What ultimately happens w/ Favre this season? (1 Viewer)

[pinequick]

Was reading this thread which led me to Peter King's article, from which I get the impression that a comeback is more likely than I originally thought.

Just curious what the consensus is here, if there is one. Personally, I'd bet that he stays retired... but I wouldn't bet that much. What are your thoughts? Vote (and comment) away...

 

[radballs]

60% Stays Retired

30% Plays For Someone Else

10% Plays For Packers

 

[Burning Sensation]

I believe if the Packers wanted him back, he would already have un-retired. I also believes he wants to come back, so i think he will defiently be back. Those two things combined lead me to believe he will be back with another team. Bears?

 

[David Yudkin]

GB doesn't want him but own his rights. GB won't trade him to a competitor and will want a king's ransom to trade him. No one will pay that steep of a price for someone with little time left. IIRC, just because he wants to play doesn't mean the Packers have to trade him. IMO, Favre stays retired.

 

[CBower4545]

GB doesn't want him but own his rights. GB won't trade him to a competitor and will want a king's ransom to trade him. No one will pay that steep of a price for someone with little time left. IIRC, just because he wants to play doesn't mean the Packers have to trade him. IMO, Favre stays retired.

I agree with this, but if Favre files the paperwork to be an active player, I don't think GB would just eat his salary and put him on the bench. Also I don't think GB would want to deal with all media attention from such a move. To me It seems like Favre has more leverage then the GB. In the end it seems like Favre's choice. If he cares more about playing then his legacy or GB then I don't think GB will be able to stop him, nor should they try as it would only impact them negatively.

 

[David Yudkin]

GB doesn't want him but own his rights. GB won't trade him to a competitor and will want a king's ransom to trade him. No one will pay that steep of a price for someone with little time left. IIRC, just because he wants to play doesn't mean the Packers have to trade him. IMO, Favre stays retired.

I agree with this, but if Favre files the paperwork to be an active player, I don't think GB would just eat his salary and put him on the bench. Also I don't think GB would want to deal with all media attention from such a move. To me It seems like Favre has more leverage then the GB. In the end it seems like Favre's choice. If he cares more about playing then his legacy or GB then I don't think GB will be able to stop him, nor should they try as it would only impact them negatively.

This gets into the grey zone that I am no expert in, but I am curious as to whether the team HAS to accept Favre if he asks the league to reinstate him. If GB tells the league they've moved on and drafted a QB accordingly, I'm not sure what "rights" he has through the NFLPA to "force" the Packers to take him back.

 

[burd]

up until now, i had thought the whole "unretire" thing was BS conjured up w/ beat writers looking to fill some space until TCs open up. But after reading Peter King's article, he seems very confident that Favre's agent will seek to have Favre reinstated. All I can say about Peter King is that he rarely goes out on a limb with regards to a story unless he's got some inside info. He's not one to just throw rumors around like some other people.

If Favre does indeed want to play again, he'll have to do it elsewhere. I can't see management telling Rogers to sit on the bench for 1 more year. I see no reason why Favre wouldn't want to play elsewhere. Everyone (especially Packer fans) seems to think that Favre bleeds Packer green and would never think of playing elsewhere. However, he's first and foremost a competitor and a businessman second. If he wants to play ... and from the sounds of King, it does sound like Favre wants to play, he'll push to be traded or released. Football players in general don't have the same mentality towards one team or another because they see the NFL for what it really is ... a business.

 

[pinequick]

GB doesn't want him but own his rights. GB won't trade him to a competitor and will want a king's ransom to trade him. No one will pay that steep of a price for someone with little time left. IIRC, just because he wants to play doesn't mean the Packers have to trade him. IMO, Favre stays retired.

I agree with this, but if Favre files the paperwork to be an active player, I don't think GB would just eat his salary and put him on the bench. Also I don't think GB would want to deal with all media attention from such a move. To me It seems like Favre has more leverage then the GB. In the end it seems like Favre's choice. If he cares more about playing then his legacy or GB then I don't think GB will be able to stop him, nor should they try as it would only impact them negatively.

This gets into the grey zone that I am no expert in, but I am curious as to whether the team HAS to accept Favre if he asks the league to reinstate him. If GB tells the league they've moved on and drafted a QB accordingly, I'm not sure what "rights" he has through the NFLPA to "force" the Packers to take him back.

I believe the answer to that question is "yes, they have to take him back." Everything that I have heard/read is that it is as simple as Favre requesting to be reinstated, and the Packers have to do it.From PK's article:

"The issue is going to be pressed soon. I fully expect Favre's agent to send a letter to the Packers within the next 10 days, stating that Favre, 38, wants to be taken off the National Football League's reserve/retired list. At that point, the team will have no choice but to re-admit the league's most accomplished statistical quarterback ever back to football, and general manager Ted Thompson and McCarthy will have a decision to make that you can be sure is keeping them up nights. They can take Favre and his $12.8-million cap number back onto the team and give him his starting job back, they can trade him or they can release him."

 

[northern exposure]

I heard an interesting take on this the other day. The thought was Favre will press to come back to GB, the Packers will have no choice and take him back. There is no way they could withstand the outcry of Favre going to another team and doing well. The kicker was they thought GB trades Rodgers and sticks with Brohm as the backup and Favre's heir apparent.

It is an interesting take, but I'm not sure how much Rodgers gets Green Bay in a trade.

 

[Sopranos]

If he un-retires then he either stays on the Bench in GB while they pay him or they cut him. They would be smart to just trade him to a non divisional team. They cant at this point carry his 08 salary so this could be ugly for GB. If Favre comes back GB is in a bad spot of cut or trade. Really i dont think it will be bad PR for GB, they dont have a choice. Most GB fans dont want him back. On fox sport radio the other day 9 out of 10 GN fans said it was time to move on.

