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!

On Favre, Packers Can't Have It Both Ways (1 Viewer)

CaGamblers

Footballguy
On Favre, Packers Can't Have It Both Ways

By Michael Wilbon

Wednesday, July 30, 2008; Page E01

Please don't shed any tears for the Green Bay Packers. Don't fall for this nonsense they're spinning that Brett Favre is threatening to make their lives so unbearably miserable by ending his brief retirement.

Don't believe for a minute that the Packers will be better off without Favre, that Favre is now a villainous figure, unfairly poaching what rightfully belongs to new quarterback Aaron Rodgers, or that the team needs days or perhaps even weeks to figure out what in the world to do.

Don't buy any of what the Green Bay executives and coaches are selling, because there's no dilemma at all for the Packers.

Since the Packers have made it clear, both publicly and to Favre in direct conversation, that they no longer want him as their starter, there's a simple solution here: trade him or cut him. It doesn't matter that anybody in his right mind knows Favre, even at 38 years old, is 100 times better than Rodgers. If Coach Mike McCarthy and his staff want Rodgers, fine. Start him. Play him until his arm falls off. The Packers' GM, Ted Thompson, and McCarthy have been telling people it's Rodgers's time to play, that they promised him the job in March and it would be unfair to him now to yank the rug from under him, blah, blah, blah.

Fine, if Rodgers is as much your guy as you claim publicly, then dump Favre.

If you don't want Favre, if you think he's washed up and ready to be bronzed, then why would you care if he winds up with the Vikings or Bears? If you don't want Favre, why would you care who he plays for in the limited time he has left?

Because the Packers want it both ways, like every NFL team in history. Thompson thinks being an NFL team executive gives him the inalienable right to be able to tell players what to do for the rest of their natural lives. "I don't want you to play for me, but I'll do my best to prevent you from playing for anybody else." That's the NFL way.

And because the NFL is the unchallenged sports/entertainment leader in America, most of the general public -- even in Wisconsin -- most folks in the media and most fans nationally think the poor Packers are somehow being put upon. This is yet another case of the NFL flexing its unequalled sense of entitlement and arrogance.

Thompson, who comes off looking like a sniveling twit in staking out his position, reportedly told Favre he would perhaps be fired if Favre showed up at Packers training camp. (That alone should be enough to make Favre fire up the jet and get up to Wisconsin.)

Don't get me wrong, Favre isn't an innocent in all this. I've had Favre fatigue for some time when it comes to "will he or won't he?"

Favre has been disingenuously hinting at retirement for what, three or four years? This past March wasn't the first time the Packers' brass had talks with Favre about his plans for the next season. They put up with the back and forth because even after his bad seasons, Favre was the best quarterback the Packers have ever had. He nearly got the Packers to the Super Bowl in February, remember. Presuming they settle this dispute before feelings become permanently hurt, a statue of Favre surely will be erected in front of Lambeau Field someday.

So, it's not like the Packers pressured Favre to retire. Had he said in March he wanted to still play, chances are he'd be in training camp now, instead of officially asking NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to reinstate him with the Packers, as Favre did in writing yesterday. It was Favre, remember, who held the teary news conference to announce his farewell. It was Favre who said his wife and kids wanted him to call it quits after all these years. So, it was totally understandable that the Packers, having invested a first-round draft pick in Rodgers four years ago, wanted to get Rodgers ready to start the post-Favre era.

So they started that process and they don't want to turn their back on Rodgers. Good. Keep him atop the depth chart. Stand by your man. You told him he's your guy. Prove it. Keep your word. Stick with him. Tell Favre to get lost and trade him. Get a second-round pick in next year's draft, somebody who can help Rodgers be great, a young lineman or a receiver. Do whatever you have to do to assist the quarterback you believe is your best bet to win.

But don't tell me that in doing that you need to control what Favre does next. If you want Favre, put him in a uniform and tell Rodgers the two of them will compete for a job. If you don't want Favre, let him go. If the Packers choose to try and play both ends, then one can only hope the circus surrounding the team brings the whole season crashing down. Usually when an NFL team squirms it's a good thing, because it's usually brought on by its own greed or need to exert total control.

Because NFL teams are so powerful, especially in a tiny place like Green Bay, and because they're so able and smart about manipulating public opinion, they'll probably get away with successfully painting Favre as the bad guy in this episode. And if Favre thinks the Packers will ultimately cut him and thereby grant him the freedom to cut a deal with any team (the Vikings and/or Bears included), the bet here is he'll be wrong.

Who knows where this is going next. Here's hoping Favre shows up for training camp sometime this week and heads to his locker. What are the Packers going to do, have guards block his path to the dressing room?

The best way for Favre to get what he wants is to be as confrontational as the Packers, to get right in their faces and say with both actions and words, "I'm here. Play me, trade me, or suffer the consequences."

