Time to Get Proactive

by Packschmid on Jul 31, 2008 11:59 AM CDT Comment 19 comments

Brett Favre has been pulling the strings on this whole operation for far too long. The Packers have tried wishing and hoping for him to change his mind and go back into retirement but clearly that's not going to happen.

Favre wants his unconditional release, and obviously that's not going to happen. So, you're stuck with three options:

Call Brett Favre's bluff and bring him into training camp. Yes, it will be a circus, but we're already there. May as well bring the elephant into the center ring and see how he reacts to being a backup and see how Aaron Rodgers reacts to his presence. Let Rodgers start all four preseason games, give Favre a series or two at most in each game, and see how everyone responds.
Call Brett Favre's bluff and trade him to the New York Jets for whatever conditional draft pick they're willing to offer given the fact right now that Favre hasn't been willing to even talk to them. If the price is low enough, the Jets might be willing to take this circus on. Obviously, the deal would have to be structured in a way where we get assurances that the Jets don't trade his rights (i.e. the 7th rounder escalates to a 1st if they trade his rights to anybody but us before the conclusion of the 2008 season), but it would accomplish the goal of getting him out of the conference and the division and would eliminate Brett's options. If he wants to play, he would play for the Jets. If he doesn't want to play for the Jets, then it's time to retire. The Jets don't really lose anything because they have a QB competition going on anyway and it's up to them to convince Favre to play.
If worse comes to worse, call up the Chicago Bears and tell them to make an offer. Trading him within the division would not be ideal, but assuming Favre would go there Chicago is a much better destination than Minnesota. Given the lack of offensive talent on the Bears, Favre would be likely to revert to the QB that throws 25 interceptions rather than the QB who throws 25 touchdowns.

Brett Favre isn't retiring, and he isn't going to be the starting quarterback of the Green Bay Packers. Either suck it up and let him be the backup, or trade him to a place where he does the least damage.

One final hail mary option is to talk to Roger Goodell and tell him point blank that they will not release Brett Favre and play up the open tampering investigation. Tell Goodell that if he wants a resolution to this mess, then they will release Favre and drop the tampering charge on the condition that Favre cannot sign with Minnesota. When I initially saw the tampering charge, I thought this is the escape hatch scenario that Thompson was trying to set up. Now, I'm not sure he was that smart, but he can still use it as leverage. If Brett wants to play football and wants the freedom to choose his own situation, then this solution gives him 30 NFL teams to choose from.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think Favre called their bluff

Favre isn’t bluffing. If they bring him to training camp, both he and Rodgers will be under intense scrutiny. Furthermore, in all likelihood, Favre will prove to be the superior QB, which will cause even more problems for Green Bay. Inviting him, in my estimation, will not be calling bluffs of any kind; Ted Thompson will risk this getting even worse for him. If Thompson calls Favre’s “bluff”, he’ll likely lose, because Favre seems dead serious about going to camp and showing his stuff. That’s exactly what Thompson does not want him to do. The option of inviting Favre back was washed away a while ago.

I don’t think it’s that easy getting rid of him. Even though it’s only a 7th rounder, there’s no way a team is going to give up anything if they aren’t guaranteed Favre will play for them. If the Jets and Packers make a deal and Favre decides he doesn’t want to play for New York, then they essentially gave up a 7th rounder for nothing. Thus, once again, it doesn’t seem like a situation where the Packers can call “bluffs.” Teams know the Packers have no leverage now. They aren’t going to bail them out for cheap like that. The Packers want more than a 7th rounder anyway (since obviously, Favre is worth much more than that), but teams aren’t going to give them the time of day unless they are sure Favre will play for them. They can’t trade Favre anywhere where he doesn’t to go.

I have serious doubts the Packers can do anything of the sort as far as making such a deal with Goodell. Again, this assumes the Packers are in a position of power… which they aren’t. Goodell wants a resolution to this because it’s something that detracts from the game itself, but if anyone wants a resolution more than anyone, it’s the Packers. The Packers are in no position to demand anything of Goodell; he’s the one with power over them, because he’s deliberately delaying reinstating Favre to give them more time and he’s the commish.