 

[Phurfur]

I heard an interesting take on this the other day. The thought was Favre will press to come back to GB, the Packers will have no choice and take him back. There is no way they could withstand the outcry of Favre going to another team and doing well. The kicker was they thought GB trades Rodgers and sticks with Brohm as the backup and Favre's heir apparent.

It is an interesting take, but I'm not sure how much Rodgers gets Green Bay in a trade.

I was in Wisconsin last week and I didn't talk to one "real" football fan who wants him back. Some female and casual fans thought it would be cool if he came back but most fans would take what they could get in a trade.Nice take but I think Rodgers would bring more than Favre in a trade.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

I know Rodgers hasn't played much, but I would put his value close to Matt Schaub's right now. If Favre comes back to GB, they might as well get rid of Rodgers. He wouldn't resign in 2 years anyway, and Brohm would probably become the next starter.

I would cheer for Favre on any team. Not in a game he led them against the Packers, but in any other situation. A team with Favre starting next year would be my second favorite, including Chicago or Minnesota (but those strike me as unlikely destinations for several reasons).

There is so much "leaked" info coming out that I don't know what to think: he's training as if he's getting ready to come back? He wants to be a Panther? He wants to be released? I don't know. Until he makes a public statement I won't expect to see him play anywhere this year.

 

[David Yudkin]

GB doesn't want him but own his rights. GB won't trade him to a competitor and will want a king's ransom to trade him. No one will pay that steep of a price for someone with little time left. IIRC, just because he wants to play doesn't mean the Packers have to trade him. IMO, Favre stays retired.

I agree with this, but if Favre files the paperwork to be an active player, I don't think GB would just eat his salary and put him on the bench. Also I don't think GB would want to deal with all media attention from such a move. To me It seems like Favre has more leverage then the GB. In the end it seems like Favre's choice. If he cares more about playing then his legacy or GB then I don't think GB will be able to stop him, nor should they try as it would only impact them negatively.

This gets into the grey zone that I am no expert in, but I am curious as to whether the team HAS to accept Favre if he asks the league to reinstate him. If GB tells the league they've moved on and drafted a QB accordingly, I'm not sure what "rights" he has through the NFLPA to "force" the Packers to take him back.

I believe the answer to that question is "yes, they have to take him back." Everything that I have heard/read is that it is as simple as Favre requesting to be reinstated, and the Packers have to do it.From PK's article:

"The issue is going to be pressed soon. I fully expect Favre's agent to send a letter to the Packers within the next 10 days, stating that Favre, 38, wants to be taken off the National Football League's reserve/retired list. At that point, the team will have no choice but to re-admit the league's most accomplished statistical quarterback ever back to football, and general manager Ted Thompson and McCarthy will have a decision to make that you can be sure is keeping them up nights. They can take Favre and his $12.8-million cap number back onto the team and give him his starting job back, they can trade him or they can release him."

Or they can bench him. There certainly is nothing that says they have to start him. I also am unsure whether the Packers can file a grievance on this.

 

[pinequick]

If he un-retires then he either stays on the Bench in GB while they pay him or they cut him. They would be smart to just trade him to a non divisional team. They cant at this point carry his 08 salary so this could be ugly for GB. If Favre comes back GB is in a bad spot of cut or trade. Really i dont think it will be bad PR for GB, they dont have a choice. Most GB fans dont want him back. On fox sport radio the other day 9 out of 10 GN fans said it was time to move on.

But that's sort of the rub, isn't it? They probably can't carry his salary (can they?), but if they trade him some other team has to have cap space for his big salary, too (unless he renegotiates).

 

[Phurfur]

I know Rodgers hasn't played much, but I would put his value close to Matt Schaub's right now. If Favre comes back to GB, they might as well get rid of Rodgers. He wouldn't resign in 2 years anyway, and Brohm would probably become the next starter.

I would cheer for Favre on any team. Not in a game he led them against the Packers, but in any other situation. A team with Favre starting next year would be my second favorite, including Chicago or Minnesota (but those strike me as unlikely destinations for several reasons).

There is so much "leaked" info coming out that I don't know what to think: he's training as if he's getting ready to come back? He wants to be a Panther? He wants to be released? I don't know. Until he makes a public statement I won't expect to see him play anywhere this year.

I disagree, Rodgers is the future and Favre is the past. Favre cannot handle the cold anymore and needs to go to a Dome or warmer climate. As a Packer fan I do not want to deal with Favre's indecisions ever again.I do like the Matt Schaub comparision.

 

[Moe Green]

He'll be back, and it looks like he'll be playing for someone else (unfortunately). I wish he'd just stay retired, but the dude can't quit.

 

[FavreCo]

I heard an interesting take on this the other day. The thought was Favre will press to come back to GB, the Packers will have no choice and take him back. There is no way they could withstand the outcry of Favre going to another team and doing well. The kicker was they thought GB trades Rodgers and sticks with Brohm as the backup and Favre's heir apparent.

It is an interesting take, but I'm not sure how much Rodgers gets Green Bay in a trade.

I was in Wisconsin last week and I didn't talk to one "real" football fan who wants him back. Some female and casual fans thought it would be cool if he came back but most fans would take what they could get in a trade.Nice take but I think Rodgers would bring more than Favre in a trade.

Those 'real' fans would then scream for TT's head if Rodgers goes down with a season ending injury and Favre playing elsewhere. I too think Rodgers brings more in a trade and should be traded if Favre is willing to play 2 years and then hand it over to Brohm who then would be ready. Ship Rodgers to the Bears. They are no threat even with him.

 

[MarshallRob]

GB doesn't want him but own his rights. GB won't trade him to a competitor and will want a king's ransom to trade him. No one will pay that steep of a price for someone with little time left. IIRC, just because he wants to play doesn't mean the Packers have to trade him. IMO, Favre stays retired.

