PDA

View Full Version : Packers GM, coach say no to Favre’s release



fordfixer
07-12-2008, 03:57 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=A ... &type=lgns (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Av2i.wdQMGcPVpuGw9MCC8yG2bYF?slug=ap-packers-favre&prov=ap&type=lgns)



(AP)—The Green Bay Packers’ general manager and coach don’t plan to grant Brett Favre’s request for his release. If he does rejoin the team, they told The Associated Press, it won’t be as the starting quarterback.

And Favre is unlikely to accept a backup role, GM Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy acknowledged Saturday in their first public comments since the 38-year-old Favre demanded his release this week.

A trade may be the best resolution, but Thompson and McCarthy declined to discuss that possibility. Thompson said he had not received any inquiries from other teams as of Saturday morning.

“We’ve communicated that to Brett, that we have since moved forward,” Thompson said. “At the same time, we’ve never said that there couldn’t be some role that he might play here. But I would understand his point that he would want to play.”

When asked whether that role might be as a backup or coach, Thompson said: “not a coach.”

Added McCarthy: “He did ask about that, though.”

Favre, who led the Packers to a Super Bowl title after the 1996 season, held a tearful news conference to announce his retirement March 6. The Packers planned to begin the season with Aaron Rodgers as the starting quarterback.

McCarthy said he and Thompson were in constant communication with Favre throughout the offseason.

“Quite frankly, it’s a little gut-wrenching as an organization to go through it, and certainly for Mike and myself,” Thompson said. “This stuff hurts a lot of people. I mean, it hurts. I’m not talking about physically hurting, but the sensitivity. We understand where the fans are coming from. This is a hot-button issue that surpasses anything I’ve ever gone through.

Ozey74
07-12-2008, 04:01 PM
Packers are doing the right thing. Good for them!!

fordfixer
07-12-2008, 04:07 PM
Packers are doing the right thing. Good for them!!
:Agree

NorCal-Steeler
07-12-2008, 05:38 PM
A$$hole move for the Packers not to let him move on. Farve should take the back up roll and collect his checks while the fans call for him every time rogers throws a incomplete pass.

NKySteeler
07-12-2008, 06:03 PM
A$$hole move for the Packers not to let him move on. Farve should take the back up roll and collect his checks while the fans call for him every time rogers throws a incomplete pass.

Just curious... Why do you think it's an "A$$hole move" by the organization? Did he not sign the current contract that is binding him?... I'm not sure how Junior Seau did it, but that sort of "irked" me... Retire, then come back just to go to a contender with no obligation.... Sort of seems like false advertising or something... I'm sure Favre has emotional ties to GB, but wouldn't be suprised if this was just a means to move on when the organization didn't give him the surrounding talent when he requested it.

BigLebowski
07-12-2008, 06:10 PM
A$$hole move for the Packers not to let him move on. Farve should take the back up roll and collect his checks while the fans call for him every time rogers throws a incomplete pass.

Just curious... Why do you think it's an "A$$hole move" by the organization? Did he not sign the current contract that is binding him?... I'm not sure how Junior Seau did it, but that sort of "irked" me... Retire, then come back just to go to a contender with no obligation.... Sort of seems like false advertising or something... I'm sure Favre has emotional ties to GB, but wouldn't be suprised if this was just a means to move on when the organization didn't give him the surrounding talent when he requested it.


Right on brother. I applaud what the Packers are doing. While Brett has been a great player over the years, that does not give him any right to dictate his own terms. He is under contract and he has submitted his retirement paperwork to the NFL, nobody held a gun to his head and made him sign the contract or the retirement papers. Brett Favre thinks he is bigger than the Packers, and that is what is irking me.

NorCal-Steeler
07-12-2008, 06:11 PM
I think its an a$$hole move if they are only keeping him to prevent him from playing elsewhere. If they plan on starting the best QB after preseason then yes its the right move. To me it sounds like they are going to start rogers reguardless of who is better. I'm only guessing but i assume they think Farve will stay retired and save them the 12 mill if he thinks he will be a backup. That is why i think he should call their bluff and take the 12 mill as a back up.
It kinda reminds me of Al Davis with Marcus Allen, it seems kinda personal on both sides.

Dont get me wrong im against players who want to renegotiate contracts but i dont think this has anything to do with $$$

NKySteeler
07-12-2008, 06:20 PM
I think its an a$$hole move if they are only keeping him to prevent him from playing elsewhere. If they plan on starting the best QB after preseason then yes its the right move. To me it sounds like they are going to start rogers reguardless of who is better. I'm only guessing but i assume they think Farve will stay retired and save them the 12 mill if he thinks he will be a backup. That is why i think he should call their bluff and take the 12 mill as a back up.

Well, wouldn't it be a good business decision to try to keep him from playing for another team, especially if there is any possibility of him playing AGAINST them? Yes, it does sound as if Rodgers will be the starter, and I think it should be that way.

