically transported to Lambeau Field, that’s exactly the way he’d play quarterback – by the seat of his pants. That’s why even after losing seasons the Packers would show up on “Monday Night Football” three times the following year, right there with the Patriots and the Cowboys and the Colts and the teams Las Vegas had pegged as Super Bowl favorites.

But the reason Favre was an NFL legend can be boiled down to one word: leadership.

The surest formula for building a winner in sports – and this goes for pro sports right down to the grass-roots level of organized sports first taken as serious competition – is to find a great player who wants to win more than anyone else and fill in around him.

That was Favre. A great player who wanted to win more than teammates who by the end were practically young enough to be his children. Not everybody has the flicker of competitive fire within him, not even at the pro level. Some people are so outrageously gifted athletically that they ride the conveyor belt through high school and college to the pros without ever really loving the game they play.

But if there’s so much as a lone ember present, then a firebrand competitor like Favre atop a team’s leadership pyramid makes anything – anything – possible. The onus is then on management to find a certain type of player. Not always the most talented, necessarily, but players whose skills will be fully drawn out because Favre will fan the competitive flame.

You know who gets that as clearly as any executive in pro sports today? Joe Dumars. He understood it intuitively as a player and came to learn it as an executive in short order. If he doesn’t sense a prospect, no matter his talent level, holds winning in the proper light – boom! He’s off the draft board. Same when considering trade possibilities.

Take Juan Dixon. Fairly unremarkable NBA career so far, maybe, and perhaps his physical limitations will prevent him from ever being a full-time starter. But I covered the 2002 Final Four when Dixon led Maryland to the title. There were other very good players on that team, but I left Atlanta struck by the thought that it was Dixon who – like Favre with the Packers – was the one fanning the flame, the player who worked his craft so hard he shamed lesser players around him into pouring their souls into the effort as well. It was Dixon who wore his will as clearly as he wore a Terrapins uniform.

Someone who pushes his teammates like that doesn’t just “bring out the best” in them – he prods them to keep expanding the limits of what they could never have imagined their best might be.

When Favre arrived in Green Bay, the Packers had been adrift for two decades, competitively linked in the old NFC Central Black and Blue Division with the Lions. Green Bay and Detroit were on equal footing back then and, truth be told, most impartial NFL general managers would have taken Detroit’s future over Green Bay’s because of the presence of Barry Sanders.

Those two teams slugged it out in their ascendancy in the mid-’90s, at which point the Packers won two playoff games over the Lions and, ultimately, won one Super Bowl and came close in another, while the Lions – saddled not only by aimless management but an indifferent superstar – reverted to form. The Packers wound up getting far more accomplished in the Favre era than the Lions have in the 50 years since Bobby Layne, a kindred spirit, left town.

That’s a substantial reason the teams headed in opposite directions – the difference between Favre and Sanders. Sanders was a jaw-dropping talent, one of the five most exciting players in the game’s history with the football under his arm.

But his influence ended where his talent did. There was no spillover effect with Barry Sanders. He didn’t spur anyone else to greatness, didn’t push anyone to probe the limits of their ability. His teammates were awed, not inspired, by Barry Sanders. The minicamps he routinely skipped over his coach’s wishes spoke to his lack of leadership. A leader would have understood the effects such a public slap at his coach would have on players of lesser status.

It wasn’t enough that Sanders ran the hills with Jerry Rice in the summer and showed up at training camp in tip-top shape, his endurance shaming free-agent rookies hoping to crack the roster. It was OK for Rice, who had Joe Montana and a winning culture in place. Sanders needed to be in Detroit, changing the culture and holding management’s feet to the fire to match his commitment, the same way Favre was in Green Bay, changing that culture emphatically.

Dumars pulled the Pistons from the muck of the ’90s by laying a foundation, one brick at a time. No superstar – no Favre, no Sanders – fell into his lap. In his one-year apprenticeship under Rick Sund, the bridge season between player and president’s hats, Dumars encouraged Sund to sign Michael Curry as a free agent.

That was the modest start of the character makeover of the Pistons, which would continue with the acquisitions of bedrock leaders like Ben Wallace and Corliss Williamson and continue through Chauncey Billups and Rip Hamilton and has every chance to extend out to the horizon on the backs of players like Jason Maxiell and Arron Afflalo and Rodney Stuckey and Amir Johnson, flat-out gym rats who’ll follow obligingly until ready to assume the mantel of leadership from veterans who’ve set shining examples.

Today there are very few teams in the NBA that match the Pistons for their selflessness and their synergy, players whose passion for winning compounds, making the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

There is no Brett Favre within their locker room – no lightning rod, no unquestioned leader, no universal inspiration. That’s the surest way to build a winner, but it takes that rare someone with the combination of physical skills atop charisma atop unsurpassed competitiveness. The last player in the NBA who met that criteria? Some would argue for Kobe Bryant and others would suggest the future is LeBron James. Michael Jordan is the last one we can say had it all for sure, on the heels of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird.

Isiah Thomas, it could be argued, belonged in that company. His generation of Pistons, the Bad Boys, featured the greatest concentration of cutthroat competitors I’ve ever been around.

Thomas is lionized for his competitive fire, and rightly so, but he had plenty of peers to his left and right. Chuck Daly always said the gushing over Thomas’ leadership short-changed Bill Laimbeer. Rick Mahorn, Dennis Rodman, Vinnie Johnson, et al. And Joe Dumars, who inherited his father’s boundless work ethic and steely resolve, treasured characteristics in his native rural Louisiana, a stone’s throw from where a certain Green Bay quarterback traces his roots. Joe D was as stoic as Thomas was volcanic, but had a competitive fire whose flame burned as brightly as any of them.

That’s what he looks for now every time he scouts a player or ponders a trade or studies his team. Minus his Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson, Joe Dumars built a collective, cultivated creatively and dutifully and forcefully. It’s the kind of group Brett Favre would’ve loved to call his teammate

http://www.nba.com/pistons/news/langlois_blog_080307.html
Wow, another Favre inspires his team mates to play better. We're really expanding the definition of Leadership past "makes his team mates give more effort".No, wait...that's still all we have.

 
Wow, another Favre inspires his team mates to play better. We're really expanding the definition of Leadership past "makes his team mates give more effort".No, wait...that's still all we have.
Do you have similar quotes from players, coaches, involved with the Packers that have said the same about Rodgers?
 
The claim isn't that Rodgers is a better leader than Favre, it's the opposite. So that's why I ask, of that huge essay you posted, can you point to anything that Favre does than Rodgers does not? Anything in there that would explain why these packers would be playing better if Favre was providing leadership rather than Rodgers?And that part about making decisions and living with the consequences and not making excuses or justifications is golden. I bet when Rodgers retires, he'll be more decisive than Favre was. At least Favre is leading in the excuses and justifications column.
This is easy. First, you are underestimating what a leader means to a team. What effect that player has, not only to his side of the ball, but the team in general.Second, players respect Favre, offense, defense, opponents respect what he brought to the table. With that respect came an urgency to play better because that leader made the team better.Lastly, when Favre stepped onto the field, the team, the opponents saw a guy who could win the game at any time in the last drive. Favre could beat any team, at any time. The opponents knew this and the team knew this. That same sense of urgency is not there with Rodgers... at all.
Not really. I'm saying you are over estimating the difference in leadership between Favre and Rodgers. Again, no one seems to be able to point to anything in the "leadership" spectrum that Rodgers isn't doing. Why? Because no one can really point to anything specific.Call me a natural cynic. You can talk about leadership all day long and not say anything of substance at all. That's my disconnect and source of my cynicism. Football is so hugely complicated in all the individual, minute details and decisions that determine the outcome of a game, I think it's silly to simplify it and assume this vague concept of leadership, or lack thereof, is the cause of the Packers' regression. Especially when your proof is to simply state the result (less wins) as the evidence of the cause (lack of leadership) without any evidence connecting the two. It's begging the question.
 
[“He’s just a real cool guy to be around,” said Roman. “He’s a guy who boosts morale in the locker room and helps you believe that you can win when you are on the offensive side of the ball. I’m sure his receivers feel that there isn’t any place he can’t pull the ball, so I have to stay alive, I have to keep working, because in any given situation he can get the ball. You tend to believe in a guy like that. Obviously with them turning it around like they have this year, a lot of guys on offense are believing in him.”
So, am I to assume that the Packers don't think they can win when Rodgers is in the huddle. I'm still kind of curious how that actually manifests itself on the playing field this season.How does Roman explain Chad Penninton?
 
[“He’s just a real cool guy to be around,” said Roman. “He’s a guy who boosts morale in the locker room and helps you believe that you can win when you are on the offensive side of the ball. I’m sure his receivers feel that there isn’t any place he can’t pull the ball, so I have to stay alive, I have to keep working, because in any given situation he can get the ball. You tend to believe in a guy like that. Obviously with them turning it around like they have this year, a lot of guys on offense are believing in him.”
So, am I to assume that the Packers don't think they can win when Rodgers is in the huddle. I'm still kind of curious how that actually manifests itself on the playing field this season.How does Roman explain Chad Penninton?
i am convinced this is fishing.
 