 
On Favre, Packers Can't Have It Both Ways By Michael WilbonWednesday, July 30, 2008; Page E01 Please don't shed any tears for the Green Bay Packers. Don't fall for this nonsense they're spinning that Brett Favre is threatening to make their lives so unbearably miserable by ending his brief retirement. Don't believe for a minute that the Packers will be better off without Favre, that Favre is now a villainous figure, unfairly poaching what rightfully belongs to new quarterback Aaron Rodgers, or that the team needs days or perhaps even weeks to figure out what in the world to do. Don't buy any of what the Green Bay executives and coaches are selling, because there's no dilemma at all for the Packers. Since the Packers have made it clear, both publicly and to Favre in direct conversation, that they no longer want him as their starter, there's a simple solution here: trade him or cut him. It doesn't matter that anybody in his right mind knows Favre, even at 38 years old, is 100 times better than Rodgers. If Coach Mike McCarthy and his staff want Rodgers, fine. Start him. Play him until his arm falls off. The Packers' GM, Ted Thompson, and McCarthy have been telling people it's Rodgers's time to play, that they promised him the job in March and it would be unfair to him now to yank the rug from under him, blah, blah, blah. Fine, if Rodgers is as much your guy as you claim publicly, then dump Favre. If you don't want Favre, if you think he's washed up and ready to be bronzed, then why would you care if he winds up with the Vikings or Bears? If you don't want Favre, why would you care who he plays for in the limited time he has left? Because the Packers want it both ways, like every NFL team in history. Thompson thinks being an NFL team executive gives him the inalienable right to be able to tell players what to do for the rest of their natural lives. "I don't want you to play for me, but I'll do my best to prevent you from playing for anybody else." That's the NFL way. And because the NFL is the unchallenged sports/entertainment leader in America, most of the general public -- even in Wisconsin -- most folks in the media and most fans nationally think the poor Packers are somehow being put upon. This is yet another case of the NFL flexing its unequalled sense of entitlement and arrogance. Thompson, who comes off looking like a sniveling twit in staking out his position, reportedly told Favre he would perhaps be fired if Favre showed up at Packers training camp. (That alone should be enough to make Favre fire up the jet and get up to Wisconsin.) Don't get me wrong, Favre isn't an innocent in all this. I've had Favre fatigue for some time when it comes to "will he or won't he?" Favre has been disingenuously hinting at retirement for what, three or four years? This past March wasn't the first time the Packers' brass had talks with Favre about his plans for the next season. They put up with the back and forth because even after his bad seasons, Favre was the best quarterback the Packers have ever had. He nearly got the Packers to the Super Bowl in February, remember. Presuming they settle this dispute before feelings become permanently hurt, a statue of Favre surely will be erected in front of Lambeau Field someday. So, it's not like the Packers pressured Favre to retire. Had he said in March he wanted to still play, chances are he'd be in training camp now, instead of officially asking NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to reinstate him with the Packers, as Favre did in writing yesterday. It was Favre, remember, who held the teary news conference to announce his farewell. It was Favre who said his wife and kids wanted him to call it quits after all these years. So, it was totally understandable that the Packers, having invested a first-round draft pick in Rodgers four years ago, wanted to get Rodgers ready to start the post-Favre era. So they started that process and they don't want to turn their back on Rodgers. Good. Keep him atop the depth chart. Stand by your man. You told him he's your guy. Prove it. Keep your word. Stick with him. Tell Favre to get lost and trade him. Get a second-round pick in next year's draft, somebody who can help Rodgers be great, a young lineman or a receiver. Do whatever you have to do to assist the quarterback you believe is your best bet to win. But don't tell me that in doing that you need to control what Favre does next. If you want Favre, put him in a uniform and tell Rodgers the two of them will compete for a job. If you don't want Favre, let him go. If the Packers choose to try and play both ends, then one can only hope the circus surrounding the team brings the whole season crashing down. Usually when an NFL team squirms it's a good thing, because it's usually brought on by its own greed or need to exert total control. Because NFL teams are so powerful, especially in a tiny place like Green Bay, and because they're so able and smart about manipulating public opinion, they'll probably get away with successfully painting Favre as the bad guy in this episode. And if Favre thinks the Packers will ultimately cut him and thereby grant him the freedom to cut a deal with any team (the Vikings and/or Bears included), the bet here is he'll be wrong. Who knows where this is going next. Here's hoping Favre shows up for training camp sometime this week and heads to his locker. What are the Packers going to do, have guards block his path to the dressing room? The best way for Favre to get what he wants is to be as confrontational as the Packers, to get right in their faces and say with both actions and words, "I'm here. Play me, trade me, or suffer the consequences."
I agree with what Wilbon says here - as a fan, not just a Viking fan. Are they building for the future? Or are they trying to win now? How they treat Favre is really a good barometer of how they view their team.
 
I disagree with this being its own thread.

Wilbon isn't saying anything that a dozen fans haven't already said in numerous threads here.

Stop with the Favre threads, please.

 
Wilbon is a Chicago fan. I bet he wouldn't mind seeing Favre there. They need a QB badly. No way in hell the Pack lets him go to a division opponent. I don't blame them. They should keep trying to unload him to the Bucs or Jets or someone... otherwise, if they can't move him, let him backup Rodgers. End of story.

 
Good LORD stop with the new Favre threads already. Can we get a Favre sticky with all the links to the 85 Favre threads? TIA

 
Wilbon is a Chicago fan. I bet he wouldn't mind seeing Favre there. They need a QB badly. No way in hell the Pack lets him go to a division opponent. I don't blame them. They should keep trying to unload him to the Bucs or Jets or someone... otherwise, if they can't move him, let him backup Rodgers. End of story.
I'm a Bears fan, and although I'd love to have Farve on the Bears, it won't happen. The Bears line is horrible, and the group of receivers is worse. Farve is a great player, but he can't fix what ails this team. It is far more than a QB. I agree with Wilbon completely on this.
 
Its really not as simple as if you think he is washed up then cut him. Do they think Aaron Rodgers gives them a better chance to win? Maybe. Do they think he gives the Vikings a better chance to win than Tarvaris Jackson? Definitely.

 
Wilbon is a Chicago fan. I bet he wouldn't mind seeing Favre there. They need a QB badly. No way in hell the Pack lets him go to a division opponent. I don't blame them. They should keep trying to unload him to the Bucs or Jets or someone... otherwise, if they can't move him, let him backup Rodgers. End of story.
I'm a Bears fan, and although I'd love to have Farve on the Bears, it won't happen. The Bears line is horrible, and the group of receivers is worse. Farve is a great player, but he can't fix what ails this team. It is far more than a QB. I agree with Wilbon completely on this.
Why? Favre is under contract with Green Bay. They can do whatever they see fit and they have chosen Rodgers to be their starter.
 