Hypothetical situation for you: .... Assume that Ben gets banged-up this year and next year due to a poor O-line and announces that he's going to retire... Then comes back and asks to be released outright the following summer... Would it not be a good move for the Steelers to refuse such a request?...

NorCal-Steeler
07-12-2008, 06:30 PM
I dont think they packers plan on paying Farve 12 mill a a back up i think this whole thing is a bluff. I agree its time for Rogers to start in GB as well i just think they owe Farve enough to let him go if they arnt going to play him.

No i wouldnt want to cut Ben, but i wouldnt pay a guy to sit the bench either.

NKySteeler
07-12-2008, 07:40 PM
Interesting follow-up to this story......
----------------------------------------------
Sources say Favre reneged on deal to return
By JASON WILDE
July 11, 2008

GREEN BAY — Brett Favre had his chance to come back to the Green Bay Packers at the end of March, but the legendary quarterback reneged on an agreement then to unretire — part of the reason why the Packers aren't now welcoming back the legendary quarterback.

According to two NFL sources, Favre informed the Packers during the annual NFL meetings in late March — less than a month after his tearful March 6 retirement news conference — that he wanted to play again. FoxSports.com's Jay Glazer first reported that information Friday afternoon.

The State Journal's sources along with Glazer's sources said that, at the time, Packers coach Mike McCarthy and general manager Ted Thompson told Favre they would welcome him back, and plans were made for him to return — a colossal commitment to a player who had just publicly said he no longer wanted to play anymore, wiping away tears while saying he didn't have "anything left to give."

In fact, Thompson — he has been criticized publicly by Favre's agent, James "Bus" Cook, and by members of Favre's family for supposedly not wanting the quarterback back — made the final call on whether the team would welcome Favre's return. Thompson agreed to bring back Favre, even though it meant forcing heir apparent Aaron Rodgers to sit yet another year behind the future Hall of Famer.

The Packers went so far as to charter a plane to Mississippi to finalize the agreement.

But two days before the meeting was set to take place, Favre called and informed McCarthy that he had changed his mind yet again and had decided that he wanted to stay retired.

Burned by the change of heart, the team decided to commit fully to moving on without Favre, the sources said. Rodgers was told the starting job was his, and the Packers drafted a pair of quarterbacks — second-rounder Brian Brohm and seventh-rounder Matt Flynn — as backups. They also began altering the offense to accomodate Rodgers' strengths.

Then, three weeks ago, Favre contacted McCarthy and said he had the "itch" to play again, and the team was cool to the idea. That led to what transpired Friday, when the Packers received a letter from Cook asking for Favre's unconditional release.

Sources said the team has no intention of releasing Favre, however. Instead, the Packers would be more likely to try to trade Favre, to control his destination and to prevent him going from an NFC North Division rival.

The Minnesota Vikings and the Chicago Bears could be interested in Favre, who would be considered a significant upgrade over the Vikings' (Tarvaris Jackson and Gus Frerotte) and the Bears' (Rex Grossman and Kyle Orton) options at quarterback.

The Bears reached Super Bowl XL two years ago despite Grossman's inconsistent play. The Vikings, meanwhile, are a chic pick for Super Bowl XLII, and coach Brad Childress runs a version of the West Coast offense. Favre's former quarterbacks coach in Green Bay, Darrell Bevell, is the Vikings' offensive coordinator, while ex-Packers Ryan Longwell, Darren Sharper and Robert Ferguson are on the roster.

The Packers are scheduled to retire Favre's No. 4 at a ceremony at Lambeau Field during the Sept. 8 regular-season opener against the Vikings on "Monday Night Football."

But sources said it's virtually impossible that the Packers would ever let Favre go to such a rival. The team would rather keep Favre on its roster as a backup to Aaron Rodgers — an incredibly awkward situation in its own right — than let him play for the Vikings.

Other teams that could be interested in Favre are the Miami Dolphins, the Carolina Panthers, the New York Jets and the Atlanta Falcons, Favre's first team when he entered the NFL as a second-round pick in 1991.

If any team already has contacted Favre or Cook about the possibility of him playing for them, that team would have engaged in tampering, a violation of NFL rules.

According to one NFL source, Cook had contacted the Vikings about Favre playing for them, given his close relationship with Bevell — a former University of Wisconsin star — and the offense being similar to the one the Packers ran under former coach Mike Sherman.

In April, the Los Angeles Times reported — and the State Journal confirmed — that Cook had been quietly talking to teams to gauge interest should Favre return. Since Cook and Favre opted to send the letter about being released, it's possible those conversations could have reached more serious levels than allowed by NFL rules.

Cook's letter to the Packers on Friday asked the Packers to release his client "with no strings attached," and stated that Favre does not want to be traded because he wants the freedom to choose the team for which he wants to play.