[“He’s just a real cool guy to be around,” said Roman. “He’s a guy who boosts morale in the locker room and helps you believe that you can win when you are on the offensive side of the ball. I’m sure his receivers feel that there isn’t any place he can’t pull the ball, so I have to stay alive, I have to keep working, because in any given situation he can get the ball. You tend to believe in a guy like that. Obviously with them turning it around like they have this year, a lot of guys on offense are believing in him.”
So, am I to assume that the Packers don't think they can win when Rodgers is in the huddle. I'm still kind of curious how that actually manifests itself on the playing field this season.How does Roman explain Chad Penninton?
Maybe they don't or they'd have won any of the seven chances they've had to come from behind?
 
Da Guru said:
Exactly. All Farve had to say after last year was "We had a great year and I can`t wait to get to camp" The Packers would have welcomed him back.

Instead Farve did what he has done the last 3-4 years..and sometimes he did it in season. Saying " I am tired, I am not sure I can prepare like I used to. The game is draining."

Is that what you want to hear if you are the Packers?

I like Farve, but he was as much or more to blame for this than the Packers.
Isn't it wonderful the leadership Favre brought to the team...Locker apart from the rest of the team...

No mentoring...

Not wanting to invest as much time preparing as before...

Being tired of being depended on...

No wonder the team is struggling. Clearly Favre was showing them what it takes to win in the NFL.
It's obvious you have no concept of the leadership Favre displayed on the field while he played for the Packers.
Funny, I was going to accuse you of having no concept of the leadership Favre or Rodgers display on or off the field because you seem completely unable to define it or describe it despite your asserting that Favre has it and Rodgers lacks it. I certainly understand that it's "intangible" enough that you or any other pro-Favre or anti-Thompson partisan can toss it out there as a Rodger's deficiency and never have to back it up with anything concrete.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/21016402/Favre providing leadership to young Pack

Veteran QB thriving with one of NFL’s youngest teams (average age: 26)

GREEN BAY, Wis. - Maybe what the Green Bay Packers needed was adult supervision. Their superstar quarterback is providing it.

Playing on the youngest team in the NFL, Favre certainly has had moments of frustration with his fresh-faced teammates. But Favre’s insistence on holding young players to a high standard right away has helped the Packers to their surprising 3-0 start.

Favre, who might break Dan Marino’s all-time record for touchdown passes on Sunday at Minnesota, isn’t about to charm the youngsters. After all, he says, former Packers coach Mike Holmgren never coddled him.

“Mike Holmgren never patted me on the back and said, ’That’s OK, buddy.’ There was never any of that. He laid into me every time,” Favre said. “And I can’t tell you how many times I came off the field and said, ’I hate this guy.’

“But as I look back, he meant more to my career than anyone. He was hard on me, but I see him now and I thank him for all those things.”

Favre, who needs one touchdown pass to break the record of 420 he shares with Marino, will start his 241st consecutive game. That will break a tie with former Vikings center Mick Tingelhoff for the second-longest streak in NFL history.

He now is paying Holmgren’s favor forward to the Packers’ young players. Favre knows he’s running out of time to make one last playoff run, and wants his teammates to understand that every play matters.

“I think a lot of our guys, and I think they work extremely hard,” Favre said. “But there’s not many second chances in this game, and one play can be the determining factor in whether you win or lose. And there’s no one who knows better than me.”

One of Favre’s first targets this season is rookie wide receiver James Jones.

Jones, a third-round draft pick out of San Jose State, catches just about anything thrown his way. But like any rookie, he sometimes doesn’t end up quite where the quarterback expects him to.

Favre got flustered with Jones twice during a preseason game against Jacksonville, waving his arms and motioning at Jones in frustration. It was a humbling moment for a rookie still slightly dazzled by the bright lights of Lambeau Field, but Jones knew it wasn’t personal.

“There’s no hard feelings,” Jones said. “I don’t get mad at that or nothing — ’I hate you Brett,’ or nothing like that. It’s all right.”

And Favre certainly got his attention.

“You learn from everything,” said Jones, who ranks second to Donald Driver in catches and yards receiving through three games for the Packers. “Early on, I was cutting off routes and things like that. All it was was some miscommunication. As you can see, we’re better now.”

Favre makes no apologies for showing up Jones on the field, but said he would much rather handle such things during practice.

“What am I supposed to do? I don’t want to go out there and come across as pointing fingers and things like that, but if a guy’s got to keep coming, you keep coming,” Favre said. “If a guy’s got to keep going, you do those things. But I would much rather do them on the practice field, I would much rather do it in meetings, because come gametime, we have to play.”

Hall of Fame quarterback Troy Aikman said Favre’s frustration is only natural, but his continued enthusiasm on the field sets the right example for young players.

“I do think it is frustrating for him,” said Aikman, now an analyst for Fox Sports. “But at the same time, in a lot of ways, he’s the right guy to be bringing those guys along, because he is still excited about football.”

Second-year guard Daryn Colledge said Favre doesn’t often chew out young players, but does make it clear he expects them to match his competitiveness.

“If you’re not giving it 100 percent, he’s going to remind you,” Colledge said. “And when he needs you to make a play, he’s going to let you know. You respect that, and it drives you to want to be better. I mean, I don’t want to be the guy that gets Brett hurt. I don’t even want to be the guy that gets Brett touched. So it pushes me every day to be a better offensive lineman.”

There was a time when Favre was one of the guys, going hunting with teammates and pulling pranks in the locker room.

Today, he’s more like one of the grown-ups.

Even with Favre, who turns 38 next month, skewing the Packers’ demographics, Green Bay’s opening-day roster was the NFL’s youngest. Average age: 26 years, 89 days.

Favre doesn’t have much in common with players who were in grade school when he was traded to the Packers in 1992. He doesn’t really socialize with teammates off the field and even dresses in his own private room away from the Packers’ main locker room.

“We don’t have coffee chats in the morning,” Favre joked.

But when it comes to team meetings and watching film, Jones said Favre is anything but aloof.

“We don’t hang out or go out to restaurants and eat dinner or nothing like that,” Jones said. “But when we’re in the meeting room and it’s business, we all talk amongst each other and things like that.”

Packers coach Mike McCarthy often has the quarterbacks and receivers meet together after practice to spur conversation and build chemistry.

“I ask Brett questions on purpose just to make him talk,” McCarthy said. “I know he knows the answer — make him talk, make him interact. It’s more about the things that go wrong, because it’s an opportunity for everyone to learn.”

McCarthy considers Favre the ultimate role model, given his consecutive starts streak and the fact he and won his 149th game as a starting quarterback two weeks ago to break John Elway’s career record.

You’re able to point to your quarterback: ’This player here has been available more than any other player in the history of the National Football League.’ That helps, it’s an excellent example there,” McCarthy said. “Accountability? He’s won more games than anybody in the history of football.”

Now Favre is after Marino’s mark, the Packers are trying to return to the playoffs — and none of the young players wants to be the one who messes it up.

“We’re held up to a different standard,” Colledge said. “Brett’s one of the best quarterbacks in the country, and he’s proved that week in and week out for the last 17 years. It’s just a matter of, if we give him time, he’s going to be successful. And you want to be the guy who’s giving Brett time. You want to be a part of that success.”
So how specifically does this article say Favre is providing leadership?He gets together and talks with his teammates in the film sessions? I bet Rodgers doesn't do that. When someone runs a route wrong, he lets them know it? Wow, I bet that isn't happening this year.

Or are we describing as leadership what is simply experience. Favre has been around the block and can teach these kids a thing or two given his vast experience?

No question he has more experience than Rodgers. But then, that isn't the debate, is it?

 
Da Guru said:
Exactly. All Farve had to say after last year was "We had a great year and I can`t wait to get to camp" The Packers would have welcomed him back.

Instead Farve did what he has done the last 3-4 years..and sometimes he did it in season. Saying " I am tired, I am not sure I can prepare like I used to. The game is draining."

Is that what you want to hear if you are the Packers?

I like Farve, but he was as much or more to blame for this than the Packers.
Isn't it wonderful the leadership Favre brought to the team...Locker apart from the rest of the team...

No mentoring...

Not wanting to invest as much time preparing as before...

Being tired of being depended on...

No wonder the team is struggling. Clearly Favre was showing them what it takes to win in the NFL.
It's obvious you have no concept of the leadership Favre displayed on the field while he played for the Packers.
Funny, I was going to accuse you of having no concept of the leadership Favre or Rodgers display on or off the field because you seem completely unable to define it or describe it despite your asserting that Favre has it and Rodgers lacks it. I certainly understand that it's "intangible" enough that you or any other pro-Favre or anti-Thompson partisan can toss it out there as a Rodger's deficiency and never have to back it up with anything concrete.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/21016402/Favre providing leadership to young Pack

Veteran QB thriving with one of NFL’s youngest teams (average age: 26)

GREEN BAY, Wis. - Maybe what the Green Bay Packers needed was adult supervision. Their superstar quarterback is providing it.

Playing on the youngest team in the NFL, Favre certainly has had moments of frustration with his fresh-faced teammates. But Favre’s insistence on holding young players to a high standard right away has helped the Packers to their surprising 3-0 start.

Favre, who might break Dan Marino’s all-time record for touchdown passes on Sunday at Minnesota, isn’t about to charm the youngsters. After all, he says, former Packers coach Mike Holmgren never coddled him.

“Mike Holmgren never patted me on the back and said, ’That’s OK, buddy.’ There was never any of that. He laid into me every time,” Favre said. “And I can’t tell you how many times I came off the field and said, ’I hate this guy.’