Sorry man, I know Packer fans want this to go away in some way, but the Packers simply aren’t in a strong position as you seem to imply.

by TheElusiveShadow on Jul 31, 2008 1:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

We have all the leverage

First things first, just because Brett Favre reports to camp doesn’t mean the Packers have to give him any reps. They could stick him as fourth string on the depth chart and have him hold for Mason Crosby’s field goals if they want to. Obviously, nobody wants it to come to that, but the Packers are under no obligations to give Favre any practice repetitions at quarterback at all. They can easily make the case that they know what Brett Favre is and their primary focus is to get Aaron Rodgers ready for the season and their secondary focus is to evaluate the two rookie QBs they were forced to draft because Brett decided to retire in March. Sorry, Brett, there’s just not enough snaps to go around.

Later in camp, as the season is getting closer and you have a better handle on how Aaron Rodgers is performing, if Brett is still around then you can start working him in to get him ready for the season as a backup.

You’re right – the Packers can’t force a trade on anybody. Maybe you misunderstood what I was suggesting – if Brett Favre doesn’t report to the Jets during the 2008 season, then the 7th round pick would be returned to the Jets at the end of the season. Not that hard – in that scenario, the Jets have nothing to lose and everything to gain. If they can convince Brett Favre to play QB for them, great. If not, they’ve got the same status quo they have now.

As far as the last safety hatch goes – Roger Goodell’s involvement to me indicates that he wants a resolution. Personally, I don’t think it is in the best interests of the league to allow any player, even Brett Favre, to orchestrate a situation where he will accept going to one team and one team only. The Packers have tried to trade him, and he won’t cooperate. Fine. But, there is certainly enough evidence to indicate that the Vikings (and maybe several other teams) had improper contact with Brett Favre before the season and Favre’s behavior indicates that he is trying to hold the Packers hostage to force himself to a division rival. That can’t be allowed to happen – and if the Packers argue it forcefully enough, I think the resolution where Favre is granted his release but is not permitted to sign with Minnesota is a fair compromise.

Otherwise, if I’m Ted Thompson, I tell Roger Goodell that if Favre reports to camp on Friday, he will be practicing as a gunner on the punt coverage team on Saturday morning.

by Packschmid on Jul 31, 2008 2:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd have to disagree

Of course the Packers don’t have to give him any reps. That’s not the issue. The issue is the PR hit they would take and the locker room disruption such a move would cause. If they invited Favre back in and treated him like that, all of their “respectful” words the past few weeks will just go out the window. Veteran players in the locker room and around the league would frown very heavily upon that, not to mention the backlash from fans and media. I think even fans who are siding with Thompson would rip him and McCarthy for such a move. I’d like to hear other Packer fans’ take on that, especially for those that have voiced support for Thompson. I doubt the majority would be okay with paying a legend $12 million just to treat him like a fourth-stringer and to cause a major distraction. So again, the Packers have no leverage here. They most certainly don’t want him to come to camp for any reason, either to simply dump him on the bench or to give him reps. Both scenarios actually represent victories for Favre and defeats for Thompson.

The Jets would likely not do such a thing either. Other teams know the Packers are heading towards a desperate situation. Why would they bail them out like that? The Jets would inherit the media circus without even knowing Favre will play. The Jets could easily sit on their hands and wait for this to play out. And furthermore, you have not explained who would retain Favre’s rights. The Packers? Then they’re right where they began. The Jets, with a possible stipulation that they can’t trade or release him? Why would they agree to such a thing? They’ll be looking for a deal that can truly benefit them, and they know that the Packers are starting to get desperate. If such a trade even happens, I would gather the Jets would not agree to having any sort of restriction of what they can do with Favre’s rights.

I agree with you that Goodell wants a resolution. Where I disagreed was the notion that he wanted one MORE than the Packers. Goodell is not the one under heat here. You do bring up an interesting point about the tampering charges, but if all that happened was that Favre talked to his friend Brad Childress, that’s a far cry from actually proving it. Other than that, I don’t see why Goodell would feel obligated to swoop in and save the situation, and other owners might frown upon his involvement. After all, Favre technically is not proven to have done anything against the rules. He’s asked for his release or a trade, but he hasn’t gotten the former and isn’t satisfied with the latter, so he’s going to report to camp like his contract says he should. The ones crying foul that he’ll show up are the Packers.

I just don’t see how the Packers are in a position of leverage. Again, I’d love to hear other Packer fans take on this, because I do realize that I don’t follow the team as much as you guys.

by TheElusiveShadow on Jul 31, 2008 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you make good points

I don’t have a problem with them paying him $12 million to be a backup. Anything lower than a 2nd string would be unnecessary and spiteful, in my opinion. Giving him no reps is not reasonable either. But regardless of how he plays he will NOT be the starter because the Packers brass have decided that Rodgers will be. That is no different than previous years, its just that the roles have been reversed. If Rodgers played lights out in previous preseasons and Favre played like garbage, it wouldn’t have mattered. Brett would have still been the starter. Its the same as it was before. It was just be an ego swallowing situation for Favre and I understand if he doesn’t want to take that.

