All of this Favre stuff might be moot now

by verno329 on Jul 21, 2008 8:01 PM CDT

ProFootballTalk is reporting that Favre is done after the Packers presented him 3 teams that they could trade him to and he rejected all 3 teams and is now gonna stay retired. All of this is unconfirmed, of course, and I don't always believe Florio but he has been right on a more than a few of these Favre stories as well as some other stuff too. I'm sure the Thompson haters will accuse him of suggesting teams like the Raiders, Chiefs, and Falcons that Favre would understandably reject but we shall see. Unfortunately, until the 6th week of the season passes I think that this comeback story will always have legs, at least whenever ESPN is having a slow news day. Regardless of how this ends its just sad that one of the greatest and most storied careers in NFL history is (potenially) ending in this type of fashion.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

I'm Betting It's Not The End

Reading the article, it sounds like the tipster is with the Packers. I would expect they would offer to trade him to a few undesirable locations, and he would refuse. From the Packers point of view, maybe they think that’s the end of it since he didn’t accept the trade and they won’t release him. I doubt Favre would be so easily rebuffed, which is why I’m guessing the tipster was with the team, but knowing Favre, he might have changed his mind, again.

by Brandon on Jul 22, 2008 12:30 AM CDT 0 recs

Hostage

First of all, I want to make it clear that ‘m not a Thompson hater although I may not always trust and or agree with all of his decisions. If the Packers are ready to move on…..by all means move on! If the team and some of the fans are ready to move on…..go ahead and do it without blaming Brett for wanting to play football again. I’ve heard some say that Brett is holding the GB organization hostage. I think that goes both ways. Some say that if Brett puts on another uniform, he is a trader. I just don’t feel that way. Just as some feel that Brett shouldn’t try to force himself back on the Packers as starting QB. I don’t feel the Packers should force Brett to start as backup QB, stay retired or attempt to trade him to some undesirable team just because the Packers are scared they might get spanked within their own division. Some think Brett should compete with Rodgers for starting QB if he wants to come back to the Packers. I ask….why can’t the Packers move on with their decision to keep Rodgers as their QB & not worry about competing with the Vikings and or the Bears if Brett was to go to one of those teams. Afterall, they are convinced that Rodgers is the man and the future of the Packers. They need to stand behind that decision & play the game not the person. The fact that Thompson has made the comment that the organization wants to protect Brett’s legacy is crap. You just can’t erase what Brett has accomplished over the past 16 years and where it was accomplished no matter what the Packers do or where Brett plays. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting Brett’s legacy. I am disturbed by some of the fans making such a big deal out of the possibility of Brett wanting to go to a rival team. He wants to play for a team that is capable of winning a SuperBowl. Why wouldn’t he? Why play the game if you don’t play to win?

by packersinNC on Jul 22, 2008 8:58 AM CDT 0 recs

Because its not good business sense

The NFL is a business whether we like it or not. It doesn’t make sense to allow someone you have under contract (even if they are no longer wanted by that team/company) to go join your biggest competitor and try to beat you. If a CEO of a large corporation just allowed one of its best employees to just leave and go to the competition, where they could come back to beat you, he or she would be fired and rightfully so. Would Bill Gates allow one of his most valued employees just leave and go to work for Apple simply because they wanted to and people told him he owed it to that person? Or the other way around, I doubt Steve Jobs would allow his valued employee walk over to Microsoft without putting up a fight.

No one, not even TT, is saying that Rodgers is a better QB than Favre. But Packers mgmt does feel that Rodgers has potential to be the QB that the Packers need now and in the future. It isn’t a matter of saying that Brett is a washed up old QB (which no one has said), but a matter of going ahead with the plans that the team made in the offseason. If Brett had stuck with his decision to unretire at the end of March, we wouldn’t be in this situation. Blame can be spread all around in this situation, but Brett needs to understand that even though he hasn’t been treated the same way as everyone else before, simply because his name is Brett Favre, there is a limit to how far the rules are able to bend. Waiting until late June to change your mind, after you already changed your mind twice at the end of March, is unacceptable. How long are the Packers supposed to wait? Are we not to take Brett at his word when twice in March he said that he was retired?