Favre is the guy to blame here. They've been hanging on his decision for the last few years and this year was no different. Rogers and the rook are on the team because Favre has been talking retirement for years. Its a political nightmare when dealing with the FHOF. If he wants to play and they don't want to start him then he should welcome playing for any team they deal him to.

I have never seen anything like it (except to a lesser extent, Jordan) and wonder how many more years we have to?

Do we have to re-define "retire"?

 
I disagree with this being its own thread. Wilbon isn't saying anything that a dozen fans haven't already said in numerous threads here.Stop with the Favre threads, please.
In addition...he continues with the ignorance like "If you don't want Favre, if you think he's washed up and ready to be bronzed, then why would you care if he winds up with the Vikings or Bears? If you don't want Favre, why would you care who he plays for in the limited time he has left?"Where are the Packers claiming he is washed up?The simplistic side of this article is laughable.And what are Wilbon's credentials as far as an NFL front office is concerned?
 
don't agree with this at all really.
I agree with you.Why wouldn't and shouldn't have it both ways. Favre is their "property" and they can do what they want.If I'm the GM of the Packers I don't release Favre no matter what "circus" it creates. The Players on the Packers are professionals and are paid not only to play football but to deal with all that goes along with playing football. Which includes the media, contract disputes etc... Granted this is a larger issue than most but they can deal with it none the less.Favre is under contract and is a valuable commodity to the team. Why would they just give him away for free when they potentially can get something for him?Would Wilbon (or anybody) give away their House for free, their car, their TV, their computer? The answer is no because those all have value....so does Favre so why release him or give him away?If I'm Ted Thompson I try like hell to trade Favre to an AFC team, if this can't get done than I stick to my guns and refuses to release him or trade him to a team he wants to go to but I (the Pack) don't want to send him (ie the Vikings). If Favre isn't traded then he will probably report to GB training camp to try and force the issue and make it as uncomfortable as possible but once it's clear to him he is the back up QB and that isn't going to change he is going to leave again becasue his pride won't allow him to remain a backup. Thompson holds all the cards, Favre will not waste his time and ride the bench all year long ($12m or not) and Thompson is willing to gamble his job on this fact. It will be interesting how this plays out but in the end I feel Favre will either be traded to an AFC team or report to GB training camp then leave a week or two later and stay retired.
 
They should bring him and let him compete with Rodgers - with the plan that Rodgers will be the starter and Favre ride the bench.

Won't that dork just go away

 
Wilbon is a Chicago fan. I bet he wouldn't mind seeing Favre there. They need a QB badly. No way in hell the Pack lets him go to a division opponent. I don't blame them. They should keep trying to unload him to the Bucs or Jets or someone... otherwise, if they can't move him, let him backup Rodgers. End of story.
I'm a Bears fan, and although I'd love to have Farve on the Bears, it won't happen. The Bears line is horrible, and the group of receivers is worse. Farve is a great player, but he can't fix what ails this team. It is far more than a QB. I agree with Wilbon completely on this.
Why? Favre is under contract with Green Bay. They can do whatever they see fit and they have chosen Rodgers to be their starter.
Then Farve can report and let's see what happens. Do you think the Packers want him in training camp? They don't, but they don't want him to play for anyone else either. Show up and force their hand. If they want to have Rodgers start then do it. But if you intend to hold Farve to the contract then pay him his $12 million. They do not want Farve on the sidelines. But he is right, you can't have it both ways.
 
I disagree with this being its own thread.

Wilbon isn't saying anything that a dozen fans haven't already said in numerous threads here.

Stop with the Favre threads, please.
I posted it because that is my right - If you don't like the thread - don't read it ! - If the Packers mgmt had any business sense they wouldn't be in this predicament.
 
I disagree with this being its own thread.

Wilbon isn't saying anything that a dozen fans haven't already said in numerous threads here.

Stop with the Favre threads, please.
In addition...he continues with the ignorance like "If you don't want Favre, if you think he's washed up and ready to be bronzed, then why would you care if he winds up with the Vikings or Bears? If you don't want Favre, why would you care who he plays for in the limited time he has left?"

Where are the Packers claiming he is washed up?

The simplistic side of this article is laughable.

And what are Wilbon's credentials as far as an NFL front office is concerned?
The part where they said that they have moved on to Rodgers - they are saying Favre is no better than a player that has never started an NFL game.
 
I disagree with this being its own thread.

Wilbon isn't saying anything that a dozen fans haven't already said in numerous threads here.

Stop with the Favre threads, please.
In addition...he continues with the ignorance like "If you don't want Favre, if you think he's washed up and ready to be bronzed, then why would you care if he winds up with the Vikings or Bears? If you don't want Favre, why would you care who he plays for in the limited time he has left?"

Where are the Packers claiming he is washed up?

The simplistic side of this article is laughable.

And what are Wilbon's credentials as far as an NFL front office is concerned?
The part where they said that they have moved on to Rodgers - they are saying Favre is no better than a player that has never started an NFL game.
Actually...no, they are not.They are saying that Favre told them several times this offseason that he was done and not coming back and they moved on.

Moving on is no indication of Favre's talent at all. Its what they had to do when he retired...and said more than once that he was staying retired.

 
Check this out. Pavre offered 20 mil to stay away!!

Favre offered 20 mil to by Pack
What in God's name is Thompson doing? The guy won't spend a dollar in free agency but now he wants to almost double Favre's salary to keep him away from the team?I agree with Wilbon - as badly as Favre has handled things (and there's no question he's handled this whole thing incredibly badly) - Thompson is at fault right now. This is a very easy decision for the Packers to make. You bring Favre back and you let him compete for the job. That's what training camp is all about. If Rodgers wins the job, you'll have BY FAR the best backup QB in the league. And given the durability issues Rodgers has shown thus far, having a good backup isn't a bad idea at all for Green Bay. If Favre wins the job, then you have a player who last season proved he was still one of the league's top QBs in the starting position. And that's not a bad idea at all for a team with Super Bowl aspirations.