I agree with this, but if Favre files the paperwork to be an active player, I don't think GB would just eat his salary and put him on the bench. Also I don't think GB would want to deal with all media attention from such a move. To me It seems like Favre has more leverage then the GB. In the end it seems like Favre's choice. If he cares more about playing then his legacy or GB then I don't think GB will be able to stop him, nor should they try as it would only impact them negatively.

This gets into the grey zone that I am no expert in, but I am curious as to whether the team HAS to accept Favre if he asks the league to reinstate him. If GB tells the league they've moved on and drafted a QB accordingly, I'm not sure what "rights" he has through the NFLPA to "force" the Packers to take him back.

I believe the answer to that question is "yes, they have to take him back." Everything that I have heard/read is that it is as simple as Favre requesting to be reinstated, and the Packers have to do it.From PK's article:

"The issue is going to be pressed soon. I fully expect Favre's agent to send a letter to the Packers within the next 10 days, stating that Favre, 38, wants to be taken off the National Football League's reserve/retired list. At that point, the team will have no choice but to re-admit the league's most accomplished statistical quarterback ever back to football, and general manager Ted Thompson and McCarthy will have a decision to make that you can be sure is keeping them up nights. They can take Favre and his $12.8-million cap number back onto the team and give him his starting job back, they can trade him or they can release him."

Or they can bench him. There certainly is nothing that says they have to start him. I also am unsure whether the Packers can file a grievance on this.

I don't see what basis the Packers have to file any grievance. GB still has Favre's rights under NFL rules. If they don't want him anymore, all they have to do is release him or trade him.

 

[David Yudkin]

GB doesn't want him but own his rights. GB won't trade him to a competitor and will want a king's ransom to trade him. No one will pay that steep of a price for someone with little time left. IIRC, just because he wants to play doesn't mean the Packers have to trade him. IMO, Favre stays retired.

I agree with this, but if Favre files the paperwork to be an active player, I don't think GB would just eat his salary and put him on the bench. Also I don't think GB would want to deal with all media attention from such a move. To me It seems like Favre has more leverage then the GB. In the end it seems like Favre's choice. If he cares more about playing then his legacy or GB then I don't think GB will be able to stop him, nor should they try as it would only impact them negatively.

This gets into the grey zone that I am no expert in, but I am curious as to whether the team HAS to accept Favre if he asks the league to reinstate him. If GB tells the league they've moved on and drafted a QB accordingly, I'm not sure what "rights" he has through the NFLPA to "force" the Packers to take him back.

I believe the answer to that question is "yes, they have to take him back." Everything that I have heard/read is that it is as simple as Favre requesting to be reinstated, and the Packers have to do it.From PK's article:

"The issue is going to be pressed soon. I fully expect Favre's agent to send a letter to the Packers within the next 10 days, stating that Favre, 38, wants to be taken off the National Football League's reserve/retired list. At that point, the team will have no choice but to re-admit the league's most accomplished statistical quarterback ever back to football, and general manager Ted Thompson and McCarthy will have a decision to make that you can be sure is keeping them up nights. They can take Favre and his $12.8-million cap number back onto the team and give him his starting job back, they can trade him or they can release him."

Or they can bench him. There certainly is nothing that says they have to start him. I also am unsure whether the Packers can file a grievance on this.

I don't see what basis the Packers have to file any grievance. GB still has Favre's rights under NFL rules. If they don't want him anymore, all they have to do is release him or trade him.

In this era of complaining about anything and everything, they could argue they drafted a QB when they didn't need to and they now have 2 QBs they have to bench because of Favre.I suppose they can keep him until the day before the season starts and then release him. Or they could just keep him out of spite and never play him. But I doubt the Packers will do anything immediatey or ont he timetable that Favre wants them to.

 

[pinequick]

GB doesn't want him but own his rights. GB won't trade him to a competitor and will want a king's ransom to trade him. No one will pay that steep of a price for someone with little time left. IIRC, just because he wants to play doesn't mean the Packers have to trade him. IMO, Favre stays retired.

I agree with this, but if Favre files the paperwork to be an active player, I don't think GB would just eat his salary and put him on the bench. Also I don't think GB would want to deal with all media attention from such a move. To me It seems like Favre has more leverage then the GB. In the end it seems like Favre's choice. If he cares more about playing then his legacy or GB then I don't think GB will be able to stop him, nor should they try as it would only impact them negatively.

This gets into the grey zone that I am no expert in, but I am curious as to whether the team HAS to accept Favre if he asks the league to reinstate him. If GB tells the league they've moved on and drafted a QB accordingly, I'm not sure what "rights" he has through the NFLPA to "force" the Packers to take him back.

I believe the answer to that question is "yes, they have to take him back." Everything that I have heard/read is that it is as simple as Favre requesting to be reinstated, and the Packers have to do it.From PK's article:

"The issue is going to be pressed soon. I fully expect Favre's agent to send a letter to the Packers within the next 10 days, stating that Favre, 38, wants to be taken off the National Football League's reserve/retired list. At that point, the team will have no choice but to re-admit the league's most accomplished statistical quarterback ever back to football, and general manager Ted Thompson and McCarthy will have a decision to make that you can be sure is keeping them up nights. They can take Favre and his $12.8-million cap number back onto the team and give him his starting job back, they can trade him or they can release him."

Or they can bench him. There certainly is nothing that says they have to start him. I also am unsure whether the Packers can file a grievance on this.

I don't see what basis the Packers have to file any grievance. GB still has Favre's rights under NFL rules. If they don't want him anymore, all they have to do is release him or trade him.

In this era of complaining about anything and everything, they could argue they drafted a QB when they didn't need to and they now have 2 QBs they have to bench because of Favre.I suppose they can keep him until the day before the season starts and then release him. Or they could just keep him out of spite and never play him. But I doubt the Packers will do anything immediatey or ont he timetable that Favre wants them to.