Regardless, sources said, the next step for the Packers would be to start talking to possible trading partners to gauge Favre's trade value, because they would want to get a deal done before players report to training camp July 27.

The 38-year-old Favre had a renaissance season in 2007, completing a career-best 66.5 percent of his regular-season passes for 4,155 yards, 28 touchdowns and 15 interceptions for a 95.7 passer rating (his best since 1995) while leading the team with the youngest opening-day roster in the NFL to the NFC Championship Game at Lambeau Field, where the Packers lost in overtime to the eventual Super Bowl XLII-champion New York Giants.

BIG FAN
07-12-2008, 08:02 PM
News from Green Bay.
Backups?
We dont need no stinkin' backups.

Most of the people posting on here about this issue are right, bow out gracefully Brett.
The Packers, the NFL, for that matter doesen't need this crap. Be an old soldier, dont die just fade away and leave the most wonderful memories as the legacy you proudly gave the this game.

LasVegasGuy
07-13-2008, 12:36 PM
I think its an a$$hole move if they are only keeping him to prevent him from playing elsewhere. If they plan on starting the best QB after preseason then yes its the right move. To me it sounds like they are going to start rogers reguardless of who is better. I'm only guessing but i assume they think Farve will stay retired and save them the 12 mill if he thinks he will be a backup. That is why i think he should call their bluff and take the 12 mill as a back up.

Well, wouldn't it be a good business decision to try to keep him from playing for another team, especially if there is any possibility of him playing AGAINST them? Yes, it does sound as if Rodgers will be the starter, and I think it should be that way.

Hypothetical situation for you: .... Assume that Ben gets banged-up this year and next year due to a poor O-line and announces that he's going to retire... Then comes back and asks to be released outright the following summer... Would it not be a good move for the Steelers to refuse such a request?...

This is exactly why it is an as$-hole move? First, you have already made the decision to move on without Favre and second if you believe Farve has nothing left then you should be glad to see him suit up for a divisional rival. Playing hardball with someones livelyhood is not a cool move. He did sign a contract and he is tied to it but if the team that holds your rights doesn't want you then the next move is to release him. Favre has asked to come back and play FOR THE PACKERS and since he was able to get the team to the NFC Championship game the prior year he deserves the starting role and if you can't accomodate that request the next move is to release him not blackball him.

I understand your aggravation with the circus surrounding Favre's decision to retire then unretire only to retire again but football is all these guys know. If this was about money I would seriously be pissed off. Favre has game and last year he was probably better then most in the league. Not giving him the chance to play the game he loves for the team he loves is an as$-hole move by the Packers.

As for your Ben example why is he asking for his release? Is it to leave the Steelers or are the Steelers saying you have nothing left but we still want to keep your rights. I say in your example that we make Ben the starter or we release him to pursue other options. Just hanging on to him so he doesn't play for the Browns, Ravens or Bengals is not fair to Ben and would be a dick move by the Steelers.

stlrz d
07-13-2008, 12:53 PM
This isn't about whether or not the Packers believe Favre has anything left...it's about Favre jerking them around. As he's done for several recent off seasons. This last one was the straw that broke the camel's back. He retired...then called the Packers a few weeks later and said he changed his mind and wants to play. The Packers told Rodgers Brett is coming back and arranged a charter flight to MS with the intention of meeting with Favre. Two days before the flight Favre called the Packers and said he wanted to stay retired.

That's when the Packers basically said enough is enough and it's time for us to move forward with Rodgers. They know Favre can still play which is why they don't want him going to a division rival (plus the PR nightmare that would be) or even another NFC team.

If anyone is an ******* here it's Favre for making what is a difficult job (GM of an NFL franchise) even more difficult.

If Fave hadn't pulled all this diva bull**** and made his intentions clear the Packers would be happy to have him back.

buckeyehoppy
07-13-2008, 01:24 PM
This isn't about whether or not the Packers believe Favre has anything left...it's about Favre jerking them around. As he's done for several recent off seasons. This last one was the straw that broke the camel's back. He retired...then called the Packers a few weeks later and said he changed his mind and wants to play. The Packers told Rodgers Brett is coming back and arranged a charter flight to MS with the intention of meeting with Favre. Two days before the flight Favre called the Packers and said he wanted to stay retired.

That's when the Packers basically said enough is enough and it's time for us to move forward with Rodgers. They know Favre can still play which is why they don't want him going to a division rival (plus the PR nightmare that would be) or even another NFC team.

If anyone is an ******* here it's Favre for making what is a difficult job (GM of an NFL franchise) even more difficult.

If Fave hadn't pulled all this diva bull**** and made his intentions clear the Packers would be happy to have him back.

I was actually waiting to see what you'd say on As The Favre Turns before commenting myself.