I think we can rule out the Jets deal because he wouldn’t report there and then we are back in the same situation. If Favre doesn’t report he is not the Jets property but goes back to the Packers and the Pack has to give back whatever pick they got in return. I don’t see the point in continuing the Jets discussion at all.

Completely agree with you about Goodell. The Pack definitely want a resolution more than anyone else. I don’t care at all about the tampering charges anymore. I’m not happy that Brett was contacting them and I do not buy whatsoever that he was contacting people around the league to ask them whether or not they thought he could play or not. He already knew that he could and what would he expect them to say anyway? Who’s gonna tell him “No way, Brett. You’re washed up” anyway. First of all, after the season he had they would be foolish to say that, and second of all, they are his friends.

I don’t think anyone has leverage at all anymore. The best thing that can happen for anyone is to look the least like a jerk. No winners here anymore.

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

by verno329 on Jul 31, 2008 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can't support Favre

I have a hard time supporting Favre not accepting a trade to the Jets. If you want to play so badly, then what is wrong with the Jets? If what you’re saying is “I want to play, but only for Green Bay or Minnesota”, that is unfair to the franchise and I personally would rather sacrifice the 2008 season than give in to that and let him wear purple. Maybe that’s spiteful, but I think that’s a ridiculous precedent to set.

I think some tough love is in order by the Packers if they are to get what their ultimate goal is – if not Brett Favre’s retirement, then Brett Favre playing football somewhere that is no direct threat to their interests.

I am a huge Brett Favre fan, but I am a Packer fan first – and that’s why I am so frustrated. The compromise solution is right there – a trade to the New York Jets, and he is the one that is shooting it down. I don’t see how anybody can blame Packers management for that.

by Packschmid on Jul 31, 2008 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I, personally, don’t think the Jets are all that good but they are only one year removed from the playoffs and Brett knows from experience how quickly things can turn around. I agree that I can’t support Favre not wanting to go play there, but just as releasing him so he can sign with the Vikes isn’t going to happen, Favre apparently won’t even listen to the Jets overtures. And the Jets certainly aren’t going to wait around and see what happens. They need to have a QB NOW. The longer this goes on the less likely that Brett can play anywhere. Any team that waits until a couple of preseason games to happen before they try to bring in a QB isn’t using their senses. Favre refuses to give the Pack a list of teams that he wants to be traded to. He only wants his release and figures if he humiliates the Pack at every opportunity and acts like an ass that the team will get so sick of him that they will release just to be done with his crap. Thats not the Brett Favre that I know.

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

by verno329 on Jul 31, 2008 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm trying to think of how the Jets could be good next year

and it’s just not coming to me. D’Brickashaw and Darrelle Revis are both nice players, Faneca still has some good years left in him, but Calvin Pace and Bryan Thomas are relatively pedestrian pass rushing linebackers, and Vernon Gholston is probably too young to contribute much yet.
Brett Favre doesn’t think he can win there and he’s right, but beggars shouldn’t be choosers. He wants to play that bad, right?

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey

by jobe on Aug 1, 2008 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree about the Jets

It appears Brett only wants to play for the Packers or the Vikings anyway. And the only reason he wants to play for the Vikings is to stick to the Packers.

My intentions have been to play, and with Green Bay. They say no, so I still want to play in this division for obvious reasons, which I made clear to management. If they won’t let me play in Green Bay, let me play against you. That’s where I am.

If you’re the Vikings do you want a guy who only wants to join your team to be vindictive against his old team?

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

by verno329 on Aug 1, 2008 7:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you’re the Vikings do you want a guy who only wants to join your team to be vindictive against his old team?

From Zygi Wilf after the tampering charges:

“I grew up a New York Giants fan having the rivalry of Philly, Dallas and Washington,” he said. “Those are teams I kind of grew up hating. When I first came here, the Green Bay rivalry was talked about so much but I couldn’t feel it yet. Well, I feel it now.”

Based off of that, I’d say Zygi would want him.

by Robert Rence on Aug 1, 2008 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't seem like it matters now, but...