Now I would be willing to bet that that would be grounds for Favre filing a grievance against the Packers. I doubt that they could just hold him hostage, with his status in perpetual limbo, once he makes his request.

 

[David Yudkin]

GB doesn't want him but own his rights. GB won't trade him to a competitor and will want a king's ransom to trade him. No one will pay that steep of a price for someone with little time left. IIRC, just because he wants to play doesn't mean the Packers have to trade him. IMO, Favre stays retired.

I agree with this, but if Favre files the paperwork to be an active player, I don't think GB would just eat his salary and put him on the bench. Also I don't think GB would want to deal with all media attention from such a move. To me It seems like Favre has more leverage then the GB. In the end it seems like Favre's choice. If he cares more about playing then his legacy or GB then I don't think GB will be able to stop him, nor should they try as it would only impact them negatively.

This gets into the grey zone that I am no expert in, but I am curious as to whether the team HAS to accept Favre if he asks the league to reinstate him. If GB tells the league they've moved on and drafted a QB accordingly, I'm not sure what "rights" he has through the NFLPA to "force" the Packers to take him back.

I believe the answer to that question is "yes, they have to take him back." Everything that I have heard/read is that it is as simple as Favre requesting to be reinstated, and the Packers have to do it.From PK's article:

"The issue is going to be pressed soon. I fully expect Favre's agent to send a letter to the Packers within the next 10 days, stating that Favre, 38, wants to be taken off the National Football League's reserve/retired list. At that point, the team will have no choice but to re-admit the league's most accomplished statistical quarterback ever back to football, and general manager Ted Thompson and McCarthy will have a decision to make that you can be sure is keeping them up nights. They can take Favre and his $12.8-million cap number back onto the team and give him his starting job back, they can trade him or they can release him."

Or they can bench him. There certainly is nothing that says they have to start him. I also am unsure whether the Packers can file a grievance on this.

I don't see what basis the Packers have to file any grievance. GB still has Favre's rights under NFL rules. If they don't want him anymore, all they have to do is release him or trade him.

In this era of complaining about anything and everything, they could argue they drafted a QB when they didn't need to and they now have 2 QBs they have to bench because of Favre.I suppose they can keep him until the day before the season starts and then release him. Or they could just keep him out of spite and never play him. But I doubt the Packers will do anything immediatey or ont he timetable that Favre wants them to.

Now I would be willing to bet that that would be grounds for Favre filing a grievance against the Packers. I doubt that they could just hold him hostage, with his status in perpetual limbo, once he makes his request.

The Pats did it to Lawyer Milloy a few years ago. NE insisted that he play ball and take a pay cut. He refused. They did not make much headway, and literally three days before the season started (on a Thursday) they released him. He got picked up by Buffalo right away. IIRC, the Pats PLAYED Buffalo that week and got shelled (like 31-0). NE went 14-1 the rest of the way and won the SB that year.IIRC, the rules are that teams are not obligated to pay a player's salary unless they are on the Opening Day roster, so they can cut him the day before and not owe him anything (salary wise).

 

[pinequick]

GB doesn't want him but own his rights. GB won't trade him to a competitor and will want a king's ransom to trade him. No one will pay that steep of a price for someone with little time left. IIRC, just because he wants to play doesn't mean the Packers have to trade him. IMO, Favre stays retired.

I agree with this, but if Favre files the paperwork to be an active player, I don't think GB would just eat his salary and put him on the bench. Also I don't think GB would want to deal with all media attention from such a move. To me It seems like Favre has more leverage then the GB. In the end it seems like Favre's choice. If he cares more about playing then his legacy or GB then I don't think GB will be able to stop him, nor should they try as it would only impact them negatively.

This gets into the grey zone that I am no expert in, but I am curious as to whether the team HAS to accept Favre if he asks the league to reinstate him. If GB tells the league they've moved on and drafted a QB accordingly, I'm not sure what "rights" he has through the NFLPA to "force" the Packers to take him back.

I believe the answer to that question is "yes, they have to take him back." Everything that I have heard/read is that it is as simple as Favre requesting to be reinstated, and the Packers have to do it.From PK's article:

"The issue is going to be pressed soon. I fully expect Favre's agent to send a letter to the Packers within the next 10 days, stating that Favre, 38, wants to be taken off the National Football League's reserve/retired list. At that point, the team will have no choice but to re-admit the league's most accomplished statistical quarterback ever back to football, and general manager Ted Thompson and McCarthy will have a decision to make that you can be sure is keeping them up nights. They can take Favre and his $12.8-million cap number back onto the team and give him his starting job back, they can trade him or they can release him."

Or they can bench him. There certainly is nothing that says they have to start him. I also am unsure whether the Packers can file a grievance on this.

I don't see what basis the Packers have to file any grievance. GB still has Favre's rights under NFL rules. If they don't want him anymore, all they have to do is release him or trade him.

In this era of complaining about anything and everything, they could argue they drafted a QB when they didn't need to and they now have 2 QBs they have to bench because of Favre.I suppose they can keep him until the day before the season starts and then release him. Or they could just keep him out of spite and never play him. But I doubt the Packers will do anything immediatey or ont he timetable that Favre wants them to.

Now I would be willing to bet that that would be grounds for Favre filing a grievance against the Packers. I doubt that they could just hold him hostage, with his status in perpetual limbo, once he makes his request.

The Pats did it to Lawyer Milloy a few years ago. NE insisted that he play ball and take a pay cut. He refused. They did not make much headway, and literally three days before the season started (on a Thursday) they released him. He got picked up by Buffalo right away. IIRC, the Pats PLAYED Buffalo that week and got shelled (like 31-0). NE went 14-1 the rest of the way and won the SB that year.IIRC, the rules are that teams are not obligated to pay a player's salary unless they are on the Opening Day roster, so they can cut him the day before and not owe him anything (salary wise).