“But as I look back, he meant more to my career than anyone. He was hard on me, but I see him now and I thank him for all those things.”

Favre, who needs one touchdown pass to break the record of 420 he shares with Marino, will start his 241st consecutive game. That will break a tie with former Vikings center Mick Tingelhoff for the second-longest streak in NFL history.

He now is paying Holmgren’s favor forward to the Packers’ young players. Favre knows he’s running out of time to make one last playoff run, and wants his teammates to understand that every play matters.

“I think a lot of our guys, and I think they work extremely hard,” Favre said. “But there’s not many second chances in this game, and one play can be the determining factor in whether you win or lose. And there’s no one who knows better than me.”

One of Favre’s first targets this season is rookie wide receiver James Jones.

Jones, a third-round draft pick out of San Jose State, catches just about anything thrown his way. But like any rookie, he sometimes doesn’t end up quite where the quarterback expects him to.

Favre got flustered with Jones twice during a preseason game against Jacksonville, waving his arms and motioning at Jones in frustration. It was a humbling moment for a rookie still slightly dazzled by the bright lights of Lambeau Field, but Jones knew it wasn’t personal.

“There’s no hard feelings,” Jones said. “I don’t get mad at that or nothing — ’I hate you Brett,’ or nothing like that. It’s all right.”

And Favre certainly got his attention.

“You learn from everything,” said Jones, who ranks second to Donald Driver in catches and yards receiving through three games for the Packers. “Early on, I was cutting off routes and things like that. All it was was some miscommunication. As you can see, we’re better now.”

Favre makes no apologies for showing up Jones on the field, but said he would much rather handle such things during practice.

“What am I supposed to do? I don’t want to go out there and come across as pointing fingers and things like that, but if a guy’s got to keep coming, you keep coming,” Favre said. “If a guy’s got to keep going, you do those things. But I would much rather do them on the practice field, I would much rather do it in meetings, because come gametime, we have to play.”

Hall of Fame quarterback Troy Aikman said Favre’s frustration is only natural, but his continued enthusiasm on the field sets the right example for young players.

“I do think it is frustrating for him,” said Aikman, now an analyst for Fox Sports. “But at the same time, in a lot of ways, he’s the right guy to be bringing those guys along, because he is still excited about football.”

Second-year guard Daryn Colledge said Favre doesn’t often chew out young players, but does make it clear he expects them to match his competitiveness.

“If you’re not giving it 100 percent, he’s going to remind you,” Colledge said. “And when he needs you to make a play, he’s going to let you know. You respect that, and it drives you to want to be better. I mean, I don’t want to be the guy that gets Brett hurt. I don’t even want to be the guy that gets Brett touched. So it pushes me every day to be a better offensive lineman.”

There was a time when Favre was one of the guys, going hunting with teammates and pulling pranks in the locker room.

Today, he’s more like one of the grown-ups.

Even with Favre, who turns 38 next month, skewing the Packers’ demographics, Green Bay’s opening-day roster was the NFL’s youngest. Average age: 26 years, 89 days.

Favre doesn’t have much in common with players who were in grade school when he was traded to the Packers in 1992. He doesn’t really socialize with teammates off the field and even dresses in his own private room away from the Packers’ main locker room.

“We don’t have coffee chats in the morning,” Favre joked.

But when it comes to team meetings and watching film, Jones said Favre is anything but aloof.

“We don’t hang out or go out to restaurants and eat dinner or nothing like that,” Jones said. “But when we’re in the meeting room and it’s business, we all talk amongst each other and things like that.”

Packers coach Mike McCarthy often has the quarterbacks and receivers meet together after practice to spur conversation and build chemistry.

“I ask Brett questions on purpose just to make him talk,” McCarthy said. “I know he knows the answer — make him talk, make him interact. It’s more about the things that go wrong, because it’s an opportunity for everyone to learn.”

McCarthy considers Favre the ultimate role model, given his consecutive starts streak and the fact he and won his 149th game as a starting quarterback two weeks ago to break John Elway’s career record.

You’re able to point to your quarterback: ’This player here has been available more than any other player in the history of the National Football League.’ That helps, it’s an excellent example there,” McCarthy said. “Accountability? He’s won more games than anybody in the history of football.”

Now Favre is after Marino’s mark, the Packers are trying to return to the playoffs — and none of the young players wants to be the one who messes it up.

“We’re held up to a different standard,” Colledge said. “Brett’s one of the best quarterbacks in the country, and he’s proved that week in and week out for the last 17 years. It’s just a matter of, if we give him time, he’s going to be successful. And you want to be the guy who’s giving Brett time. You want to be a part of that success.”
So how specifically does this article say Favre is providing leadership?He gets together and talks with his teammates in the film sessions? I bet Rodgers doesn't do that. When someone runs a route wrong, he lets them know it? Wow, I bet that isn't happening this year.

Or are we describing as leadership what is simply experience. Favre has been around the block and can teach these kids a thing or two given his vast experience?

No question he has more experience than Rodgers. But then, that isn't the debate, is it?
:bag:
 
[“He’s just a real cool guy to be around,” said Roman. “He’s a guy who boosts morale in the locker room and helps you believe that you can win when you are on the offensive side of the ball. I’m sure his receivers feel that there isn’t any place he can’t pull the ball, so I have to stay alive, I have to keep working, because in any given situation he can get the ball. You tend to believe in a guy like that. Obviously with them turning it around like they have this year, a lot of guys on offense are believing in him.”
So, am I to assume that the Packers don't think they can win when Rodgers is in the huddle. I'm still kind of curious how that actually manifests itself on the playing field this season.How does Roman explain Chad Penninton?
i am convinced this is fishing.
:bag: Maybe it is a sho alias.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"If we were in a bar and everyone was in there and someone walked through the door and said, 'I want to talk to the man,' they'd take you to Brett Favre."

--Former Packers defensive tackle Gilbert Brown, on Favre's leadership.

So Brown thinks Favre is a leader. Great. What does Brown see Favre do that makes him a leader?

"The thing that impresses me the most is what kind of a man and leader he has become off the field since I have known him. I have taken great joy in watching him develop as a person and father -- perhaps even more so -- than as a coach watching his quarterback."

--Former Packers coach Mike Holmgren, in a statement released by the Seahawks and reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

So Holmgren thinks he's a leader too. Again, this shows how he's a better leader than Rodgers how?

"I have no idea, I have no clue ... It's kind of scary. Brett's been the leader since I've been here and he's a great guy, great teammate, great everything. So it will definitely be different. I wouldn't even know what to expect."

--Packers defensive tackle Ryan Pickett, on what life after Favre would be like, as reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Another description of him as a leader, yet no explanation of what he does (which can then be used to determine what Rodgers doesn't).

"Throughout his 17 years, he never lost that feeling of playing the game for the first time. That's what makes Brett Favre unlike any other player I have ever seen."

--Former Packers assistant and current NFL Network analyst Steve Mariucci, as reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Mooch isn't saying he's a leader because he likes playing the game is he?

"His style of play was as unique as it was effective. ... I admired his skills, his leadership, and especially his love for playing the game. You knew he was having fun when he played, and that made him fun to watch. He set the standard at the position for a long time."

Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo, as reported by the Associated Press.

Another one saying he is a leader but yet not describing how.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=371836
I bet you believe all the nice things they say about people at their retirement parties and funerals, don't you. :bag: Anymore fluff?

 
From Favre..

Favre defined his ideas on leadership for the magazine: "It's somehow getting 52 other guys to raise their level of play. To get them to believe in what we're trying to do. You do that by setting an example, by doing things the right way. I've always shown up. I've always been prepared. I practice every day. I practice hard. I study. No matter what happens on the field, I never point blame at anybody else. Everything I do comes back to leadership, the example I want to set."

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jan/11...ers_brett27265/
Now this is actually the best one you've found. So let's parse it out.Favre says being a leader is getting the guys to raise their level of play. Sounds kind of like "giving their best effort". Not sure if Favre thinks there's so much more to it than that as you do, but who's to know.

Anyway, to get them to raise their level of play, you've got to set an example by

1) doing it the right way

2) showing up

3) being prepared

4) practice everyday

5) practice hard

6) study

7) never blame someone else

Does Rodgers do whatever it is the right way? Does Rodgers not show up? Does Rodgers not prepare? Does Rodger's not practice everyday? Does Rodgers not practice hard? Does Rodgers not study? Does Rodgers blame someone else?

So what from this list is Rodgers not doing that Favre did that is keeping his teammates from rasing their level of play?

 
From Favre..

Favre defined his ideas on leadership for the magazine: "It's somehow getting 52 other guys to raise their level of play. To get them to believe in what we're trying to do. You do that by setting an example, by doing things the right way. I've always shown up. I've always been prepared. I practice every day. I practice hard. I study. No matter what happens on the field, I never point blame at anybody else. Everything I do comes back to leadership, the example I want to set."

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jan/11...ers_brett27265/
Now this is actually the best one you've found. So let's parse it out.Favre says being a leader is getting the guys to raise their level of play. Sounds kind of like "giving their best effort". Not sure if Favre thinks there's so much more to it than that as you do, but who's to know.