This has been a gigantic mess and both sides deserve a ton of blame. But right now I think the blame falls directly on Thompson and the Packers. They are going out of their way, especially if this report is true, to turn this into a huge mess when a very easy solution has been staring them in the face all along.

 
I disagree with this being its own thread.

Wilbon isn't saying anything that a dozen fans haven't already said in numerous threads here.

Stop with the Favre threads, please.
In addition...he continues with the ignorance like "If you don't want Favre, if you think he's washed up and ready to be bronzed, then why would you care if he winds up with the Vikings or Bears? If you don't want Favre, why would you care who he plays for in the limited time he has left?"

Where are the Packers claiming he is washed up?

The simplistic side of this article is laughable.

And what are Wilbon's credentials as far as an NFL front office is concerned?
The part where they said that they have moved on to Rodgers - they are saying Favre is no better than a player that has never started an NFL game.
Actually...no, they are not.They are saying that Favre told them several times this offseason that he was done and not coming back and they moved on.

Moving on is no indication of Favre's talent at all. Its what they had to do when he retired...and said more than once that he was staying retired.
Sho nuff,I agree with you here. Got a question for you though as I see you debating a lot on the board here lately. Are you a lawyer? As much as you debate and spend time on this board, I'd assume that just might be your profession.

 
Check this out. Pavre offered 20 mil to stay away!!

Favre offered 20 mil to by Pack
What in God's name is Thompson doing? The guy won't spend a dollar in free agency but now he wants to almost double Favre's salary to keep him away from the team?I agree with Wilbon - as badly as Favre has handled things (and there's no question he's handled this whole thing incredibly badly) - Thompson is at fault right now. This is a very easy decision for the Packers to make. You bring Favre back and you let him compete for the job. That's what training camp is all about. If Rodgers wins the job, you'll have BY FAR the best backup QB in the league. And given the durability issues Rodgers has shown thus far, having a good backup isn't a bad idea at all for Green Bay. If Favre wins the job, then you have a player who last season proved he was still one of the league's top QBs in the starting position. And that's not a bad idea at all for a team with Super Bowl aspirations.

This has been a gigantic mess and both sides deserve a ton of blame. But right now I think the blame falls directly on Thompson and the Packers. They are going out of their way, especially if this report is true, to turn this into a huge mess when a very easy solution has been staring them in the face all along.
Not sure this one was Thompson. Looks like Murphy and the Executive Committee had a big part it in at least partially if its true.
 
Check this out. Pavre offered 20 mil to stay away!!

Favre offered 20 mil to by Pack
A lot of good politics going on between the Favre camp and the Packers organization. We keep seeing these little things come out here and there that make the other one look stupid. It's called "working the media!" Hmm...when all is said and done they both will deny all of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree with this being its own thread.

Wilbon isn't saying anything that a dozen fans haven't already said in numerous threads here.

Stop with the Favre threads, please.
In addition...he continues with the ignorance like "If you don't want Favre, if you think he's washed up and ready to be bronzed, then why would you care if he winds up with the Vikings or Bears? If you don't want Favre, why would you care who he plays for in the limited time he has left?"

Where are the Packers claiming he is washed up?

The simplistic side of this article is laughable.

And what are Wilbon's credentials as far as an NFL front office is concerned?
The part where they said that they have moved on to Rodgers - they are saying Favre is no better than a player that has never started an NFL game.
Actually...no, they are not.They are saying that Favre told them several times this offseason that he was done and not coming back and they moved on.

Moving on is no indication of Favre's talent at all. Its what they had to do when he retired...and said more than once that he was staying retired.
Sho nuff,I agree with you here. Got a question for you though as I see you debating a lot on the board here lately. Are you a lawyer? As much as you debate and spend time on this board, I'd assume that just might be your profession.
Nope...an auditor/investigator.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Check this out. Pavre offered 20 mil to stay away!!

Favre offered 20 mil to by Pack
What in God's name is Thompson doing? The guy won't spend a dollar in free agency but now he wants to almost double Favre's salary to keep him away from the team?I agree with Wilbon - as badly as Favre has handled things (and there's no question he's handled this whole thing incredibly badly) - Thompson is at fault right now. This is a very easy decision for the Packers to make. You bring Favre back and you let him compete for the job. That's what training camp is all about. If Rodgers wins the job, you'll have BY FAR the best backup QB in the league. And given the durability issues Rodgers has shown thus far, having a good backup isn't a bad idea at all for Green Bay. If Favre wins the job, then you have a player who last season proved he was still one of the league's top QBs in the starting position. And that's not a bad idea at all for a team with Super Bowl aspirations.

This has been a gigantic mess and both sides deserve a ton of blame. But right now I think the blame falls directly on Thompson and the Packers. They are going out of their way, especially if this report is true, to turn this into a huge mess when a very easy solution has been staring them in the face all along.
Not sure this one was Thompson. Looks like Murphy and the Executive Committee had a big part it in at least partially if its true.
That could be true, but Thompson could have avoided this entire mess if he just told Favre he could come in and be on the team - which he was quoted a couple of weeks ago as saying was an option. Thompson is spinning this thing completely out of control.
 
Check this out. Pavre offered 20 mil to stay away!!

Favre offered 20 mil to by Pack
If this is true...just an idiotic move by the Packer brass.And it may have even had the exec. committee's stamp of approval or have even been their idea.
I don't where Thompson and Murphy got their formal business education from, but the schools they went to should lose there accreditation.
Why? Thus far Thompson and his people have shown they know how to put together a talented football team without breaking the bank.Not all business decisions are pretty.