Sure, they *can* cut him at that point--but think about what you're suggesting:1) They go ahead an bring him back for training camp (if he makes his request in the 10-day timeframe that King is reporting)

2a) He takes the starting QB reps during camp and then you cut your "starter" right before the season

OR

2b) He takes backup QB reps during camp and what a fine addition to the Packers' locker room he would be during that time frame

Plus, playing dirty pool with Favre (cutting him right before the season) would *have* to be a PR disaster for the current administration. Fans there may not like the "will he stay or will he go?" drama every year, and they may not even want him back, but I doubt they would support the Packers treating an icon of his magnitude shabbily.

 

[tex]

I say he stays retired. I think the Packers have burned that bridge with him, which leaves him playing for another team. I don't think he would play for another team unless that team is a contender, and IMO the only contenders who could use him are Chicago and Minnesota. I can't see either of them paying that much for Favre nor could I see Favre in a Chicago or Minnesota uniform. And I definitely don't see Favre in any uniform unless it's as a starter. He would be a starter in Baltimore, and they could win with him, but I don't know if they have the cap room to sign him. There are a few teams who could use him as a starter but they aren't contenders and probably don't want a 1 year starter anyway. Stay retired Brett and enjoy the golf.

 

[Jeff Haseley]

GB doesn't want him but own his rights. GB won't trade him to a competitor and will want a king's ransom to trade him. No one will pay that steep of a price for someone with little time left. IIRC, just because he wants to play doesn't mean the Packers have to trade him. IMO, Favre stays retired.

This is my thinking too. After trying to see how other scenarios could come to fruition, my gut says he'll stay retired. It's the best thing for both sides and I think ultimately Brett will see that. If MIN or CHI were not in the same division, I could possibly see him coming back with another team, but there's no way GB will allow that. They can't, can they? It's best for him to just retire and put away any thoughts of playing in 2008. I expect Favre to come to this realization soon with a release that signifies this. We'll see though - this story is gaining steam.

 

[David Yudkin]

GB doesn't want him but own his rights. GB won't trade him to a competitor and will want a king's ransom to trade him. No one will pay that steep of a price for someone with little time left. IIRC, just because he wants to play doesn't mean the Packers have to trade him. IMO, Favre stays retired.

I agree with this, but if Favre files the paperwork to be an active player, I don't think GB would just eat his salary and put him on the bench. Also I don't think GB would want to deal with all media attention from such a move. To me It seems like Favre has more leverage then the GB. In the end it seems like Favre's choice. If he cares more about playing then his legacy or GB then I don't think GB will be able to stop him, nor should they try as it would only impact them negatively.

This gets into the grey zone that I am no expert in, but I am curious as to whether the team HAS to accept Favre if he asks the league to reinstate him. If GB tells the league they've moved on and drafted a QB accordingly, I'm not sure what "rights" he has through the NFLPA to "force" the Packers to take him back.

I believe the answer to that question is "yes, they have to take him back." Everything that I have heard/read is that it is as simple as Favre requesting to be reinstated, and the Packers have to do it.From PK's article:

"The issue is going to be pressed soon. I fully expect Favre's agent to send a letter to the Packers within the next 10 days, stating that Favre, 38, wants to be taken off the National Football League's reserve/retired list. At that point, the team will have no choice but to re-admit the league's most accomplished statistical quarterback ever back to football, and general manager Ted Thompson and McCarthy will have a decision to make that you can be sure is keeping them up nights. They can take Favre and his $12.8-million cap number back onto the team and give him his starting job back, they can trade him or they can release him."

Or they can bench him. There certainly is nothing that says they have to start him. I also am unsure whether the Packers can file a grievance on this.

I don't see what basis the Packers have to file any grievance. GB still has Favre's rights under NFL rules. If they don't want him anymore, all they have to do is release him or trade him.

In this era of complaining about anything and everything, they could argue they drafted a QB when they didn't need to and they now have 2 QBs they have to bench because of Favre.I suppose they can keep him until the day before the season starts and then release him. Or they could just keep him out of spite and never play him. But I doubt the Packers will do anything immediatey or ont he timetable that Favre wants them to.

Now I would be willing to bet that that would be grounds for Favre filing a grievance against the Packers. I doubt that they could just hold him hostage, with his status in perpetual limbo, once he makes his request.

The Pats did it to Lawyer Milloy a few years ago. NE insisted that he play ball and take a pay cut. He refused. They did not make much headway, and literally three days before the season started (on a Thursday) they released him. He got picked up by Buffalo right away. IIRC, the Pats PLAYED Buffalo that week and got shelled (like 31-0). NE went 14-1 the rest of the way and won the SB that year.IIRC, the rules are that teams are not obligated to pay a player's salary unless they are on the Opening Day roster, so they can cut him the day before and not owe him anything (salary wise).

Sure, they *can* cut him at that point--but think about what you're suggesting:1) They go ahead an bring him back for training camp (if he makes his request in the 10-day timeframe that King is reporting)

2a) He takes the starting QB reps during camp and then you cut your "starter" right before the season

OR

2b) He takes backup QB reps during camp and what a fine addition to the Packers' locker room he would be during that time frame

Plus, playing dirty pool with Favre (cutting him right before the season) would *have* to be a PR disaster for the current administration. Fans there may not like the "will he stay or will he go?" drama every year, and they may not even want him back, but I doubt they would support the Packers treating an icon of his magnitude shabbily.

If GB has no choice but to take him back, the story practically writes itself . . .They say there will be the dreaded "open competition" at QB.

They say he needs to get in shape and Rodgers will take first team snaps to start training camp.

They leave Rodgers as the guy lining up with the first team for longer than they say.