Anyway, to get them to raise their level of play, you've got to set an example by

1) doing it the right way

2) showing up

3) being prepared

4) practice everyday

5) practice hard

6) study

7) never blame someone else

Does Rodgers do whatever it is the right way? Does Rodgers not show up? Does Rodgers not prepare? Does Rodger's not practice everyday? Does Rodgers not practice hard? Does Rodgers not study? Does Rodgers blame someone else?

So what from this list is Rodgers not doing that Favre did that is keeping his teammates from rasing their level of play?
i give you credit. you are devoted.
 
From Favre..

Favre defined his ideas on leadership for the magazine: "It's somehow getting 52 other guys to raise their level of play. To get them to believe in what we're trying to do. You do that by setting an example, by doing things the right way. I've always shown up. I've always been prepared. I practice every day. I practice hard. I study. No matter what happens on the field, I never point blame at anybody else. Everything I do comes back to leadership, the example I want to set."

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jan/11...ers_brett27265/
Now this is actually the best one you've found. So let's parse it out.Favre says being a leader is getting the guys to raise their level of play. Sounds kind of like "giving their best effort". Not sure if Favre thinks there's so much more to it than that as you do, but who's to know.

Anyway, to get them to raise their level of play, you've got to set an example by

1) doing it the right way

2) showing up

3) being prepared

4) practice everyday

5) practice hard

6) study

7) never blame someone else

Does Rodgers do whatever it is the right way? Does Rodgers not show up? Does Rodgers not prepare? Does Rodger's not practice everyday? Does Rodgers not practice hard? Does Rodgers not study? Does Rodgers blame someone else?

So what from this list is Rodgers not doing that Favre did that is keeping his teammates from rasing their level of play?
I'm done with someone that doesn't realize the Packers are missing leadership this season and the fact you think Rodgers is providing the same level of leadership that Favre did. Good luck with reality, ace.
 
It sure was a shame when Favre retired... who knows how this season would have gone if he had simply said "Sure, I'll play another year" to the Packers? :goodposting:
Exactly. All Farve had to say after last year was "We had a great year and I can`t wait to get to camp" The Packers would have welcomed him back.Instead Farve did what he has done the last 3-4 years..and sometimes he did it in season. Saying " I am tired, I am not sure I can prepare like I used to. The game is draining."Is that what you want to hear if you are the Packers?I like Farve, but he was as much or more to blame for this than the Packers.
And all Thompson had to do was tell Brett they wanted him to return. But Thompson had NO CONTACT with Favre prior to his retirement and it is well known Thompson didn't want Favre back.
Do you think its that simple.That Thompson calling him would have made that much of a difference at that point?
Yes
.Because McCarthy did such things and it did nothing.
Because Favre knew that TT didn't want him back.
Again...so what?Why would that stop a guy from playing football, if he really wanted to play?That sounds like a really childish reason. In fact, I would prefer if a guy supposedly has so much fire to play the game, that he would want to play and try and outlast Thompson and shove it up his rear end. Instead, he took his ball and went home...according to some of you, because Ted THompson did not want me anymore.
 
Thompson NEVER checked with Favre prior to his retirement. You can blame Favre all you want but to say "the whole mess is the fault of Favre" is laughable. Ted Thompson is at fault in the mess too!
Wow. Let me make sure I understand your position.AFTER Favre tells the Packer organization that he wants to retire, TT is at fault for not "checking" with Favre BEFORE the retirement news conference to make sure Favre wants to retire?Would that be because TT was supposed to know that Favre was too cowardly to speak up if he had changed his mind?Would that be because TT was supposed to know that Favre would say one thing at the conference and cry convincingly about it but yet not really mean it?Would that be because TT was supposed to know that "yes" means "no" with Favre and Favre had no choice but to follow through with the retirement press conference even though Favre didn't really want to?Everytime I order for my five year-old at a restaurant I run through this drill. I ask what he wants to drink. He tells me. Then I ask him if he's sure BEFORE I place the order. But of course he's five and I don't ask him to provide leadership to my pro football team.So TT is at fault for not treating Favre like a five year-old.So how many times was TT supposed to ask Favre the question before he could assume Favre was telling him the truth?
TT is at fault for not researching and staying on top of what was best for the franchise. What is so hard to get?Favre was on freakin national TV hinting about playing for christ sake. His job is to pursue, recruit, sign, evaluate, negotiate, etc etc. Its called being a GM. Quite frankly this is probably why he rarely gets free agents. He doesnt know what he is doing. "Wait? I am supposed to call them?" He should have been on the phone with Favre every day. He should have sent Favre gift baskets if thats what it took. He was the face of the franchise that has had remarkable success. It was a smart business decision as well as the smart personnel decision. ITS HIS FREAKIN JOB.
When was Favre on national TV hinting about playing prior to retiring?And who is to say what he did was not best for the franchise in the long run?His job is not to recruit a player that is currently under contract.He does not know what he is doing? Hah!!!! Why should he have been on the phone with Favre every day. Is FAvre not a grown man? Does he need to be babied? He had his head coach talk to Favre once a week.
 
That's not what Favre said in June. His story changes with the tide. In spring Favre said he got a call when he was changing his mind(at the owners meeting). TT and McCarthy were going to fly to see him but he called back and changed his mind.Even if what Favre now says is true why didn't he say he didn't want the locker. He wants to play?Too many stories too little time to debunk them all.
Sure Thompson wanted Favre back......here is your locker Brett!! Show us where Favre stated he had contact with Thompson prior to his retirement.
Favre shot down reports that Thompson and McCarthy had chartered a flight to Mississippi to talk to the quarterback in late March about finalizing his comeback, only to have Favre back out at the last minute. Favre said McCarthy told him they were heading to Orlando, Fla., for the owners' meetings and wanted to stop by to speak with him."The next day I told him, 'Mike, don't worry about coming down or dropping by. I still can't commit,'" he said. "They made it sound like they had chartered a plane just to see me and I had made a call and said, 'I'm coming back,' which is not true."
So let's look at the substance of what Favre admitted to in YOUR quotes...That TT and McCarthy were going to come by and see him but Favre said not to because he couldn't commit to coming back.So, again, how is that different from what bcr8f posted?What Favre "disputes" is that "they made it sound like they had chartered a plane just to see me". That's the dispute!?!?! Whether or not they were only coming to see Brett or were coming to see him and attend the owners' meeting. That was important for Brett to clear up? Well, thanks for clearing up that detail, Brett!The fact that it bothered Brett that TT's tickets weren't in fact round trip from Wisconsin to Missisippi wouldn't at all support the accusation that Favre is a spoiled prima donna who was really only concerned with having the Packers beg him to come back. :goodposting:
It did needed to be cleared up because many of the Favre haters/TT lovers want to think that they were making a special trip just to see Brett when the reality was they were heading to the owners meetings. Of course Favre couldn't commit. He knew that he wasn't wanted back in Green Bay. I guess that trip by Thompson to give Favre his locker to him was the perfect way to say..."Hi Brett we really want you back but here is your locker". :goodposting:
THe owners meetings were not in Mississippi. SO yes, they were planning on making a special trip there to see him.The locker thing might be the most overblown issue ever.They were getting hammered on leaving it there...Brett had said several times he was staying retired. So they were going to give it to him.
 
That's not what Favre said in June. His story changes with the tide. In spring Favre said he got a call when he was changing his mind(at the owners meeting). TT and McCarthy were going to fly to see him but he called back and changed his mind.Even if what Favre now says is true why didn't he say he didn't want the locker. He wants to play?Too many stories too little time to debunk them all.
Sure Thompson wanted Favre back......here is your locker Brett!! Show us where Favre stated he had contact with Thompson prior to his retirement.
Favre shot down reports that Thompson and McCarthy had chartered a flight to Mississippi to talk to the quarterback in late March about finalizing his comeback, only to have Favre back out at the last minute. Favre said McCarthy told him they were heading to Orlando, Fla., for the owners' meetings and wanted to stop by to speak with him."The next day I told him, 'Mike, don't worry about coming down or dropping by. I still can't commit,'" he said. "They made it sound like they had chartered a plane just to see me and I had made a call and said, 'I'm coming back,' which is not true."
So let's look at the substance of what Favre admitted to in YOUR quotes...That TT and McCarthy were going to come by and see him but Favre said not to because he couldn't commit to coming back.So, again, how is that different from what bcr8f posted?What Favre "disputes" is that "they made it sound like they had chartered a plane just to see me". That's the dispute!?!?! Whether or not they were only coming to see Brett or were coming to see him and attend the owners' meeting. That was important for Brett to clear up? Well, thanks for clearing up that detail, Brett!The fact that it bothered Brett that TT's tickets weren't in fact round trip from Wisconsin to Missisippi wouldn't at all support the accusation that Favre is a spoiled prima donna who was really only concerned with having the Packers beg him to come back. :rant:
It did needed to be cleared up because many of the Favre haters/TT lovers want to think that they were making a special trip just to see Brett when the reality was they were heading to the owners meetings. Of course Favre couldn't commit. He knew that he wasn't wanted back in Green Bay. I guess that trip by Thompson to give Favre his locker to him was the perfect way to say..."Hi Brett we really want you back but here is your locker". :moneybag:
THe owners meetings were not in Mississippi. SO yes, they were planning on making a special trip there to see him.The locker thing might be the most overblown issue ever.They were getting hammered on leaving it there...Brett had said several times he was staying retired. So they were going to give it to him.
Spin, sho, spin!!!!
 