Can't pitch Gagne in rain. He’s like the B-2 bomber of baseball.--TheJay

by verno329 on Jul 22, 2008 9:35 AM CDT up 0 recs

business sense

I hear what you are saying; however, I feel it was that general attitude of the Packer organization over the last few years & in March that I feel pressured Brett to retire. If they had handled things within the organization with more tact & class over the years, we may not be in this situation either. It’s not all Brett & I think the guy should be able to play football on a “COMPETITIVE” team.

by packersinNC on Jul 22, 2008 11:19 AM CDT up 0 recs

Here's what I don't understand

What did they do to make him feel unwelcome? Plan for the unknown future by drafting a QB? No one had any idea when Brett would retire so its best to be prepared. Not allow Brett to make all personnel decisions? When TT was hired he knew that he was going to preside over the end of the Favre era at some point. That is a pretty daunting task in and of itself. With Brett unwilling or unable to give him any sort of timeline as to when that would happen what was TT supposed to do?

I just get sick of hearing that Brett didn’t feel that he was wanted. Do the Packers have to call every single player on the team and let them know that they are really wanted? Brett was under contract and, while he was constantly pondering retirement, I just don’t understand what the Packers were supposed to do to make him feel wanted. Hire skywriters to spell out “Please come back, Brett!” over Green Bay and Mississippi every day? Call him twice a day to make sure he didn’t misunderstand their wishes? Issue constant press releases expressing their desire for his return? They have to assume that anyone under contract is gonna come back unless they retire, right? How much praise do they have to shower him with for him to feel wanted? That is an answer I’d love to hear from Favre. What did the Packers have to do to make him feel wanted?

Can't pitch Gagne in rain. He’s like the B-2 bomber of baseball.--TheJay

by verno329 on Jul 22, 2008 12:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

I don’t think TT came to the Packers with no other thought but to build the Packers for ” life without Brett”. That’s fine. However, don’t say that they didn’t know when he would retire. The contract speaks for itself….they knew the length of it, didn’t they? Anyone would be crazy to think that Brett would have ever renewed his contract. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that when the contract expired; the guy would be 42 years old and at the end of his career. So in all reality, they did have some idea as to when he would retire. I’m just sick of hearing that because Brett wasn’t allowed to make personnel decisions ; he threw a Brett tantrum and retired. I don’t agree with that either. Brett was surrounded by young players brought in by Thompson. The team appreciates Brett ’s talent but I truely think they are ready to turn the page also. Like TT, I think they are thinking of the future & writing their own pages in the history book. That’s all fine. However, it’s no doubt in my mind that this “ready to move on” atmosphere is what made Brett question each year if he should return or just retire. No….they didn’t have to cuddle Brett; he’s a big man. However, they could have treated him with respect….my God, he’s earned it. When it was said that Brett didn’t feel wanted. I believe him. Do I blame the Packers if they want to move on? No! But…..I don’t like the spin that they are putting on this situation either. I don’t think Brett felt he had anything left to give to an organization that was ready to move on. I don’t think Brett blames the guys or holds it against them for wanting to move on. So, how can they blame him for wanting to move on. Brett just wants to play football. If not for the Packers, his 1st choice, then for a competitive team.

by packersinNC on Jul 22, 2008 12:44 PM CDT up 0 recs

don’t say that they didn’t know when he would retire. The contract speaks for itself….they knew the length of it, didn’t they? Anyone would be crazy to think that Brett would have ever renewed his contract. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that when the contract expired; the guy would be 42 years old and at the end of his career. So in all reality, they did have some idea as to when he would retire.

Does that mean TT shouldn’t have planned to have a QB in place until Brett was 42? From the day he signed that contract it was assumed he would never see it though to its completion. All that told him is the most that he could play. From 2003 on we were waiting to hear whether he was coming back or not, so the retirement thing has been hanging over the Packers well before TT came on board. Was TT disrespecting Brett before he was a member of the Packers?