They let Favre take first team snaps on occasion to make it seem like he's an option.

They wait awhile and say that they are taking offers on any of their QBs.

They say later that they tried their best to trade Favre but he either drew little interest or they couldn't give him away.

They end up having to release him the week before the season starts, again saying they did all they could but they have opted to go in a different direction and it would be foolish to pay a backup $12 million to hold a clip board and a man of his stature deserves better than to sit idly by on the bench.

All that when in reality they could have no real desire to do anything with him. Ask the Red Sox or Patriots on the BS press releases they give out about how to feign interest in a player. I remember the stuff the Sox were handing out about how they made every effort to re-sign Pedro Martinez and Johnny Damon and they were not really trying hard at all to do anything with either of them. Yet in the press it looked like they were barely beat out at the last possible second. That's why they make media and PR guys.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

II would cheer for Favre on any team. Not in a game he led them against the Packers, but in any other situation. A team with Favre starting next year would be my second favorite, including Chicago or Minnesota (but those strike me as unlikely destinations for several reasons).

And,IF this is all true, I would root against him. IF he is really asking to come back, it seems that one of these two things must be true:1 - He's incredibly selfish, expecting the team, and Rodgers, to do a 180 after telling them to move on without him because a few months ago he didn't want to play anymore, but now he does or,2- He wanted a way out of Green Bay without being the bad guyI can't cheer for either of these guys.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

There are some things about Peter King's article that sound very Favre-like. I wouldn't be surprised if all of it were true.

It really does put Packers management in a bind. If Rodgers gets hurt, or even goes through the normal growing pains that a 1st year starter endures, there will be added criticism of TT and McCarthy if Favre is playing well elsewhere.

Favre will not be a Viking or a Bear. I am sure of that. Best bets would seem to be Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Carolina. Although the two warm weather teams would have more appeal to Favre. I can see a team giving up a 3rd to acquire him. He could legitimately play another couple of years.

There's also no way this becomes an open competition in TC. They may bill it as that while they try to trade him, but can you imagine the pressure on Rodgers if he wins the job? Every time a pass gets picked off there would be calls for Favre to start. Terrible situation.

It would certainly leave TT and McCarthy in a potentially very bad spot, but I suspect they won't welcome back ole #4.

 

[ookook]

The more I think about this the more I believe Favre wants to play somewhere else and would only use the threat of showing up iat training camp to force GB's hand.

I do not believe he really intends to take Rodgers job away (Favre haters say what you will, but I am not sure that is really his style). I think he wants to use the media to force a trade or release. He is trying it softly at first though, but might threaten a press release, etc.

I suspect GB initial reaction to the request for the release was "no" and send someone down to convince him to stayretired.

But they will come to see that he has way more cards than they do. Sure, they could pay him (and I believe they have the cap) and sit him, only use him if Rodgers is injured. Absolutely horrible PR. Rodgers throws INT and half the cameras pan to Favre's face for reaction. Etc.

They could wait to release him until right before regular season and it haunts all through camp.

Or they could try to get something for him since it would be the best way to avoid looking like the bad guy and they can ensure he does not go to NFC North team.

So again, I think Favre first wanted to be released (more options) and then wants to be traded.

I see him go for 4th to 6th pick. SF or TB seem good, but in NFC so less likely (Favre might want but BG won't). AFC? KC for sure, but not sure Favre wants to lose. Same for Miami. NJ would be interesting, but not sure he willbelieve they can win.

Honestly, I do not see any good spots for him that make GB happy and he thinks will win. So then it might get uglier.

Would be interesting if Parcells somehow thought that he could turn Miami aound that fast and could convinve Favre. But I think Favre is smart enough to want an O-ine and some receivers.

One last thought, I belive SD would perhaps be the smartest move all around, but I don't see them admitting that Rivers is not the answer which they wold pretty much have to do.

If the rumors are true, this is really one of the stickier situations I recall.

 

[AYBABTUS]

Would you trade a third round rookie pick for Favre right now?

Cause I just did. Here's hoping he comes back If not oh well.

 

[fatness]

The Packers already set their team direction and drafting based on Favre's stated retirement wish. They drafted Brohm to back up Rodgers, so they're 2 deep in young QB's, which they probably need to be with the veteran QB retiring. If the Packers are forced to reset their team direction again based on Favre changing his mind and coming back (and especially if they're forced into a situation where they have to cut or trade one of the young QB's to make way for him), public opinion of Favre is going to take a big hit.

On a football message board we tend to know (and perhaps overscrutinize) details of Favre and other players. I think the general public thinks of him as "good guy, great QB, just retired" right now. That'll change to including "...but messing up his team" if he returns and forces the Packers into changing their plans for him once again.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

I know Rodgers hasn't played much, but I would put his value close to Matt Schaub's right now. If Favre comes back to GB, they might as well get rid of Rodgers. He wouldn't resign in 2 years anyway, and Brohm would probably become the next starter.

I disagree, Rodgers is the future and Favre is the past. Favre cannot handle the cold anymore and needs to go to a Dome or warmer climate. As a Packer fan I do not want to deal with Favre's indecisions ever again.I do like the Matt Schaub comparision.

But if Favre comes back, he'll start one or both of the years remaining before Rodgers is a FA, at which point Rodgers would assuredly sign elsewhere and the Pack get squat.This Favre thing has taken on a life of its own, though. Even if he sits out of football for 2 years, if GB suddenly needs a QB, people will start saying he can come back.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

The Packers already set their team direction and drafting based on Favre's stated retirement wish. They drafted Brohm to back up Rodgers, so they're 2 deep in young QB's, which they probably need to be with the veteran QB retiring. If the Packers are forced to reset their team direction again based on Favre changing his mind and coming back (and especially if they're forced into a situation where they have to cut or trade one of the young QB's to make way for him), public opinion of Favre is going to take a big hit. On a football message board we tend to know (and perhaps overscrutinize) details of Favre and other players. I think the general public thinks of him as "good guy, great QB, just retired" right now. That'll change to including "...but messing up his team" if he returns and forces the Packers into changing their plans for him once again.