Sure, the Viqueens and Da Bears could use him, not to mention the Murder City Kitties. I'm quite sure the Packers want to hold the trump card as long as they can. They are reasonably sure they can unload him in trade and get something worthwhile for him. But the Packers are doing it the smart way and they are stoning Favre in the process.

In his mind, Favre>NFL>Packers. Sure, he has stats that partially back up that claim. But let's just say that the Packers could deal him to, say, the Falcons. Dude, Favre would get his head beat off because the Falcons are no damned good. They did draft Baker with their first pick, but he'll be starting from Day 1 in ATL out of necessity. I liked Baker (a lot) during the draft season. But not even I'm so sure that he could step in from Day 1 like Thomas did for the Clowns and just own the position. That would mean bad things for Favre if he landed in the Falcons lair.

NKySteeler
07-13-2008, 01:24 PM
LVG, if you read the article I posted a few posts above, it pretty much states that they were willing to bring him back into the fold, but he screwed 'em again...

NorCal-Steeler
07-13-2008, 01:31 PM
I think everyone agree's the on again off again retirment of Farve is old. But when a HOF player decides to retire for good it should be the players choice not the clubs. With the last move by the Packers they are aying sure Farve you can unretire but you've still played your last game of football , you can't start here or play anywhere else. Basicly they are forcing the retirment apon him.

stlrz d
07-13-2008, 01:53 PM
LVG, if you read the article I posted a few posts above, it pretty much states that they were willing to bring him back into the fold, but he screwed 'em again...

Exactly. This is all about Favre putting the Packers in this position. They have tried to work with him and he strings them along every year.


BEH - When a person lives in this town the Packers is about all one hears about. :roll:

stlrz d
07-13-2008, 01:55 PM
I think everyone agree's the on again off again retirment of Farve is old. But when a HOF player decides to retire for good it should be the players choice not the clubs. With the last move by the Packers they are aying sure Farve you can unretire but you've still played your last game of football , you can't start here or play anywhere else. Basicly they are forcing the retirment apon him.

You do realize they welcomed him back, and even went so far as to tell Rodgers he wouldn't be the starter because Brett was coming back...and a few days later Brett changed his mind yet again and said he was going to stay retired, right???

RuthlessBurgher
07-13-2008, 03:39 PM
Just wanted to throw out this hypothetical situation:

There is tension between veteran QB Brett Favre and GM Ted Thompson.

There is also tension between veteran DE Jason Taylor and GM Bill Parcells.

Could the Packers and Dolphins possibly swap their respective former-face-of-the-team but current-problem-child?

Parcells would get a veteran presence at the most important position (I don't think he necessarily wants to hand over the reins to young-uns like Beck or Henne immediately).

Thompson gets yet another pass-rusher to go along with Kampman and KGB.

Sure, both players may only play maybe another year, but...

Who would blink first in a straight up Favre-for-Taylor swap?

:stirpot

LasVegasGuy
07-13-2008, 04:15 PM
LVG, if you read the article I posted a few posts above, it pretty much states that they were willing to bring him back into the fold, but he screwed 'em again...


You guys see this as Favre screwing them. I see it as a guy that is really, really struggling with the finality of retirement. Granted, he has done the Packers dirty with his on again, off again drama but the Packers aren't making anything better by not releasing him or declaring him the starter. Packers can't have their cake and eat it too. Eventually, you have to decide what to do with Favre you can't force a guy into retirement like the Packers are trying to do.

stlrz d
07-13-2008, 04:47 PM
But they're not forcing him into retirement.

And now for something pretty funny:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=771871

Apparently a whopping 200 people showed up at Lambeau today for the big rally. :lol:

RuthlessBurgher
07-13-2008, 05:11 PM
But they're not forcing him into retirement.

And now for something pretty funny:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=771871

Apparently a whopping 200 people showed up at Lambeau today for the big rally. :lol:

From the article:

“I think we should trade Aaron Rodgers and make a run at the Super Bowl with Brett.”

It's fine that some GB fans think they should bring back Favre, but trade Aaron Rodgers? Sure, because Brett will be your QB for the next decade. :roll:

Guess the Pack has their delusional fans too. :lol:

stlrz d
07-13-2008, 05:29 PM
But they're not forcing him into retirement.

And now for something pretty funny:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=771871

Apparently a whopping 200 people showed up at Lambeau today for the big rally. :lol:

From the article:

“I think we should trade Aaron Rodgers and make a run at the Super Bowl with Brett.”

It's fine that some GB fans think they should bring back Favre, but trade Aaron Rodgers? Sure, because Brett will be your QB for the next decade. :roll:

Guess the Pack has their delusional fans too. :lol:

You don't know the half of it brother.

buckeyehoppy
07-13-2008, 05:41 PM
But they're not forcing him into retirement.

And now for something pretty funny:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=771871

Apparently a whopping 200 people showed up at Lambeau today for the big rally. :lol:

Dude, I'm not sure who to sue...you or jsonline...after launching a mouthful of water at my computer screen after laughing so hard.