 
I disagree with this being its own thread.

Wilbon isn't saying anything that a dozen fans haven't already said in numerous threads here.

Stop with the Favre threads, please.
In addition...he continues with the ignorance like "If you don't want Favre, if you think he's washed up and ready to be bronzed, then why would you care if he winds up with the Vikings or Bears? If you don't want Favre, why would you care who he plays for in the limited time he has left?"

Where are the Packers claiming he is washed up?

The simplistic side of this article is laughable.

And what are Wilbon's credentials as far as an NFL front office is concerned?
The part where they said that they have moved on to Rodgers - they are saying Favre is no better than a player that has never started an NFL game.
Actually...no, they are not.They are saying that Favre told them several times this offseason that he was done and not coming back and they moved on.

Moving on is no indication of Favre's talent at all. Its what they had to do when he retired...and said more than once that he was staying retired.
Sho nuff,I agree with you here. Got a question for you though as I see you debating a lot on the board here lately. Are you a lawyer? As much as you debate and spend time on this board, I'd assume that just might be your profession.
Nope...an auditor/investigator.
Well, it's time to get your tail to law school then. :confused:
 
I happen to find this whole situation quite entertaining. I know I may be the only one.

I think Thompson and Favre are on a path to mutually assured destruction. I predict that Favre will permanently blemish his reputation and Thompson will be fired by the time this is all done. I think Wilbon is absolutely right and the next step is to come in to camp so the ugly stuff can really start flying.

 
Check this out. Pavre offered 20 mil to stay away!!

Favre offered 20 mil to by Pack
What in God's name is Thompson doing? The guy won't spend a dollar in free agency but now he wants to almost double Favre's salary to keep him away from the team?
If Favre is not on the roster, that $20M over 10 years would not be part of the salary cap.A deal like that would have to be run through the BOD. It would take a lot more push from Murphy than Thompson to get everyone on board with it.

 
I disagree with this being its own thread.

Wilbon isn't saying anything that a dozen fans haven't already said in numerous threads here.

Stop with the Favre threads, please.
In addition...he continues with the ignorance like "If you don't want Favre, if you think he's washed up and ready to be bronzed, then why would you care if he winds up with the Vikings or Bears? If you don't want Favre, why would you care who he plays for in the limited time he has left?"

Where are the Packers claiming he is washed up?

The simplistic side of this article is laughable.

And what are Wilbon's credentials as far as an NFL front office is concerned?
The part where they said that they have moved on to Rodgers - they are saying Favre is no better than a player that has never started an NFL game.
Actually...no, they are not.They are saying that Favre told them several times this offseason that he was done and not coming back and they moved on.

Moving on is no indication of Favre's talent at all. Its what they had to do when he retired...and said more than once that he was staying retired.
Sho nuff,I agree with you here. Got a question for you though as I see you debating a lot on the board here lately. Are you a lawyer? As much as you debate and spend time on this board, I'd assume that just might be your profession.
Nope...an auditor/investigator.
Well, it's time to get your tail to law school then. :football:
Lawyers are more successful when they use the facts to succeed, not get owned repeatedly in the face by them.
 
Check this out. Pavre offered 20 mil to stay away!!

Favre offered 20 mil to by Pack
What in God's name is Thompson doing? The guy won't spend a dollar in free agency but now he wants to almost double Favre's salary to keep him away from the team?
If Favre is not on the roster, that $20M over 10 years would not be part of the salary cap.A deal like that would have to be run through the BOD. It would take a lot more push from Murphy than Thompson to get everyone on board with it.
I agree. But again, there'd be no reason to go to these lengths if Thompson simply made the (in my opinion) intelligent decision here and let Favre return. Is Aaron Rodgers so damn good that it's worth the Packers paying Favre nearly twice his salary not to be on the team? There is no intelligent reason in my opinion for a decision like this to be made. I can appreciate the fact the Packers just wish Favre would go away. But he clearly won't. So what's the best move - make your organization look like a bunch of morons by trying to bribe him into retirement? Or just letting the guy come back and you do what training camps in the history of the NFL have always done - you let two players compete for a starting job. What in the hell is Thompson so afraid of here? That a 38-year-old sort-of retired QB could come in off the street without a second of offseason work and beat out his prized No. 1 pick? Is his ego that great that he can't bear the thought of Rodgers losing his starting job? I simply don't get it. Again, Favre is as much to blame for this mess as the Packers are. But right now, the ball is in Thompson's court and he's doing an incredibly poor job in my opinion of handling this situation.

 
If I was a Packer fan, and I am not I would want the best possible QB starting for my team regardless of the circumstances - If you lose in the NFC Championship game in OT the previous season anything less then getting to the Super Bowl in 2009 is a failure - If Packer fan and management believes that Rogers is going to take them to the promise land they are freaking crazy.

*To qualify for passer rating, the player must have thrown at least 14 passes/game.

Rank Player Team Pos Comp Att Pct Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD Int 1st 1st% Lng 20+ 40+ Sck Rate