A quote from Leon Washington....

"When you have Brett Favre coming into the huddle, it makes everybody else in the huddle step their games up"

Jerico Cotchery

"It is very special to have a guy like that step into your huddle"

Eric Mangini

" I think Brett just . . . he instills confidence in the group ... There's a sense of ease when he has the ball. You feel he's going to get it to the right place."

From another player

"I didn't see any nervousness on his face; I saw a quiet confidence on his face, so to speak. When he stepped into the huddle, we knew we were going to be able to get it done because that's the way he's been this entire year."

http://www.daylife.com/quote/0fav1s56wI8vz
So again, I ask you in two specific instances this Sunday that were keys in the game.Did Kuhn and Grant just not have confidence in their 3 attempts to get that one yard? Would they have had that confidence last year? (Id say it made no difference as the team sucked in 3rd and short situations last season)

Was the team less confident in allowing an 80 yard TD drive that ended up being the difference in the game? Were they just not able to step up because #4 was on the sidelines?

I'm much more aware of how hard it is to win in this league and to play at a high level. I'm not up to the challenge anymore. I can play, but I'm not up to the challenge.
And Brett Favre got hard to live up to. And I found myself during games at times, tough situation, people always kind of made this joke or other guys on the team, even Mike at times would turn to me and say, 'All right Brett. This is where you're at your best. Pull us out.' I'm thinking, 'Uh! ... ' Now I wouldn't do that, but I'm thinking that. I'm thinking, 'Boy it sure would be nice to be up about 14 right now.' It's just hard. It got hard. I did it, but it got hard.
Does that sound like a guy who would be instilling a ton of confidence in a team? Oh wait, I forgot, that was after his retirement speech so he must not have meant any of that...or what is to follow.
I had one of the better years in my career, the team had a great year, everything seems to be going great, the team wants me back, I still can play, for the most part everyone would think I would be back, would want me back.
So the Packers wanted me, I know I can play, the fans, I guess they love me.
Wait, I thought the team did not want him back?
(Is there anything anybody in the organization could have said to you to change your mind and get you to play one more season?)

Once again I think that there have been a lot of things in the press this week that aren't true. Believe me, I've questioned my decision. I believe it's the right decision. And there's nothing that they can do or say to change that.
Wait...I was told that if Ted had just called him everything would have been fine?http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2008/03/06/3/

Now...sure...all that changes when he steps in the huddle and they can see he is ready...but what happens when he looks just a bit off...do they go back to thinking, wait a minute, this is how he was when he retired?

That is something nobody here can know...what effect would that have had on the team had they been in a situation where Brett did not have that confident look...would everyone else just step up? Would they rely on him to do it? Would they get deflated and feel defeated?

None of us know that.

So, the leadership and confidence can be a great thing...but it can also be a detriment if it ever faltered for just a bit.

And sorry to Leon, it sounds nice of him to say...but I doubt Brett Favre's confidence had anything to do with his run the other day.

 
Thompson NEVER checked with Favre prior to his retirement. You can blame Favre all you want but to say "the whole mess is the fault of Favre" is laughable. Ted Thompson is at fault in the mess too!
Wow. Let me make sure I understand your position.AFTER Favre tells the Packer organization that he wants to retire, TT is at fault for not "checking" with Favre BEFORE the retirement news conference to make sure Favre wants to retire?Would that be because TT was supposed to know that Favre was too cowardly to speak up if he had changed his mind?Would that be because TT was supposed to know that Favre would say one thing at the conference and cry convincingly about it but yet not really mean it?Would that be because TT was supposed to know that "yes" means "no" with Favre and Favre had no choice but to follow through with the retirement press conference even though Favre didn't really want to?Everytime I order for my five year-old at a restaurant I run through this drill. I ask what he wants to drink. He tells me. Then I ask him if he's sure BEFORE I place the order. But of course he's five and I don't ask him to provide leadership to my pro football team.So TT is at fault for not treating Favre like a five year-old.So how many times was TT supposed to ask Favre the question before he could assume Favre was telling him the truth?
TT is at fault for not researching and staying on top of what was best for the franchise. What is so hard to get?Favre was on freakin national TV hinting about playing for christ sake. His job is to pursue, recruit, sign, evaluate, negotiate, etc etc. Its called being a GM. Quite frankly this is probably why he rarely gets free agents. He doesnt know what he is doing. "Wait? I am supposed to call them?" He should have been on the phone with Favre every day. He should have sent Favre gift baskets if thats what it took. He was the face of the franchise that has had remarkable success. It was a smart business decision as well as the smart personnel decision. ITS HIS FREAKIN JOB.
He does not know what he is doing? Hah!!!!
One may start to wonder the way this season has gone. :moneybag:
 
The claim isn't that Rodgers is a better leader than Favre, it's the opposite. So that's why I ask, of that huge essay you posted, can you point to anything that Favre does than Rodgers does not? Anything in there that would explain why these packers would be playing better if Favre was providing leadership rather than Rodgers?And that part about making decisions and living with the consequences and not making excuses or justifications is golden. I bet when Rodgers retires, he'll be more decisive than Favre was. At least Favre is leading in the excuses and justifications column.
This is easy. First, you are underestimating what a leader means to a team. What effect that player has, not only to his side of the ball, but the team in general.Second, players respect Favre, offense, defense, opponents respect what he brought to the table. With that respect came an urgency to play better because that leader made the team better.Lastly, when Favre stepped onto the field, the team, the opponents saw a guy who could win the game at any time in the last drive. Favre could beat any team, at any time. The opponents knew this and the team knew this. That same sense of urgency is not there with Rodgers... at all.
This is exactly what I addressed earlier in this thread.Does anyone actually believe the players out there this past Sunday, were not trying to play better because Aaron Rodgers was back there and not Brett Favre?
 
A quote from Leon Washington....

"When you have Brett Favre coming into the huddle, it makes everybody else in the huddle step their games up"

Jerico Cotchery

"It is very special to have a guy like that step into your huddle"

Eric Mangini

" I think Brett just . . . he instills confidence in the group ... There's a sense of ease when he has the ball. You feel he's going to get it to the right place."

From another player

"I didn't see any nervousness on his face; I saw a quiet confidence on his face, so to speak. When he stepped into the huddle, we knew we were going to be able to get it done because that's the way he's been this entire year."

http://www.daylife.com/quote/0fav1s56wI8vz
So again, I ask you in two specific instances this Sunday that were keys in the game.Did Kuhn and Grant just not have confidence in their 3 attempts to get that one yard? Would they have had that confidence last year? (Id say it made no difference as the team sucked in 3rd and short situations last season)

Was the team less confident in allowing an 80 yard TD drive that ended up being the difference in the game? Were they just not able to step up because #4 was on the sidelines?

I'm much more aware of how hard it is to win in this league and to play at a high level. I'm not up to the challenge anymore. I can play, but I'm not up to the challenge.
And Brett Favre got hard to live up to. And I found myself during games at times, tough situation, people always kind of made this joke or other guys on the team, even Mike at times would turn to me and say, 'All right Brett. This is where you're at your best. Pull us out.' I'm thinking, 'Uh! ... ' Now I wouldn't do that, but I'm thinking that. I'm thinking, 'Boy it sure would be nice to be up about 14 right now.' It's just hard. It got hard. I did it, but it got hard.
Does that sound like a guy who would be instilling a ton of confidence in a team? Oh wait, I forgot, that was after his retirement speech so he must not have meant any of that...or what is to follow.
I had one of the better years in my career, the team had a great year, everything seems to be going great, the team wants me back, I still can play, for the most part everyone would think I would be back, would want me back.
So the Packers wanted me, I know I can play, the fans, I guess they love me.
Wait, I thought the team did not want him back?
(Is there anything anybody in the organization could have said to you to change your mind and get you to play one more season?)

Once again I think that there have been a lot of things in the press this week that aren't true. Believe me, I've questioned my decision. I believe it's the right decision. And there's nothing that they can do or say to change that.
Wait...I was told that if Ted had just called him everything would have been fine?http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2008/03/06/3/

Now...sure...all that changes when he steps in the huddle and they can see he is ready...but what happens when he looks just a bit off...do they go back to thinking, wait a minute, this is how he was when he retired?

That is something nobody here can know...what effect would that have had on the team had they been in a situation where Brett did not have that confident look...would everyone else just step up? Would they rely on him to do it? Would they get deflated and feel defeated?

None of us know that.

So, the leadership and confidence can be a great thing...but it can also be a detriment if it ever faltered for just a bit.

And sorry to Leon, it sounds nice of him to say...but I doubt Brett Favre's confidence had anything to do with his run the other day.
It just kills you to see anything positive about Favre.
 
Exactly. All Farve had to say after last year was "We had a great year and I can`t wait to get to camp" The Packers would have welcomed him back.

Instead Farve did what he has done the last 3-4 years..and sometimes he did it in season. Saying " I am tired, I am not sure I can prepare like I used to. The game is draining."

Is that what you want to hear if you are the Packers?

I like Farve, but he was as much or more to blame for this than the Packers.
Isn't it wonderful the leadership Favre brought to the team...Locker apart from the rest of the team...

No mentoring...

Not wanting to invest as much time preparing as before...

Being tired of being depended on...