(Don't worry...j/k)

No kidding. That's totally hilarious. I thought Clowns fan cornered the market on delusion. I see that FudgePacker fan has given Clowns fan company.

Those dudes are :loser and :loser I know the one was identified as a "mortgage broker" and the other one wasn't identified in a particular job. Guess that means that one is unemployed and the other is soon-to-be. No wonder they had so much time on their hands :lol:

stlrz d
07-13-2008, 06:23 PM
I guess you could go after both of us...but I'm guessing the Journal Sentinel has a bit more cash. :lol:

buckeyehoppy
07-14-2008, 12:10 AM
I guess you could go after both of us...but I'm guessing the Journal Sentinel has a bit more cash. :lol:

I was drinking a bottle of water at the time, but I swallowed before I spat (that's what she said) :shock: :lol: :shock: :lol: :shock: :lol: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Shawn
07-14-2008, 01:02 AM
If the Packers release Farve don't they have to eat some money?

BigBen2112
07-14-2008, 01:55 AM
Today, it was said on ESPN that Thompson told Mort or one of the other ESPN tools that he would welcome Favre back and maybe even NOT in a reserve role...but they'd have to see him in camp and make sure he's ready bla bla bla...what already taking back his words? We are talking about the greatest QB in this era. He makes EVERYONE around him better...RB, WRs, and his line. Donald Driver is good...but not as good as Favre makes him. That team should allow Favre to come back if he wants to. Ted Thompson just wants to have his first 1st round pick be starting.

stlrz d
07-14-2008, 07:16 AM
Shame to hear Ted is backing down a bit now...Favre's been jerking the Packers around for the last 3 or 4 seasons now.

If they take him back I hope he gets knocked out for the season in the first game. :evil:

NorCal-Steeler
07-14-2008, 09:24 AM
I guess it really should come down to his team mates. If all these guys prefer Farve its hard not to do whats best for the team. That article about the rally also stated that the share holders want a say in this that they own the team and not thompson....lol

Iron Shiek
07-14-2008, 10:57 AM
LVG, if you read the article I posted a few posts above, it pretty much states that they were willing to bring him back into the fold, but he screwed 'em again...


You guys see this as Favre screwing them. I see it as a guy that is really, really struggling with the finality of retirement. Granted, he has done the Packers dirty with his on again, off again drama but the Packers aren't making anything better by not releasing him or declaring him the starter. Packers can't have their cake and eat it too. Eventually, you have to decide what to do with Favre you can't force a guy into retirement like the Packers are trying to do.

It sucks that it has come down to this for the Packers but put yourself in their shoes. What? You release him so he can go sign with the Vikings and whip your a$$ and win the division...all because you felt bad for him that he effed you the entire offseason and you wanted to be nice and let him play somewhere? I wouldn't want that for Ben if he did this so he could go to the Stains and win the division. Player is under contract and HE decided to retire. Come back I guess and try to be the starter and compete, but I say no to releasing him.

stlrz d
07-14-2008, 01:57 PM
LVG, if you read the article I posted a few posts above, it pretty much states that they were willing to bring him back into the fold, but he screwed 'em again...


You guys see this as Favre screwing them. I see it as a guy that is really, really struggling with the finality of retirement. Granted, he has done the Packers dirty with his on again, off again drama but the Packers aren't making anything better by not releasing him or declaring him the starter. Packers can't have their cake and eat it too. Eventually, you have to decide what to do with Favre you can't force a guy into retirement like the Packers are trying to do.

It sucks that it has come down to this for the Packers but put yourself in their shoes. What? You release him so he can go sign with the Vikings and whip your a$$ and win the division...all because you felt bad for him that he effed you the entire offseason and you wanted to be nice and let him play somewhere? I wouldn't want that for Ben if he did this so he could go to the Stains and win the division. Player is under contract and HE decided to retire. Come back I guess and try to be the starter and compete, but I say no to releasing him.

You need to add Favre to your list! :twisted:

NC Steeler Fan
07-14-2008, 03:02 PM
LVG, if you read the article I posted a few posts above, it pretty much states that they were willing to bring him back into the fold, but he screwed 'em again...


I see it as a guy that is really, really struggling with the finality of retirement. ... but the Packers aren't making anything better by not releasing him or declaring him the starter. Packers can't have their cake and eat it too. ...you can't force a guy into retirement like the Packers are trying to do.

I disagree on all counts.

1. I don't think Favre has ever really considered the finality of retirement and that's his biggest problem. I think he is emotionally immature and has no clue what he really wants. This has been going on waaaaay long enough with him that by now he'd certainly gotten enough advice and guidance from those around him to make up his mind, yet he hasn't. This is still a business and he needs to man up, period.