1 Tom Brady NE QB 398 578 68.9 36.1 4,806 8.3 300.4 50 8 240 41.5 69T 56 15 21 117.2

2 Ben Roethlisberger PIT QB 264 404 65.3 26.9 3,154 7.8 210.3 32 11 168 41.6 83 39 6 47 104.1

3 David Garrard JAC QB 208 325 64.0 27.1 2,509 7.7 209.1 18 3 126 38.8 59T 34 5 21 102.2

4 Peyton Manning IND QB 337 515 65.4 32.2 4,040 7.8 252.5 31 14 205 39.8 73T 53 9 21 98.0

5 Tony Romo DAL QB 335 520 64.4 32.5 4,211 8.1 263.2 36 19 215 41.3 59T 55 11 24 97.4

6 Brett Favre GB QB 356 535 66.5 33.4 4,155 7.8 259.7 28 15 197 36.8 82T 49 16 15 95.7

7 Jeff Garcia TB QB 209 327 63.9 25.2 2,440 7.5 187.7 13 4 112 34.3 69T 29 8 19 94.6

8 Matt Hasselbeck SEA QB 352 562 62.6 35.1 3,966 7.1 247.9 28 12 204 36.3 65 48 7 33 91.4

9 Donovan McNabb PHI QB 291 473 61.5 33.8 3,324 7.0 237.4 19 7 152 32.1 75T 35 10 44 89.9

10 Kurt Warner ARI QB 281 451 62.3 32.2 3,417 7.6 244.1 27 17 167 37.0 62 44 5 20 89.8

11 Drew Brees NO QB 440 652 67.5 40.8 4,423 6.8 276.4 28 18 232 35.6 58 47 8 16 89.4

12 Jay Cutler DEN QB 297 467 63.6 29.2 3,497 7.5 218.6 20 14 175 37.5 68T 41 7 27 88.1

13 Matt Schaub HOU QB 192 289 66.4 26.3 2,241 7.8 203.7 9 9 97 33.6 77T 23 6 16 87.2

14 Carson Palmer CIN QB 373 575 64.9 35.9 4,131 7.2 258.2 26 20 213 37.0 70T 51 8 17 86.7

15 Chad Pennington NYJ QB 179 260 68.8 28.9 1,765 6.8 196.1 10 9 90 34.6 57T 19 3 26 86.1

16 Sage Rosenfels HOU QB 154 240 64.2 26.7 1,684 7.0 187.1 15 12 93 38.8 53T 17 4 6 84.8

17 Derek Anderson CLE QB 298 527 56.5 32.9 3,787 7.2 236.7 29 19 187 35.5 78T 53 6 14 82.5

18 Philip Rivers SD QB 277 460 60.2 28.8 3,152 6.9 197.0 21 15 157 34.1 49T 44 4 22 82.4

19 Jon Kitna DET QB 355 561 63.3 35.1 4,068 7.3 254.2 18 20 196 34.9 91T 45 7 51 80.9

20 Jason Campbell WAS QB 250 417 60.0 32.1 2,700 6.5 207.7 12 11 148 35.5 54 30 4 21 77.6

21 Joey Harrington ATL QB 215 348 61.8 29.0 2,215 6.4 184.6 7 8 100 28.7 69T 26 2 32 77.2

22 Damon Huard KC QB 206 332 62.0 30.2 2,257 6.8 205.2 11 13 111 33.4 58 30 2 36 76.8

23 Brian Griese CHI QB 161 262 61.5 37.4 1,803 6.9 257.6 10 12 82 31.3 81T 21 2 15 75.6

24 Kyle Boller BAL QB 168 275 61.1 22.9 1,743 6.3 145.2 9 10 90 32.7 53 19 4 24 75.2

25 Eli Manning NYG QB 297 529 56.1 33.1 3,336 6.3 208.5 23 20 165 31.2 60T 36 6 27 73.9

26 Vince Young TEN QB 238 382 62.3 25.5 2,546 6.7 169.7 9 17 141 36.9 73 24 5 25 71.1

27 Cleo Lemon MIA QB 173 309 56.0 34.3 1,773 5.7 197.0 6 6 87 28.2 64T 19 2 25 71.0

28 Tarvaris Jackson MIN QB 171 294 58.2 24.5 1,911 6.5 159.2 9 12 95 32.3 71 15 4 19 70.8

29 Trent Edwards BUF QB 151 269 56.1 26.9 1,630 6.1 163.0 7 8 81 30.1 70T 21 4 12 70.4

30 Marc Bulger STL QB 221 378 58.5 31.5 2,392 6.3 199.3 11 15 129 34.1 40 29 1 37 70.3

31 Brodie Croyle KC QB 127 224 56.7 24.9 1,227 5.5 136.3 6 6 58 25.9 35 9 0 17 69.9

32 Rex Grossman CHI QB 122 225 54.2 28.1 1,411 6.3 176.4 4 7 66 29.3 59T 20 5 25 66.4

33 Kellen Clemens NYJ QB 130 250 52.0 25.0 1,529 6.1 152.9 5 10 82 32.8 56 18 4 27 60.9

Player Matchups

Hall of Fame

Record & Fact Book

Rule Book

Advertisement

 
I disagree with this being its own thread.

Wilbon isn't saying anything that a dozen fans haven't already said in numerous threads here.

Stop with the Favre threads, please.
In addition...he continues with the ignorance like "If you don't want Favre, if you think he's washed up and ready to be bronzed, then why would you care if he winds up with the Vikings or Bears? If you don't want Favre, why would you care who he plays for in the limited time he has left?"

Where are the Packers claiming he is washed up?

The simplistic side of this article is laughable.

And what are Wilbon's credentials as far as an NFL front office is concerned?
The part where they said that they have moved on to Rodgers - they are saying Favre is no better than a player that has never started an NFL game.
Actually...no, they are not.They are saying that Favre told them several times this offseason that he was done and not coming back and they moved on.

Moving on is no indication of Favre's talent at all. Its what they had to do when he retired...and said more than once that he was staying retired.
Favre told them that he wanted to play. They really haven't moved on all that much. What Favre knows about football far outweights what little preperation Rodgers got at the minicamps he had attended before Favre decided to unretire. "Moving on" before training camp has even started is a joke.Every thing the Packers have done regarding Brett Favre since his retirement appears to have been guided from spite. Brett Favre is wishy washy and would make them look foolish, so they spitefully tell them that he can't come back. They've moved on, hoping he'd stop there. But he didn't. So they later recant, and tell the public he'd have a spot. They want to protect his legacy, they said. Brett Favre sure looked like he meant it when he retired, they said.