No wonder the team is struggling. Clearly Favre was showing them what it takes to win in the NFL.
It's obvious you have no concept of the leadership Favre displayed on the field while he played for the Packers.
Funny, I was going to accuse you of having no concept of the leadership Favre or Rodgers display on or off the field because you seem completely unable to define it or describe it despite your asserting that Favre has it and Rodgers lacks it. I certainly understand that it's "intangible" enough that you or any other pro-Favre or anti-Thompson partisan can toss it out there as a Rodger's deficiency and never have to back it up with anything concrete.
Jets QB Has Still Got It print Chrissy Mauck

December 03, 2008

The last time the 49ers saw Brett Favre, the then-Packers QB threw for 293 yards and a pair of touchdowns in a 30-19 Green Bay win.

Linebacker Takeo Spikes’ first ever encounter with Jets quarterback Brett Favre occurred in September of his rookie season with the Cincinnati Bengals. It was a meeting that led to the 49ers starting inside backer’s first-ever sack, and one he remembers vividly.

The sack took place with 1:53 left in the game at the Bengals 33-yardline when Spikes dropped Favre for a 12-yard sack on a 4th and 3 play. Unfortunately, it was a Green Bay 13-6 eventual victory as Favre’s magic prevailed.

As it still does, ten years later, and with a different green team to play for these days.

“He’s still got it,” said Spikes of the Jets quarterback. “He can throw the ball just as good.”

The Jets trade for Favre has proven to be instrumental in their turn-around from a team that picked in the top ten in this year’s NFL Draft, to the top of the AFC East with a one game lead.

“I just think up until this point now, you take into account everything that he’s accomplished in the previous years, and just by him being there with the Jets, his presence alone makes that team better. You can see it,” said Spikes.

49ers starting safety Mark Roman saw Favre’s leadership and influence first-hand when he played with him back in Green Bay.

“He’s just a real cool guy to be around,” said Roman. “He’s a guy who boosts morale in the locker room and helps you believe that you can win when you are on the offensive side of the ball. I’m sure his receivers feel that there isn’t any place he can’t pull the ball, so I have to stay alive, I have to keep working, because in any given situation he can get the ball. You tend to believe in a guy like that. Obviously with them turning it around like they have this year, a lot of guys on offense are believing in him.”

Favre has undoubtedly helped ignite the Jets offense, but he’s not perfect. His 20 touchdowns are six more than his 14 interceptions on the year, yet Favre is known for taking risks.

“I can remember when I was playing in Green Bay and some days you’d be thinking, ‘Man, I wish I was playing against Brett right now,’ because sometimes he has those kind of games, but you can’t go into Sunday hoping or wishing that, that Brett shows up. He could be either really good, or he could throw you a few.”

Other than one ball in the end zone that Roman admitted to botching in the Rams game, the 49ers starting safety hasn’t been on the receiving end of too many gift-wrapped interceptions this season.

“I look at some film and it’s like, ‘Why can’t I get into situations like that?’ I watch Green Bay, because I played there and I’m familiar with the guys, so I always look to see what they’re doing. A lot of times it’s just like the quarterback is throwing them the ball. I’m like, ‘Why can’t I get them like that?’ It’s like he’s just sitting there, what is the quarterback looking at? And I’m not getting those. Mike (Lewis) isn’t getting them either. It’s just frustrating to say the least.”

http://49ers.com/pressbox/news_detail.php?...ction=PR%20News
How much did that leadership help Brett and the Jets against San Fran this year?
 
The claim isn't that Rodgers is a better leader than Favre, it's the opposite. So that's why I ask, of that huge essay you posted, can you point to anything that Favre does than Rodgers does not? Anything in there that would explain why these packers would be playing better if Favre was providing leadership rather than Rodgers?And that part about making decisions and living with the consequences and not making excuses or justifications is golden. I bet when Rodgers retires, he'll be more decisive than Favre was. At least Favre is leading in the excuses and justifications column.
This is easy. First, you are underestimating what a leader means to a team. What effect that player has, not only to his side of the ball, but the team in general.Second, players respect Favre, offense, defense, opponents respect what he brought to the table. With that respect came an urgency to play better because that leader made the team better.Lastly, when Favre stepped onto the field, the team, the opponents saw a guy who could win the game at any time in the last drive. Favre could beat any team, at any time. The opponents knew this and the team knew this. That same sense of urgency is not there with Rodgers... at all.
This is exactly what I addressed earlier in this thread.Does anyone actually believe the players out there this past Sunday, were not trying to play better because Aaron Rodgers was back there and not Brett Favre?
Only the Favre haters will try and make this arguement and not acknowledge the impact Brett Favre had as a leader with the Green Bay Packers. You go spin all you want sho but you won't win on this.
 
Exactly. All Farve had to say after last year was "We had a great year and I can`t wait to get to camp" The Packers would have welcomed him back.

Instead Farve did what he has done the last 3-4 years..and sometimes he did it in season. Saying " I am tired, I am not sure I can prepare like I used to. The game is draining."

Is that what you want to hear if you are the Packers?

I like Farve, but he was as much or more to blame for this than the Packers.
Isn't it wonderful the leadership Favre brought to the team...Locker apart from the rest of the team...

No mentoring...

Not wanting to invest as much time preparing as before...

Being tired of being depended on...

No wonder the team is struggling. Clearly Favre was showing them what it takes to win in the NFL.
It's obvious you have no concept of the leadership Favre displayed on the field while he played for the Packers.
Funny, I was going to accuse you of having no concept of the leadership Favre or Rodgers display on or off the field because you seem completely unable to define it or describe it despite your asserting that Favre has it and Rodgers lacks it. I certainly understand that it's "intangible" enough that you or any other pro-Favre or anti-Thompson partisan can toss it out there as a Rodger's deficiency and never have to back it up with anything concrete.
Jets QB Has Still Got It print Chrissy Mauck

December 03, 2008

The last time the 49ers saw Brett Favre, the then-Packers QB threw for 293 yards and a pair of touchdowns in a 30-19 Green Bay win.

Linebacker Takeo Spikes’ first ever encounter with Jets quarterback Brett Favre occurred in September of his rookie season with the Cincinnati Bengals. It was a meeting that led to the 49ers starting inside backer’s first-ever sack, and one he remembers vividly.

The sack took place with 1:53 left in the game at the Bengals 33-yardline when Spikes dropped Favre for a 12-yard sack on a 4th and 3 play. Unfortunately, it was a Green Bay 13-6 eventual victory as Favre’s magic prevailed.

As it still does, ten years later, and with a different green team to play for these days.

“He’s still got it,” said Spikes of the Jets quarterback. “He can throw the ball just as good.”

The Jets trade for Favre has proven to be instrumental in their turn-around from a team that picked in the top ten in this year’s NFL Draft, to the top of the AFC East with a one game lead.

“I just think up until this point now, you take into account everything that he’s accomplished in the previous years, and just by him being there with the Jets, his presence alone makes that team better. You can see it,” said Spikes.

49ers starting safety Mark Roman saw Favre’s leadership and influence first-hand when he played with him back in Green Bay.

“He’s just a real cool guy to be around,” said Roman. “He’s a guy who boosts morale in the locker room and helps you believe that you can win when you are on the offensive side of the ball. I’m sure his receivers feel that there isn’t any place he can’t pull the ball, so I have to stay alive, I have to keep working, because in any given situation he can get the ball. You tend to believe in a guy like that. Obviously with them turning it around like they have this year, a lot of guys on offense are believing in him.”

Favre has undoubtedly helped ignite the Jets offense, but he’s not perfect. His 20 touchdowns are six more than his 14 interceptions on the year, yet Favre is known for taking risks.

“I can remember when I was playing in Green Bay and some days you’d be thinking, ‘Man, I wish I was playing against Brett right now,’ because sometimes he has those kind of games, but you can’t go into Sunday hoping or wishing that, that Brett shows up. He could be either really good, or he could throw you a few.”

Other than one ball in the end zone that Roman admitted to botching in the Rams game, the 49ers starting safety hasn’t been on the receiving end of too many gift-wrapped interceptions this season.

“I look at some film and it’s like, ‘Why can’t I get into situations like that?’ I watch Green Bay, because I played there and I’m familiar with the guys, so I always look to see what they’re doing. A lot of times it’s just like the quarterback is throwing them the ball. I’m like, ‘Why can’t I get them like that?’ It’s like he’s just sitting there, what is the quarterback looking at? And I’m not getting those. Mike (Lewis) isn’t getting them either. It’s just frustrating to say the least.”

http://49ers.com/pressbox/news_detail.php?...ction=PR%20News
How much did that leadership help Brett and the Jets against San Fran this year?
Nice try sho but just pathetic that you have to fall on one game examples and ignore the big picture about Favre and leadership. You have no chance on this one but keep trying.
 
One must really despise Favre to try and ignore what he meant to the Packers. Trying to diminish the leadership he brought to the team is pathetic. Go ahead and be a hater but please get some grasp of reality.

 
I drafted Farve late on two of my teams thinking that he would be the Farve of old.Farve had one fluke 6 TD game. Other than that I think he has a 14-17 INT ratio, has not thrown for 300 yards in a single game, had had 3 games without a TD pass, and for the most part looks like an old QB.Farve was one of the all-time greats, but the Farve of today is not even close to a great QB.Rodgers has a future, Farve only has a past. The Pack drafted Rodgers three years ago because Farve kept saying how tired he was.
Yes, because stats correlate directly to leadership. After all Favre is the Favre of old... he is winning.
Yup...cause Shaun Ellis picked up that fumble just for Brett Favre the other day right?
 