2. Again, this is a business. The Packers would be beyond stupid to simply release a guy who's still under contract without getting anything for him. It sets a dangerous precedent. Teams need to be able to plan, others players need to be able to plan and develop. This expectation on Favre's part that HE can jerk the team, his teammates and the fans around and can have his cake and eat it too is the icing on the cake for me.

3. No one forced Brett to do anything. If anything, Brett has forced the Packers to make a firm stand because he seems incapable of doing so.

4. If I was Brett's wife I'd be embarrassed beyond belief. I certainly hope his ego and view of himself in the world doesn't translate over into his family life or there are some seriously dysfunctional relationships going on there too...

Ghost
07-14-2008, 03:38 PM
not importantant at all but Buckey - the Falcons drafted Matt Ryan (who is Baker?)

The Packers shouldn't just release Farve. What if every good player who didn't like his contract "said" he was done with football and retired and then singed with whatever team he wanted a few months later becasue he "decided" he still had some football left in him? Teams need to retain this power. You'd have 25 year olds retiring all the time.

And I also think the Packers don't owe it to Farve to allow him to go sign with the Vikings (who may be a QB away from making serious noise) and beat the Packers. That's ludicrous. If they have the contract - that Farve willingly signed, then the Pack owns him. Any issues, BF brought on himself.

Regradless of who you think is right - in my mind a grown man doesn't act this way. A man of character doesn't go back on his word, not once but numerous times. A man of integrity bows out of the situation with class and dignity. He has more money than he could possibly spend (and will continue to make tons from his NFL association) so spare me the schtick about providing for his family. Great QB but if he returns I'll be actively rooting for him to fail. And it's a damn shame it's come to this.

RuthlessBurgher
07-14-2008, 03:49 PM
not importantant at all but Buckey - the Falcons drafted Matt Ryan (who is Baker?)

The Packers shouldn't just release Farve. What if every good player who didn't like his contract "said" he was done with football and retired and then singed with whatever team he wanted a few months later becasue he "decided" he still had some football left in him? Teams need to retain this power. You'd have 25 year olds retiring all the time.

And I also think the Packers don't owe it to Farve to allow him to go sign with the Vikings (who may be a QB away from making serious noise) and beat the Packers. That's ludicrous. If they have the contract - that Farve willingly signed, then the Pack owns him. Any issues, BF brought on himself.

Regradless of who you think is right - in my mind a grown man doesn't act this way. A man of character doesn't go back on his word, not once but numerous times. A man of integrity bows out of the situation with class and dignity. He has more money than he could possibly spend (and will continue to make tons from his NFL association) so spare me the schtick about providing for his family. Great QB but if he returns I'll be actively rooting for him to fail. And it's a damn shame it's come to this.

The Falcons traded back up into the first round to draft USC tackle Sam Baker.

stlrz d
07-14-2008, 07:20 PM
NC - You have no idea how dysfunctional the relationship is between Brett and Deanna.

I heard on Fox Sports radio that Favre is going to be interviewed tonight at 10pm Eastern by Gretta Van Sustern (sp?) about what he's dealing with and why he wants to be released.

They played a snippet of Gretta being interviewed on a Milwaukee station. She said, "Brett is concerned the Packers will deal him to a team that may not have a good chance of winning or one that won't get him much playing time or one that is less likely to face the Packers, among other things."

Selfish and immature are two words that can be added to the Favre legacy.

Steel Life
07-14-2008, 09:41 PM
Guys - Way too much venom here for Favre, after all how do any of us know any of the internal dynamics between him & the FO? For all we know they hate each other's guts. Favre has been upset for a long time over the FO's inability to bring in major talent at RB & WR, & he was less than enthused over the hiring of the past few coaches - starting with Ray Rhodes (forgettable), then Mike Sherman (average at best) & now McCarthy. But despite this, he didn't give up like Barry Sanders or Ricky Williams, & he didn't lie down & take it like Dan Marino in his last years. Brett loves to play & he loves to play for the Packer fans, but I think the FO has taken that from him & that's why this has played out the way it has over the past few off-seasons.

Brett came within one game of the Super Bowl with a team that over-achieved & he's clearly not washed up - so what's wrong with letting him play? This isn't Namath & the Jets or Unitas & the Colts, but a guy who put up over 4100 yards & a QB rating of almost 96. So tell me, what has Favre done to lose the starting spot - or better yet, what has Rodgers done to deserve the starting spot over Favre?...Nothing. What has Thompson accomplished without Favre?...Nothing. I know the FO has an obligation to the team & the future, but Favre has given everything he had to the Packers, he deserves better than this.

I know the back & forth gets a little tiring, but it's Brett's career & while it'll be sad to see him in another uniform, I hope Favre plays for someone else & beats the crap out of the Packers every time. For both Brett (his career) & the Packers (winning & national attention) the theme should be that - you don't know what you've got till it's gone...