Can't pitch Gagne in rain. He’s like the B-2 bomber of baseball.--TheJay

by verno329 on Jul 22, 2008 2:56 PM CDT up 0 recs

08-05-07

No…..that’s not what I’m saying at all. I agree that TT should have been preparing for the day that Brett retired (whether it be 38 or 42). With that being said, I also think backup QB’s have been known to sit on the bench alot longer than Aaron Rodgers (3 years). How can TT & MM possibly say that their commitment to AR (an unproven QB) is more important than the last 17 years with Brett….It’s all a smokescreen & a nice way to say to Brett “we don’t want you”. On Aug. 5th, 2007, Brett was asked, “how will you know when it’s time to retire?” He replied, 1) you get hurt. 2) the team wants to move in another direction & 3) you just can’t play anymore. Well, he’s not hurt & he can still play so that tells me that he felt the team was ready to move on. In March (during the press conference), he said that he could still play and my God, I think that he proved that during the 2007 season. He wants to play; I don’t think that retirement would have ever happened in March if Brett thought TT, MM, and the team wanted him to stay. That was not the case & regardless of what they might say about a plane trip in late March to get Brett, they didn’t want him back. It’s all smoke!!! You can walk in it or you can walk around it….whatever makes one happy!

by packersinNC on Jul 22, 2008 4:26 PM CDT up 0 recs

He wants to play for a team that is capable of winning a SuperBowl. Why wouldn’t he? Why play the game if you don’t play to win?

Every player in the league wants to win. Can all the players on crappy teams demand their release so they can go sign with a team that can win the Super Bowl? I understand him wanting to go to a team that has a chance to win but it is not the Packers job to accomodate his desire. He is under contract. He never had a problem commenting on other players who were trying to get their contracts changed. That didn’t always sit well with other players around the league.

Can't pitch Gagne in rain. He’s like the B-2 bomber of baseball.--TheJay

by verno329 on Jul 22, 2008 9:40 AM CDT up 0 recs

forced retirement

No…..but this is no doubt a different situation, like it or not. I don’t think any player with the records that Brett is holding would want to play football on a crappy team. Sure….if Brett had years to play the game, which he does not, I’m sure he would take the challenge but to go to a team that needs rebuilding is not a place to put him. He doesn’t have that kind of time on his side & TT knows that, he’s forcing him to stay in retirement. I’m sorry….that can be called good business sense but I think it’s pathetic!!!!!

by packersinNC on Jul 22, 2008 11:31 AM CDT 0 recs

ok

so now is the NFL as a whole supposed to bend to Brett’s wishes? I’m sure Tavaris Jackson (or the QB on any other team that Brett wants to go to) wouldn’t be thrilled being pushed aside after all the work that they have put in in previous years and during the offseason to prepare to lead THEIR teams this season, just because Brett decided that he wants to play for that team. Should every QB in the league not named Brady or Manning be eligible to be relegated to a backup if Brett wants to play there? If Brett thinks he could win in San Diego is Philip Rivers to be sacrificed to satisfy Brett?

Can't pitch Gagne in rain. He’s like the B-2 bomber of baseball.--TheJay

by verno329 on Jul 22, 2008 12:16 PM CDT up 0 recs

I am pretty sure all teams that consider themselves Super Bowl contenders this year already have a capable QB, at least in their opinion. No “contender” is gonna make a major switch at the most important position on the field on the eve of training camp without an injury happening. The options that would fill both the needs of Favre (shot at Super Bowl) and the requirements of the Packers (no trade in division, preferably not conference) are very few.

by juggernaut400 on Jul 22, 2008 1:17 PM CDT 0 recs

Like you said, it’s not up to the QB’s or the teams to determine who the starting QB is. Afterall, it’s business, right? Why blame Brett for trying to make the best of what is left of his football years? Or….. is he suppose to pacify the entire league by never playing football again? Who’s throwing the tantrum now?

by packersinNC on Jul 22, 2008 1:27 PM CDT 0 recs