Exactly. Plus, how can another team count on him for more than this year given that he spent months a season or two ago deciding if he wanted to come back and just a few months ago declared that he didn't want to play anymore.Here's my latest conspiracy theory. Perhaps he did think about coming back and let it leak so he could assess fan reaction. He can stick with "It's all a rumor" if the reaction is negative. So, Brett, if you're reading this, please retire gracefully.

 

[Brownsfan07]

im tired of these damn brett favre is returning threads already!

simply put, he will not come back to the league, period!

 

[bcr8f]

If he un-retires then he either stays on the Bench in GB while they pay him or they cut him. They would be smart to just trade him to a non divisional team. They cant at this point carry his 08 salary so this could be ugly for GB. If Favre comes back GB is in a bad spot of cut or trade. Really i dont think it will be bad PR for GB, they dont have a choice. Most GB fans dont want him back. On fox sport radio the other day 9 out of 10 GN fans said it was time to move on.

But that's sort of the rub, isn't it? They probably can't carry his salary (can they?), but if they trade him some other team has to have cap space for his big salary, too (unless he renegotiates).

They can handle the cap hit, but he isn't worth $11 million a year anymore. They are about $35 million under the cap.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

If he's smart, he comes back and asks to go to Carolina where he hopes that Delhomme's elbow has lingering problems. Then he leads the Panthers to a Super Bowl and retires for good.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I'm so tired of having to care.

Call me old-fashioned. I want the game's great ones to play until THEY decide it's over and then "ride off into the sunset". I still really enjoy Favre the player but all of this is really starting to tarnish the image of Favre the person.

He needs to come out and say, "I've said it already - I'm DONE!" If that happens to be the case, but I'm fearing it's not.

 

[burd]

i think he's going to take one last shot at the SB and then call it quits.

 

[burd]

I'm so tired of having to care. Call me old-fashioned. I want the game's great ones to play until THEY decide it's over and then "ride off into the sunset". I still really enjoy Favre the player but all of this is really starting to tarnish the image of Favre the person. He needs to come out and say, "I've said it already - I'm DONE!" If that happens to be the case, but I'm fearing it's not.

isn't it obvious by now that favre isn't 100% sure he wants to retire? these guys have the best jobs in the world and it's not something you walk away from lightly. favre still has fun playing, he's still got a good amount of talent left, and he's got the desire to compete. why walk away from what makes him happy? Most football players could care less about statistics and their legacy. They just want to compete. I think the reason that things are playing out this way is because Thompson has other ideas for the Pack that do not include Favre and Favre knows it.

 

[jurrassic]

Let me start out by saying, I am a Packers fan. That being said, I prefer the stay retired, or trade him to another team scenarios. This sopa opera gets more and more ridiculous each year. We are now going into year 4 of this stuff. A team can not function and plan when 1 player (no matter how great) continues to dictate to them. The man retired. He was not forced to retire, he could have waited until now to make any statement at all. He chose to retire. The Packers than moved forward in tweaking their offense, and drafting 2 qb's. If Favre was going to come back, I am sure they would have bypassed Brohm in the 2nd round. This is getting ridiculous. It is pretty clear that Favre has no idea what he wants, except that he needs the love and affirmation from someone. The Packers are now in a terrible spot, with the fans, with the media, with the team, with Rodgers. Their qb of the future, Rodgers, will most likely asked to be traded now, which sets them back a few more years. Seriously. Come on man. He is a great player who has done incredible things for the franchise, but he is slowly losing the fans with this type of stuff.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I'm so tired of having to care. Call me old-fashioned. I want the game's great ones to play until THEY decide it's over and then "ride off into the sunset". I still really enjoy Favre the player but all of this is really starting to tarnish the image of Favre the person. He needs to come out and say, "I've said it already - I'm DONE!" If that happens to be the case, but I'm fearing it's not.

isn't it obvious by now that favre isn't 100% sure he wants to retire? these guys have the best jobs in the world and it's not something you walk away from lightly. favre still has fun playing, he's still got a good amount of talent left, and he's got the desire to compete. why walk away from what makes him happy? Most football players could care less about statistics and their legacy. They just want to compete. I think the reason that things are playing out this way is because Thompson has other ideas for the Pack that do not include Favre and Favre knows it.

That's what I'm saying burd. Why walk away? Why not just keep it zipped until you've COMPLETELY made up your mind? Failing to do that, you now just "appear" as though you can't stand having your name absent from ESPN for 2 minutes. Which, I don't think is the case with Favre at all - that's what sucks.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I heard an interesting take on this the other day. The thought was Favre will press to come back to GB, the Packers will have no choice and take him back. There is no way they could withstand the outcry of Favre going to another team and doing well. The kicker was they thought GB trades Rodgers and sticks with Brohm as the backup and Favre's heir apparent.

It is an interesting take, but I'm not sure how much Rodgers gets Green Bay in a trade.

I was in Wisconsin last week and I didn't talk to one "real" football fan who wants him back. Some female and casual fans thought it would be cool if he came back but most fans would take what they could get in a trade.Nice take but I think Rodgers would bring more than Favre in a trade.

Those 'real' fans would then scream for TT's head if Rodgers goes down with a season ending injury and Favre playing elsewhere. I too think Rodgers brings more in a trade and should be traded if Favre is willing to play 2 years and then hand it over to Brohm who then would be ready. Ship Rodgers to the Bears. They are no threat even with him.

You make little sense.Ship a young 1st round QB who has been groomed to take over the reigns in GB over to a division rival ?

think about it.