And now that Favre has brought it further than they had anticipated, they want to pay him off because they can't lose this battle of wills.

 
Everybody understands that Brett Favre has rights in this.

It sounds like Wilbon forgets that the organization also has some rights in this.

 
Check this out. Pavre offered 20 mil to stay away!!

Favre offered 20 mil to by Pack
Wow.Did someone say they weren't desperate? Holy mother of God.
If the Packers offer ME $2 MM/year for the next 10 years to stay away from Lambeau, they have themselves a deal. :goodposting: Seriously though, I saw the executive summary of Wilbon's commentary on PTI this afternoon, and I thought he was spot-on. It's not that it isn't okay for the Packers to move on with Rodgers! It's not that it's not okay for Favre to decide that he wants to play again. What's not okay is for the Packers to basically do everything in their power to make sure that Favre doesn't take the field at all in 2008 when he is clearly still a top 10-15 talent at his position in the league.

Sure, they'll deal him if some team out there wants to overpay and poses no threat coming back to haunt them in the NFC/NFC North. However, the number of teams that would qualify for both Favre's (playing time) and the Packers (no threat to their ability to win the NFC North and advance in the playoffs) requirements is pretty slim. Chiefs? Jets? Buffalo? Miami? Baltimore? None of those teams is close to making a run IMHO, so they won't be dying to trade a pick or two for a 1-2 year fan-draw.

I'm at the point where I think that BOTH the Packers and Brett Favre deserve what they have coming. It's just too bad the fans are gonna get run through the meat-grinder in the process...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Check this out. Pavre offered 20 mil to stay away!!

Favre offered 20 mil to by Pack
Can you imagine what will happen if the Packers pay Farve $20 million for stay away, and then Rodgers gets hurt? Rodgers has certainly shown a propensity to get hurt. If the Packers paid Farve to stay away there is no way he comes back to rescue them. Packers fans would be suicidal. This doesn't smell like desperation does it?
 
don't agree with this at all really.
I agree with you.Why wouldn't and shouldn't have it both ways. Favre is their "property" and they can do what they want.If I'm the GM of the Packers I don't release Favre no matter what "circus" it creates. The Players on the Packers are professionals and are paid not only to play football but to deal with all that goes along with playing football. Which includes the media, contract disputes etc... Granted this is a larger issue than most but they can deal with it none the less.Favre is under contract and is a valuable commodity to the team. Why would they just give him away for free when they potentially can get something for him?Would Wilbon (or anybody) give away their House for free, their car, their TV, their computer? The answer is no because those all have value....so does Favre so why release him or give him away?If I'm Ted Thompson I try like hell to trade Favre to an AFC team, if this can't get done than I stick to my guns and refuses to release him or trade him to a team he wants to go to but I (the Pack) don't want to send him (ie the Vikings). If Favre isn't traded then he will probably report to GB training camp to try and force the issue and make it as uncomfortable as possible but once it's clear to him he is the back up QB and that isn't going to change he is going to leave again becasue his pride won't allow him to remain a backup. Thompson holds all the cards, Favre will not waste his time and ride the bench all year long ($12m or not) and Thompson is willing to gamble his job on this fact. It will be interesting how this plays out but in the end I feel Favre will either be traded to an AFC team or report to GB training camp then leave a week or two later and stay retired.
Boy, you wouldn't think that a team that holds all the cards would offer a player $20 million to stay home. You know, especially because they hold all the cards.
 
There are many parallels to today’s Favre situation and Steve McNair situation circa 2006. Titans had to make an unpopular decision when they decided to trade McNair to Baltimore. Packers are going down the same road. The Titans looked like bad guys then but now it looks like the right decision.

I am worried about the team that trades for Favre. Do they have temporary success like Baltimore and then fall apart the next year?

 
I disagree with this being its own thread.

Wilbon isn't saying anything that a dozen fans haven't already said in numerous threads here.

Stop with the Favre threads, please.
In addition...he continues with the ignorance like "If you don't want Favre, if you think he's washed up and ready to be bronzed, then why would you care if he winds up with the Vikings or Bears? If you don't want Favre, why would you care who he plays for in the limited time he has left?"

Where are the Packers claiming he is washed up?

The simplistic side of this article is laughable.

And what are Wilbon's credentials as far as an NFL front office is concerned?
The part where they said that they have moved on to Rodgers - they are saying Favre is no better than a player that has never started an NFL game.
Actually...no, they are not.They are saying that Favre told them several times this offseason that he was done and not coming back and they moved on.

Moving on is no indication of Favre's talent at all. Its what they had to do when he retired...and said more than once that he was staying retired.
Sho nuff,I agree with you here. Got a question for you though as I see you debating a lot on the board here lately. Are you a lawyer? As much as you debate and spend time on this board, I'd assume that just might be your profession.
Nope...an auditor/investigator.
Well, it's time to get your tail to law school then. :lmao:
Lawyers are more successful when they use the facts to succeed, not get owned repeatedly in the face by them.
THe next time you "own" me...will be the first.You use spin and lies to try and argue...I tear that kind of crap apart.

 
Good LORD stop with the new Favre threads already. Can we get a Favre sticky with all the links to the 85 Favre threads? TIA
We did this for Spygate, we did this for Favre's original retirement, and we did it for the Pittsburgh/Seattle Super Bowl controversy. All three of those were MUCH worse than this.The best thing to do is just wade through the Favre threads and find others to post in. Complaining isn't going to help anything--I promise.
 