BTW Steelers D...Low blow on the insinuation of the dynamics of Brett & Deanna's relationship...Keep it on the field.

stlrz d
07-14-2008, 09:46 PM
It's not insinuation my friend...I live here. This is a very small town.

RuthlessBurgher
07-14-2008, 09:56 PM
Favre has been upset for a long time over the FO's inability to bring in major talent at RB & WR, & he was less than enthused over the hiring of the past few coaches - starting with Ray Rhodes (forgettable), then Mike Sherman (average at best) & now McCarthy.

Rhodes and Sherman may not have been inspired hires, but McCarthy has a 21-11 record as a head coach there (best start in franchise history...Vince Lombardi and Curly Lambeau included). McCarthy also coached the team to overtime in the NFC Championship game in his 2nd year as head coach (gotta love those Pittsburgh roots).

They got him a legit RB weapon in Ryan Grant (nearly rushed for 1000 yards in spite of having a grand total of 6 carries in the first 6 weeks of the season), and he has a wealth of riches at WR (Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, James Jones, Jordy Nelson). They also have built a solid defense as well. What more could he possibly want?

Steel Life
07-14-2008, 09:59 PM
It's not insinuation my friend...I live here. This is a very small town.

That may or may not be...but either way, it has no place in this discussion. Let's keep it "between the lines"...everything else is fair game.

Steel Life
07-14-2008, 10:16 PM
Favre has been upset for a long time over the FO's inability to bring in major talent at RB & WR, & he was less than enthused over the hiring of the past few coaches - starting with Ray Rhodes (forgettable), then Mike Sherman (average at best) & now McCarthy.

Rhodes and Sherman may not have been inspired hires, but McCarthy has a 21-11 record as a head coach there (best start in franchise history...Vince Lombardi and Curly Lambeau included). McCarthy also coached the team to overtime in the NFC Championship game in his 2nd year as head coach (gotta love those Pittsburgh roots).

They got him a legit RB weapon in Ryan Grant (nearly rushed for 1000 yards in spite of having a grand total of 6 carries in the first 6 weeks of the season), and he has a wealth of riches at WR (Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, James Jones, Jordy Nelson). They also have built a solid defense as well. What more could he possibly want?

Let's not pretend that last year's success over-writes the past frustration. The jury is still out on McCarthy until he does it without Brett & justifiably so. After all, it's easy too win with a Hall of Famer at QB. As for the players you mentioned, some are definitely good, but lets not anoint them all Pro Bowlers yet as they only recently blossomed. Grant was a blessing after a "running back by committee" approach early on. Everybody knows that Driver practically owes his career to Brett & Jennings was a disappointment season before last. Jones could be special, but last year was his first & Nelson was just drafted - so lets not act as though Brett has had all these tools to work with for years. The defense is solid, but not special as Hawk may eventually become the player most expected him to be.

Don't forget that Favre wanted Moss to be the impact player he knew they needed & the FO turned their noses up just as they had in other seasons. As for what he wants?...That's easy - a ring.

RuthlessBurgher
07-14-2008, 10:33 PM
[quote="Steel Life"]Jennings was a disappointment season before last.quote]

When was Jennings ever considered a disappointment? His career so far has essentially mirrored that of Santonio Holmes, who most of us consider has the potential to be the next big thing. They are both 5'11" receivers who were drafted in the same draft. They both had 40-something catches as rookies then 50-something catches in year two (they both missed 3 games to injury this past season as well). They both greatly improved their yards per catch and their TD total in their second season.

Greg Jennings, 2nd round pick
Season Team Receiving Rushing Fumbles
G GS Rec Yds Avg Lng TD Att Yds Avg Lng TD FUM Lost
2007 Green Bay Packers 13 13 53 920 17.4 82T 12 -- -- -- -- -- 1 0
2006 Green Bay Packers 14 11 45 632 14.0 75T 3 -- -- -- -- -- 1 0
TOTAL 98 1,552 15.8 82 15 0 0 0.0 0 0 2 0

Santonio Holmes, 1st round pick
Season Team Receiving Rushing Fumbles
G GS Rec Yds Avg Lng TD Att Yds Avg Lng TD FUM Lost
2007 Pittsburgh Steelers 13 13 52 942 18.1 83 8 5 17 3.4 11 0 2 0
2006 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 4 49 824 16.8 67T 2 1 13 13.0 13 0 5 2
TOTAL 101 1,766 17.5 83 10 6 30 5.0 13 0 7 2

By the way, Jennings was taken in the same area of his draft where we took Limas Sweed this year. I would be absolutely overjoyed if Limas had his first 2 years in the league similar to Jennings' first 2 years.

stlrz d
07-14-2008, 10:42 PM
[quote="stlrz d":1tbhuwzr]It's not insinuation my friend...I live here. This is a very small town.