I drafted Farve late on two of my teams thinking that he would be the Farve of old.Farve had one fluke 6 TD game. Other than that I think he has a 14-17 INT ratio, has not thrown for 300 yards in a single game, had had 3 games without a TD pass, and for the most part looks like an old QB.Farve was one of the all-time greats, but the Farve of today is not even close to a great QB.Rodgers has a future, Farve only has a past. The Pack drafted Rodgers three years ago because Farve kept saying how tired he was.
Yes, because stats correlate directly to leadership. After all Favre is the Favre of old... he is winning.
Yup...cause Shaun Ellis picked up that fumble just for Brett Favre the other day right?
;) :lmao: :lmao:
 
[“He’s just a real cool guy to be around,” said Roman. “He’s a guy who boosts morale in the locker room and helps you believe that you can win when you are on the offensive side of the ball. I’m sure his receivers feel that there isn’t any place he can’t pull the ball, so I have to stay alive, I have to keep working, because in any given situation he can get the ball. You tend to believe in a guy like that. Obviously with them turning it around like they have this year, a lot of guys on offense are believing in him.”
So, am I to assume that the Packers don't think they can win when Rodgers is in the huddle. I'm still kind of curious how that actually manifests itself on the playing field this season.How does Roman explain Chad Penninton?
i am convinced this is fishing.
;) Maybe it is a sho alias.
Nope...only one of me.
 
From Favre..

Favre defined his ideas on leadership for the magazine: "It's somehow getting 52 other guys to raise their level of play. To get them to believe in what we're trying to do. You do that by setting an example, by doing things the right way. I've always shown up. I've always been prepared. I practice every day. I practice hard. I study. No matter what happens on the field, I never point blame at anybody else. Everything I do comes back to leadership, the example I want to set."

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jan/11...ers_brett27265/
Now this is actually the best one you've found. So let's parse it out.Favre says being a leader is getting the guys to raise their level of play. Sounds kind of like "giving their best effort". Not sure if Favre thinks there's so much more to it than that as you do, but who's to know.

Anyway, to get them to raise their level of play, you've got to set an example by

1) doing it the right way

2) showing up

3) being prepared

4) practice everyday

5) practice hard

6) study

7) never blame someone else

Does Rodgers do whatever it is the right way? Does Rodgers not show up? Does Rodgers not prepare? Does Rodger's not practice everyday? Does Rodgers not practice hard? Does Rodgers not study? Does Rodgers blame someone else?

So what from this list is Rodgers not doing that Favre did that is keeping his teammates from rasing their level of play?
I'm done with someone that doesn't realize the Packers are missing leadership this season and the fact you think Rodgers is providing the same level of leadership that Favre did. Good luck with reality, ace.
James is a bit misguided for sure.IMO, the truth is in the middle here.

They are lacking some leadership, but, IMO, that would not be enough of a difference this season.

Was it just leadership they lacked in 2005 or 2006?

There was miscommunication in those years too on defense (and they need a leader there as well, not just on offense).

 
That's not what Favre said in June. His story changes with the tide. In spring Favre said he got a call when he was changing his mind(at the owners meeting). TT and McCarthy were going to fly to see him but he called back and changed his mind.Even if what Favre now says is true why didn't he say he didn't want the locker. He wants to play?Too many stories too little time to debunk them all.
Sure Thompson wanted Favre back......here is your locker Brett!! Show us where Favre stated he had contact with Thompson prior to his retirement.
Favre shot down reports that Thompson and McCarthy had chartered a flight to Mississippi to talk to the quarterback in late March about finalizing his comeback, only to have Favre back out at the last minute. Favre said McCarthy told him they were heading to Orlando, Fla., for the owners' meetings and wanted to stop by to speak with him."The next day I told him, 'Mike, don't worry about coming down or dropping by. I still can't commit,'" he said. "They made it sound like they had chartered a plane just to see me and I had made a call and said, 'I'm coming back,' which is not true."
So let's look at the substance of what Favre admitted to in YOUR quotes...That TT and McCarthy were going to come by and see him but Favre said not to because he couldn't commit to coming back.So, again, how is that different from what bcr8f posted?What Favre "disputes" is that "they made it sound like they had chartered a plane just to see me". That's the dispute!?!?! Whether or not they were only coming to see Brett or were coming to see him and attend the owners' meeting. That was important for Brett to clear up? Well, thanks for clearing up that detail, Brett!The fact that it bothered Brett that TT's tickets weren't in fact round trip from Wisconsin to Missisippi wouldn't at all support the accusation that Favre is a spoiled prima donna who was really only concerned with having the Packers beg him to come back. :lmao:
It did needed to be cleared up because many of the Favre haters/TT lovers want to think that they were making a special trip just to see Brett when the reality was they were heading to the owners meetings. Of course Favre couldn't commit. He knew that he wasn't wanted back in Green Bay. I guess that trip by Thompson to give Favre his locker to him was the perfect way to say..."Hi Brett we really want you back but here is your locker". ;)
THe owners meetings were not in Mississippi. SO yes, they were planning on making a special trip there to see him.The locker thing might be the most overblown issue ever.They were getting hammered on leaving it there...Brett had said several times he was staying retired. So they were going to give it to him.
Spin, sho, spin!!!!
Actually, those are complete facts.They were planning to fly to Mississippi, rather than right back to GB. Thats pretty much a special trip that was not planned prior to talking to Favre. He then told them not to come.The locker thing is complete spin by anyone using it to show that Packers did not want the guy.
 
A quote from Leon Washington....

"When you have Brett Favre coming into the huddle, it makes everybody else in the huddle step their games up"

Jerico Cotchery

"It is very special to have a guy like that step into your huddle"

Eric Mangini

" I think Brett just . . . he instills confidence in the group ... There's a sense of ease when he has the ball. You feel he's going to get it to the right place."

From another player

"I didn't see any nervousness on his face; I saw a quiet confidence on his face, so to speak. When he stepped into the huddle, we knew we were going to be able to get it done because that's the way he's been this entire year."

http://www.daylife.com/quote/0fav1s56wI8vz
So again, I ask you in two specific instances this Sunday that were keys in the game.Did Kuhn and Grant just not have confidence in their 3 attempts to get that one yard? Would they have had that confidence last year? (Id say it made no difference as the team sucked in 3rd and short situations last season)

Was the team less confident in allowing an 80 yard TD drive that ended up being the difference in the game? Were they just not able to step up because #4 was on the sidelines?

I'm much more aware of how hard it is to win in this league and to play at a high level. I'm not up to the challenge anymore. I can play, but I'm not up to the challenge.
And Brett Favre got hard to live up to. And I found myself during games at times, tough situation, people always kind of made this joke or other guys on the team, even Mike at times would turn to me and say, 'All right Brett. This is where you're at your best. Pull us out.' I'm thinking, 'Uh! ... ' Now I wouldn't do that, but I'm thinking that. I'm thinking, 'Boy it sure would be nice to be up about 14 right now.' It's just hard. It got hard. I did it, but it got hard.
Does that sound like a guy who would be instilling a ton of confidence in a team? Oh wait, I forgot, that was after his retirement speech so he must not have meant any of that...or what is to follow.
I had one of the better years in my career, the team had a great year, everything seems to be going great, the team wants me back, I still can play, for the most part everyone would think I would be back, would want me back.
So the Packers wanted me, I know I can play, the fans, I guess they love me.
Wait, I thought the team did not want him back?
(Is there anything anybody in the organization could have said to you to change your mind and get you to play one more season?)

Once again I think that there have been a lot of things in the press this week that aren't true. Believe me, I've questioned my decision. I believe it's the right decision. And there's nothing that they can do or say to change that.
Wait...I was told that if Ted had just called him everything would have been fine?http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2008/03/06/3/

Now...sure...all that changes when he steps in the huddle and they can see he is ready...but what happens when he looks just a bit off...do they go back to thinking, wait a minute, this is how he was when he retired?

That is something nobody here can know...what effect would that have had on the team had they been in a situation where Brett did not have that confident look...would everyone else just step up? Would they rely on him to do it? Would they get deflated and feel defeated?

None of us know that.

So, the leadership and confidence can be a great thing...but it can also be a detriment if it ever faltered for just a bit.

And sorry to Leon, it sounds nice of him to say...but I doubt Brett Favre's confidence had anything to do with his run the other day.
It just kills you to see anything positive about Favre.
Not at all.Does it kill you to see anything negative about him? Even if its his own words?

People wanted the quote a while back about his reaction to people thinking "alright Brett, its up to you". I put that out there.

Even his own words about the team wanting him back. But I guess he was lying huh?

This is about the response I would expect from you. A complete failure to admit that maybe Brett had some issues and fault in how things went down too. (which is all I have ever said about this).

 
From Favre..

Favre defined his ideas on leadership for the magazine: "It's somehow getting 52 other guys to raise their level of play. To get them to believe in what we're trying to do. You do that by setting an example, by doing things the right way. I've always shown up. I've always been prepared. I practice every day. I practice hard. I study. No matter what happens on the field, I never point blame at anybody else. Everything I do comes back to leadership, the example I want to set."