Favre told them that he wanted to play. They really haven't moved on all that much. What Favre knows about football far outweights what little preperation Rodgers got at the minicamps he had attended before Favre decided to unretire. "Moving on" before training camp has even started is a joke.Every thing the Packers have done regarding Brett Favre since his retirement appears to have been guided from spite. Brett Favre is wishy washy and would make them look foolish, so they spitefully tell them that he can't come back. They've moved on, hoping he'd stop there. But he didn't. So they later recant, and tell the public he'd have a spot. They want to protect his legacy, they said. Brett Favre sure looked like he meant it when he retired, they said. And now that Favre has brought it further than they had anticipated, they want to pay him off because they can't lose this battle of wills.
Favre did not tell them this in April and May.Im glad you think its a joke. Im giving you what they have said and the reasoning for their doing so. You disagree...great...fine...we all get that.Guided from spite?Being ready to welcome him back in March is spite? Asking him again a few months later if he is sure is spite?And what has Favre done? Called his boss a liar, spoken with the Vikings, asked to be released, whined about the GM's personnel moves. What were those out of?They did not tell him he could not come back until after several things happened...and he was apparently aware that they were ready to move on when he told them again he was retired.This is if the payoff thing is true...and as I have said...if it is, it is a dumb dumb move.
 
There are many parallels to today’s Favre situation and Steve McNair situation circa 2006. Titans had to make an unpopular decision when they decided to trade McNair to Baltimore. Packers are going down the same road. The Titans looked like bad guys then but now it looks like the right decision. I am worried about the team that trades for Favre. Do they have temporary success like Baltimore and then fall apart the next year?
The difference was that most fans here realized that McNair did not have much left. Favre has a bit more left in him than McNair did.
 
The team has every right to welcome him back or ask him to stay away. They also have every right to trade him to whatever team they choose. If they can't resolve the situation then they have every right to release him, if they so choose.

This is the owners' league, not the players' league. If it was the players' league, it would suck and they'd call it the NBA.

 
The team has every right to welcome him back or ask him to stay away. They also have every right to trade him to whatever team they choose. If they can't resolve the situation then they have every right to release him, if they so choose.

This is the owners' league, not the players' league. If it was the players' league, it would suck and they'd call it the NBA.
The bold is not really correct. They can't make him stay away if he is under contract. The McNair incident showed that. And they changed the CBA based on the Keyshawn incident as well, IIRC. So they can't just pretend he doesn't exist any more. But all the other options are true. Welcome him back, trade him, or release him. Pretty clear they are desperate not to welcome him back, even as the backup. So we're left with trade him or release him. Pretty clear that very few teams, if any, are going to be interested in trading for a guy that the Commissioner may force to be released, so then we're left with one realistic option: Release him.

Honestly, if I'm the Vikings, I make a reasonable trade offer right now and hope to get him in camp now and look like the good guys.

 
Dumbest article yet from yet another national hack who has no clue of the particulars. Love how every national writer says something akin to "Trade him for a 2nd round pick and move on" Yeah - if someone were offering one - they would. If Favre would speak to either of the teams interested in trading for him - they would. But they can't so they won't.

It's just absurd he gets to draw a paycheck for this drivel...

 
Dumbest article yet from yet another national hack who has no clue of the particulars. Love how every national writer says something akin to "Trade him for a 2nd round pick and move on" Yeah - if someone were offering one - they would. If Favre would speak to either of the teams interested in trading for him - they would. But they can't so they won't. It's just absurd he gets to draw a paycheck for this drivel...
I'm pretty sure that the Jets don't want him. Not sure if the Bucs do, but why would any team trade for him now, especially with the $20m offer news? Just wait until he's released. TT screwed the pooch on this one, regardless of whether he is right about moving on with Rodgers.
 
The team has every right to welcome him back or ask him to stay away. They also have every right to trade him to whatever team they choose. If they can't resolve the situation then they have every right to release him, if they so choose.

This is the owners' league, not the players' league. If it was the players' league, it would suck and they'd call it the NBA.
The bold is not really correct. They can't make him stay away if he is under contract. The McNair incident showed that. And they changed the CBA based on the Keyshawn incident as well, IIRC. So they can't just pretend he doesn't exist any more. But all the other options are true. Welcome him back, trade him, or release him. Pretty clear they are desperate not to welcome him back, even as the backup. So we're left with trade him or release him. Pretty clear that very few teams, if any, are going to be interested in trading for a guy that the Commissioner may force to be released, so then we're left with one realistic option: Release him.

Honestly, if I'm the Vikings, I make a reasonable trade offer right now and hope to get him in camp now and look like the good guys.
He did not say that they could make him stay...they said he could ask him to stay.And thus far, it appears they can do that...they just cannot force him to.

So his bolded is quite true.

And no...the realistic option is not yet to trade him.

The true realistic option is to bury the egos, get together and let him compete for the job.

 
The team has every right to welcome him back or ask him to stay away. They also have every right to trade him to whatever team they choose. If they can't resolve the situation then they have every right to release him, if they so choose.

This is the owners' league, not the players' league. If it was the players' league, it would suck and they'd call it the NBA.
The bold is not really correct. They can't make him stay away if he is under contract. The McNair incident showed that. And they changed the CBA based on the Keyshawn incident as well, IIRC. So they can't just pretend he doesn't exist any more. But all the other options are true. Welcome him back, trade him, or release him. Pretty clear they are desperate not to welcome him back, even as the backup. So we're left with trade him or release him. Pretty clear that very few teams, if any, are going to be interested in trading for a guy that the Commissioner may force to be released, so then we're left with one realistic option: Release him.

Honestly, if I'm the Vikings, I make a reasonable trade offer right now and hope to get him in camp now and look like the good guys.
He did not say that they could make him stay...they said he could ask him to stay.And thus far, it appears they can do that...they just cannot force him to.

So his bolded is quite true.

And no...the realistic option is not yet to trade him.

The true realistic option is to bury the egos, get together and let him compete for the job.
I think they decided which bed to make when they offered him $20 million dollars to avoid letting him compete.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top