 

[Crippler]

I dont see how the Packers let Brohm go by in the 2nd round. Ala Rodgers, many years ago the value was way too good and that is one thing that could make this very interesting. I still bring Brett back for many reasons

1. Super Bowl

2. Maybe trade Rodgers for a nice profit or a player that could help now like another CB in case Woodson is hurt or some DL help. I think Schuabb price at minimum and he could get higher.

3. I think no matter what that the pressure is on Rodgers even if Brett stays somewhat retired. All these rumors do nothing but put more pressure already on Rodgers. He will be looking over his shoulder the entire year

4. I think the Packer players want this as most of the rumors come from them in the in. No one talks about this but guys like Driver, Woodson and Harris are leading the drive here. Not only a nightmare PR wise in getting rid of Brett but it could disasterous in the locker room.

If they release Brett, I think it comes back and haunts them again. Just think of Rodgers mind if Brett went to Minny and crushed him in a game. Considering Minny. Carolina and SF are 3 teams that could take Brett and make a run, there is problems again. Do you really fear Rodgers going to any of these teams and he would be wanted more by teams like KC. Baltimore is the only team that seems probable that wont hurt Rodgers too much. Get on the phones with Ozzie and take even a 6th rounder in the end if this is the direction you want to go. And think about if they do Yudkins suggestion and cut him at the season. He will end up somewhere still and once again, Rodgers throws a pick at the wrong time and the fans will go nuts. Can Rodgers handle all this pressure in the end. All this is going to take is Brett asking for reinstatement and I see no way they can continue with Rodgers in the end. Too much of a pressure cooker.

PS: I dont think Salary is an issue here. The Packers are from Packerchatters over 32 million under and Brett already counts 1.4. 10 million extra wont make a difference in the end. Lots of room to make lots of moves still

 

[vitaflo]

People keep saying that if Rodgers sucks this year then everyone would be livid if the Pack didn't start or had traded Favre, but the reverse is also true. The bar is set pretty high if Favre returns. Anything less than a SB appearance with him at the helm will be considered failure because of last year. If Favre comes back and they go 8-8 then what? You're going to hear a lot of chatter that he is washed up and we should have just stuck with Rodgers. And if you lose Rodgers over it, well that's just salt in the wound. So it goes both ways. Favre had an incredible year last year, and the Pack went farther than anyone expected. I say leave on a high note. The only place you have to go is down.

 

[billymays]

You can't comeback if you haven't missed anything.

 

[pollardsvision]

if favre wants to come back, i think the packers would be silly not to let him.

this isn't MLB, this is the NFL. you don't rebuild. you go after titles when you can. you don't turn down a shot a title so you can "groom" the QB of the future who's played in 3 qtrs and been hurt twice in those 3 qtrs.

i don't know how good rodgers will be, but does it even matter? is he as good as favre right now? that's the only question that matters.

in the NFL, "rebuilding" is only what happens when you have no other options for the present.

 

[Liquid Tension]

GB doesn't want him but own his rights. GB won't trade him to a competitor and will want a king's ransom to trade him. No one will pay that steep of a price for someone with little time left. IIRC, just because he wants to play doesn't mean the Packers have to trade him. IMO, Favre stays retired.

I agree with this, but if Favre files the paperwork to be an active player, I don't think GB would just eat his salary and put him on the bench. Also I don't think GB would want to deal with all media attention from such a move. To me It seems like Favre has more leverage then the GB. In the end it seems like Favre's choice. If he cares more about playing then his legacy or GB then I don't think GB will be able to stop him, nor should they try as it would only impact them negatively.

This gets into the grey zone that I am no expert in, but I am curious as to whether the team HAS to accept Favre if he asks the league to reinstate him. If GB tells the league they've moved on and drafted a QB accordingly, I'm not sure what "rights" he has through the NFLPA to "force" the Packers to take him back.

I believe the answer to that question is "yes, they have to take him back." Everything that I have heard/read is that it is as simple as Favre requesting to be reinstated, and the Packers have to do it.From PK's article:

"The issue is going to be pressed soon. I fully expect Favre's agent to send a letter to the Packers within the next 10 days, stating that Favre, 38, wants to be taken off the National Football League's reserve/retired list. At that point, the team will have no choice but to re-admit the league's most accomplished statistical quarterback ever back to football, and general manager Ted Thompson and McCarthy will have a decision to make that you can be sure is keeping them up nights. They can take Favre and his $12.8-million cap number back onto the team and give him his starting job back, they can trade him or they can release him."

Or they can bench him. There certainly is nothing that says they have to start him. I also am unsure whether the Packers can file a grievance on this.

Why would they pay that salary and take up the cap space to sit on the bench?

 

[pinequick]

Thanks for the consensus, guys.

Retires: 49.6%

Doesn't retire: 50.4%

Awesome.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Thanks for the consensus, guys.Retires: 49.6%Doesn't retire: 50.4%Awesome.

Sounds like the pool is pretty much reflective of how sure Favre himself is on the matter.

 

[Tau837]

if favre wants to come back, i think the packers would be silly not to let him.this isn't MLB, this is the NFL. you don't rebuild. you go after titles when you can. you don't turn down a shot a title so you can "groom" the QB of the future who's played in 3 qtrs and been hurt twice in those 3 qtrs. i don't know how good rodgers will be, but does it even matter? is he as good as favre right now? that's the only question that matters. in the NFL, "rebuilding" is only what happens when you have no other options for the present.

Exactly.

 

[bcr8f]

Thanks for the consensus, guys.Retires: 49.6%Doesn't retire: 50.4%Awesome.

Sounds like the pool is pretty much reflective of how sure Favre himself is on the matter.

He's sure but there are things that are out of his control. McCarthy probably wants him back, Thompson is building for the future but isn't sure what's best for the team. They'll figure it out.