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jan/11...ers_brett27265/
Now this is actually the best one you've found. So let's parse it out.Favre says being a leader is getting the guys to raise their level of play. Sounds kind of like "giving their best effort". Not sure if Favre thinks there's so much more to it than that as you do, but who's to know.

Anyway, to get them to raise their level of play, you've got to set an example by

1) doing it the right way

2) showing up

3) being prepared

4) practice everyday

5) practice hard

6) study

7) never blame someone else

Does Rodgers do whatever it is the right way? Does Rodgers not show up? Does Rodgers not prepare? Does Rodger's not practice everyday? Does Rodgers not practice hard? Does Rodgers not study? Does Rodgers blame someone else?

So what from this list is Rodgers not doing that Favre did that is keeping his teammates from rasing their level of play?
I'm done with someone that doesn't realize the Packers are missing leadership this season and the fact you think Rodgers is providing the same level of leadership that Favre did. Good luck with reality, ace.
Was it just leadership they lacked in 2005 or 2006?
Don't you remember......the excuse the you and the TT supporters have for 2005 was that TT had to clean house from the mess that Sherman left. They improved in 2006 and then improved in 2007 as Favre helped with his leadership with such a young team.
 
The claim isn't that Rodgers is a better leader than Favre, it's the opposite. So that's why I ask, of that huge essay you posted, can you point to anything that Favre does than Rodgers does not? Anything in there that would explain why these packers would be playing better if Favre was providing leadership rather than Rodgers?And that part about making decisions and living with the consequences and not making excuses or justifications is golden. I bet when Rodgers retires, he'll be more decisive than Favre was. At least Favre is leading in the excuses and justifications column.
This is easy. First, you are underestimating what a leader means to a team. What effect that player has, not only to his side of the ball, but the team in general.Second, players respect Favre, offense, defense, opponents respect what he brought to the table. With that respect came an urgency to play better because that leader made the team better.Lastly, when Favre stepped onto the field, the team, the opponents saw a guy who could win the game at any time in the last drive. Favre could beat any team, at any time. The opponents knew this and the team knew this. That same sense of urgency is not there with Rodgers... at all.
This is exactly what I addressed earlier in this thread.Does anyone actually believe the players out there this past Sunday, were not trying to play better because Aaron Rodgers was back there and not Brett Favre?
Only the Favre haters will try and make this arguement and not acknowledge the impact Brett Favre had as a leader with the Green Bay Packers. You go spin all you want sho but you won't win on this.
And only a few of you who cannot get past the thought that anyone who supports the decision to go with Rodgers must just be a Favre hater would see this as me not acknowledging the impact he had as a leader.He did have one. But not enough IMO.And again, I was specifically addressing this point of people try harder because he is the QB. The point that Phase tried to spin away from earlier, now is posting quotes about that exact thing.Again...answer the question. Do you believe players were not playing or trying harder because Brett was not out there?Is trying harder enough?
 
A quote from Leon Washington....

"When you have Brett Favre coming into the huddle, it makes everybody else in the huddle step their games up"

Jerico Cotchery

"It is very special to have a guy like that step into your huddle"

Eric Mangini

" I think Brett just . . . he instills confidence in the group ... There's a sense of ease when he has the ball. You feel he's going to get it to the right place."

From another player

"I didn't see any nervousness on his face; I saw a quiet confidence on his face, so to speak. When he stepped into the huddle, we knew we were going to be able to get it done because that's the way he's been this entire year."

http://www.daylife.com/quote/0fav1s56wI8vz
So again, I ask you in two specific instances this Sunday that were keys in the game.Did Kuhn and Grant just not have confidence in their 3 attempts to get that one yard? Would they have had that confidence last year? (Id say it made no difference as the team sucked in 3rd and short situations last season)

Was the team less confident in allowing an 80 yard TD drive that ended up being the difference in the game? Were they just not able to step up because #4 was on the sidelines?

I'm much more aware of how hard it is to win in this league and to play at a high level. I'm not up to the challenge anymore. I can play, but I'm not up to the challenge.
And Brett Favre got hard to live up to. And I found myself during games at times, tough situation, people always kind of made this joke or other guys on the team, even Mike at times would turn to me and say, 'All right Brett. This is where you're at your best. Pull us out.' I'm thinking, 'Uh! ... ' Now I wouldn't do that, but I'm thinking that. I'm thinking, 'Boy it sure would be nice to be up about 14 right now.' It's just hard. It got hard. I did it, but it got hard.
Does that sound like a guy who would be instilling a ton of confidence in a team? Oh wait, I forgot, that was after his retirement speech so he must not have meant any of that...or what is to follow.
I had one of the better years in my career, the team had a great year, everything seems to be going great, the team wants me back, I still can play, for the most part everyone would think I would be back, would want me back.
So the Packers wanted me, I know I can play, the fans, I guess they love me.
Wait, I thought the team did not want him back?
(Is there anything anybody in the organization could have said to you to change your mind and get you to play one more season?)

Once again I think that there have been a lot of things in the press this week that aren't true. Believe me, I've questioned my decision. I believe it's the right decision. And there's nothing that they can do or say to change that.
Wait...I was told that if Ted had just called him everything would have been fine?http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2008/03/06/3/

Now...sure...all that changes when he steps in the huddle and they can see he is ready...but what happens when he looks just a bit off...do they go back to thinking, wait a minute, this is how he was when he retired?

That is something nobody here can know...what effect would that have had on the team had they been in a situation where Brett did not have that confident look...would everyone else just step up? Would they rely on him to do it? Would they get deflated and feel defeated?

None of us know that.

So, the leadership and confidence can be a great thing...but it can also be a detriment if it ever faltered for just a bit.

And sorry to Leon, it sounds nice of him to say...but I doubt Brett Favre's confidence had anything to do with his run the other day.
It just kills you to see anything positive about Favre.
Not at all.Does it kill you to see anything negative about him? Even if its his own words?

People wanted the quote a while back about his reaction to people thinking "alright Brett, its up to you". I put that out there.

Even his own words about the team wanting him back. But I guess he was lying huh?

This is about the response I would expect from you. A complete failure to admit that maybe Brett had some issues and fault in how things went down too. (which is all I have ever said about this).
Huh? This is about you trying to come into this thread and diminish what Favre meant to the Packers and the leadership he brought. I thought even you wouldn't try and argue that. But.....once a Favre hater always a Favre hater.
 
Nice try sho but just pathetic that you have to fall on one game examples and ignore the big picture about Favre and leadership. You have no chance on this one but keep trying.
Umm...first off it was a joke because the article posted was a piece right before the 9ers beat the Jets.Im not ignoring that he had leadership. Im questioning that leadership is enough to improve this Packer team enough to mean anything.The ones who have no chance are those trying to equate something so intangible into wins and how this team would be doing this year.
 
One must really despise Favre to try and ignore what he meant to the Packers. Trying to diminish the leadership he brought to the team is pathetic. Go ahead and be a hater but please get some grasp of reality.
Nah...I don't think James despises him. I know I don't. Nor am I ignoring what he meant to the Packers or diminishing the leadership role he played. Though, some of you are overestimating that effect.A hater? Nope, not a hater...the ones with no grasp on reality are those thinking that anyone who does not just think Favre is the end all be all for the 2008 Packers must just be a hater.
 
The claim isn't that Rodgers is a better leader than Favre, it's the opposite. So that's why I ask, of that huge essay you posted, can you point to anything that Favre does than Rodgers does not? Anything in there that would explain why these packers would be playing better if Favre was providing leadership rather than Rodgers?And that part about making decisions and living with the consequences and not making excuses or justifications is golden. I bet when Rodgers retires, he'll be more decisive than Favre was. At least Favre is leading in the excuses and justifications column.
This is easy. First, you are underestimating what a leader means to a team. What effect that player has, not only to his side of the ball, but the team in general.Second, players respect Favre, offense, defense, opponents respect what he brought to the table. With that respect came an urgency to play better because that leader made the team better.Lastly, when Favre stepped onto the field, the team, the opponents saw a guy who could win the game at any time in the last drive. Favre could beat any team, at any time. The opponents knew this and the team knew this. That same sense of urgency is not there with Rodgers... at all.
This is exactly what I addressed earlier in this thread.Does anyone actually believe the players out there this past Sunday, were not trying to play better because Aaron Rodgers was back there and not Brett Favre?
Only the Favre haters will try and make this arguement and not acknowledge the impact Brett Favre had as a leader with the Green Bay Packers. You go spin all you want sho but you won't win on this.
And only a few of you who cannot get past the thought that anyone who supports the decision to go with Rodgers must just be a Favre hater would see this as me not acknowledging the impact he had as a leader.He did have one. But not enough IMO.And again, I was specifically addressing this point of people try harder because he is the QB. The point that Phase tried to spin away from earlier, now is posting quotes about that exact thing.Again...answer the question. Do you believe players were not playing or trying harder because Brett was not out there?Is trying harder enough?
You are a total fool, sho. I am done on this topic as well. Do we know if the players are playing just as hard for Rodgers? Hell no. What we do know is that this team is lacking leadership and one of the main reasons they are lacking in that area the absense of Brett Favre. And yes, you are a Favre hater otherwise you wouldn't be in this tread coming with the this crap. And that is what it is.....complete crap to try and diminish what Favre meant to the Packers. I should be like Joe and realize it is pointless to deal with you.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top