That may or may not be...but either way, it has no place in this discussion. Let's keep it "between the lines"...everything else is fair game.[/quote:1tbhuwzr]

Fair enough...but I was only piggy backing off of NC's comment about how ashamed his wife must be. Not that it excuses my comments...I was just sayin' is all.

But as for Favre, as much as I dislike him because I live in this town and hate that team, I've always respected him. But not over the last few seasons I haven't. He's selfish and immature...period.

Btw, I thought I'd see if I could make the news by showing up at the protest next Sunday in my #43 jersey "in support" of the cause. :mrgreen:

Steel Life
07-14-2008, 11:24 PM
Btw, I thought I'd see if I could make the news by showing up at the protest next Sunday in my #43 jersey "in support" of the cause. :mrgreen:

Ummm...good luck with that :lol: . Make sure to take your LifeAlert with you.... :lol:

Steel Life
07-14-2008, 11:52 PM
Jennings was a disappointment season before last.quote]

When was Jennings ever considered a disappointment? His career so far has essentially mirrored that of Santonio Holmes, who most of us consider has the potential to be the next big thing. They are both 5'11" receivers who were drafted in the same draft. They both had 40-something catches as rookies then 50-something catches in year two (they both missed 3 games to injury this past season as well). They both greatly improved their yards per catch and their TD total in their second season.

Greg Jennings, 2nd round pick
Season Team Receiving Rushing Fumbles
G GS Rec Yds Avg Lng TD Att Yds Avg Lng TD FUM Lost
2007 Green Bay Packers 13 13 53 920 17.4 82T 12 -- -- -- -- -- 1 0
2006 Green Bay Packers 14 11 45 632 14.0 75T 3 -- -- -- -- -- 1 0
TOTAL 98 1,552 15.8 82 15 0 0 0.0 0 0 2 0

Santonio Holmes, 1st round pick
Season Team Receiving Rushing Fumbles
G GS Rec Yds Avg Lng TD Att Yds Avg Lng TD FUM Lost
2007 Pittsburgh Steelers 13 13 52 942 18.1 83 8 5 17 3.4 11 0 2 0
2006 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 4 49 824 16.8 67T 2 1 13 13.0 13 0 5 2
TOTAL 101 1,766 17.5 83 10 6 30 5.0 13 0 7 2

By the way, Jennings was taken in the same area of his draft where we took Limas Sweed this year. I would be absolutely overjoyed if Limas had his first 2 years in the league similar to Jennings' first 2 years.

I saw the same article you're referencing & I think any objective observer of football would say that Santonio has been the more dynamic of the two. What I was referring to was the difficulty Jennings had his first season in missing 5 games with injury & problematic rapport with Farve. I expect Santonio to break out this year while Jennings may slip a bit while sharing catches with Driver, Jones & Nelson.

Either way, the point was that these are only recent additions - it's not like Favre has had these guys for years. Or have you guys forgotten the 2005 season when Thompson's big WR acquisition was Rod Gardner & the RBs were reduced to Samkon Gado? And that was after he got rid of both starting guards & replaced them with guys who would be either cut or benched.

Give credit where credit is due - Favre has made chicken-salad out chicken-**** so long that we've all taken it for granted. Is he drama queen?...Probably so, but who are we to say, we had our own drama-seeking legend in Bradshaw.

Hardliner
07-15-2008, 08:13 AM
Getting to this thread late, and having read through all the posts, there's not much I can add that adds to the intrique or, standoff, between Favre and the GB front office. I will say that everyone has a right to change their mind but now what?

It's interesting to note that Aaron Rodgers is in his final year of his contract with the Pack so if Favre is allowed back to the team, what does that do for the future of his (Rodger's) status on the team? In Rodger's case, who could blame him for wanting out as well either this year but surely next?

Then, we have the rook, Brian Brohm waiting in the wings, so there are some compellingly interesting dominos to fall should the Pack elect to bring Favre back and because of this, I don't see them doing it. I think the front office is playing a version of liar's poker VERY similar to what teams do leading up to the draft.

However, there's a wild card in that deck as well in that Favre can veto any trade to a team not of his choosing. Let's face it, Favre would love to go play for divisional rival Minnesota but I think a compromise of sorts will be reached with Favre okaying a trade to a team like Tampa with its warm weather and similar system that he's accustomed to playing.

As they say in the broadcasting business, stay tuned.

stlrz d
07-15-2008, 08:28 AM
According to the interview last night, the Packers were contacting Favre every week (after the season ended) to ask where he was with his decision (obviously so they could plan accordingly) and he said, "It would be nice if I could have until training camp to decide."

:wft :wft :wft

Btw, good point Hardliner...what kind of position does it put the Packers in if Favre comes back for just one more season then calls it quits for good? Now they're stuck making a decision on what to do about Rodgers, whom they've seen very little of. It seems to me the Packers are simply trying to protect themselves.