Did you see the Packers going 13-3 last year? Did you see the Giants winning the Super Bowl? The NFL is predictably unpredictable.

Look, the Jets are probably not going to win the Super Bowl this year with or without Favre. But, you know what, the Minnesota Vikings aren’t winning the Super Bowl this year with or without Favre either.

The Jets have a solid 1-2 combination at running back (with Leon Washington also contributing very strongly to the kick return game), a solid receiving corps, and now have put together a pretty strong line with Faneca filling the void left by Pete Kendall. The defense isn’t the 85 Bears, but it’s not terrible either.

Remember, this team is a year removed from a 10-6 season and a playoff berth, and in the NFL things turn around pretty quickly. Remember, while the Jets play in the same division as the Patriots they also have four low hanging fruit victories in the Bills and Dolphins and also play the NFC West this year, a division that offers such world beaters as the Rams, Niners, and Cardinals.

The Jets, given their talent level and schedule, are in position to make a playoff run, especially if they settle their issues at quarterback.

But, sounds like it’s moot… I would rather have seen Favre in a Jet uniform than slink back into retirement, but I don’t get to make those decisions.

by Packschmid on Aug 1, 2008 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Bills are better than you give them credit for

They have very quietly put together a pretty talented roster, and I could definitely see Donte’ Whitner’s promise coming true and them making the playoffs. They are certainly better than the Jets, at least.

by jobe on Aug 1, 2008 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eh

The Bills are an okay team – they have a potential superstar running back but have nothing else going for them offensively, especially if Jason Peters continues to hold out. They have Lee Evans and nothing else at receiver, and neither of their two QBs is particularly impressive. They are solid defensively and have terrific special teams so they’ll give teams some fits, but it would be a miracle for them to finish over .500.

by Packschmid on Aug 1, 2008 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They were 7-9 the last two years

plus last year they had those two fluky losses to the Broncos and Cowboys so they could have very easily have been 9-7. Don’t forget they traded for Marcus Stroud and from all I’ve read he’s back to being his old self again. With an effective Marcus Stroud that can only help Aaron Schobel get more one-on-ones. Paul Pusluszny is progressing nicely as is Donte’ Whitner. The Bills are clearly the second best team in that division.

by jobe on Aug 2, 2008 4:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

When was the last time they made the playoffs?

The Jets were 10-6 two years ago and 4-12 last year, so that also averages out to 7-9 over two years. The loss to the Cowboys illustrates the problem with the Bills – Tony Romo turned the ball over 5 times that game and the Bills still couldn’t score enough points to win the game!!

The Bills are solid defensively and on special teams but don’t have enough on offense – they basically have three legitimate NFL-quality starters on offense – Lynch, Lee Evans, and Jason Peter, and one of them is holding out…

But, regardless, a Packer blog probably isn’t the best place to argue about who is better between the Jets and Bills…

by Packschmid on Aug 4, 2008 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree to disagree

I guess it ultimately depends on how the Packers really feel about Brett Favre coming to camp. If they truly believe him showing up is the end of the world, then I agree with you that they have very little leverage.

But I don’t see a whole lot of harm in having him show up and putting the deep freeze on him. The Packers can make a pretty fair argument that they know what they have in Brett Favre and they don’t need to see him get a lot of reps at quarterback, especially if their position hasn’t changed at all about Rodgers being the starter. Obviously, training camp reps are in limited supply and the primary focus needs to be on Rodgers getting ready for the season, and the secondary focus is evaluating the two rookie quarterbacks who are only on the roster due to Favre’s premature retirement.

In fact, the only reason Aaron Rodgers is on the team at all is because Favre couldn’t decide whether he wanted to play THREE YEARS AGO.

Limiting Favre’s practice reps may or may not be unpopular – but there really aren’t that many veterans on this team. Donald Driver, the two corners, and the two tackles – that’s about it – and I suspect they’ll all still do their jobs to the best of their ability regardless of how many snaps Brett Favre takes in camp.

It may also be a distraction to Aaron Rodgers – but if he can’t handle this, then he’s not cut out to be a starting quarterback in the NFL anyway.

Ultimately, if the Packers can stomach having Brett Favre in camp and not wavering from their belief in Rodgers as a starting quarterback, then the leverage shifts back to their side. If Favre wants to PLAY, then he will have to be more receptive to Green Bay’s choice of trade partners.

If they can’t stomach him being in camp, then they have to at least try to broker the solutions that I have proposed – a bargain basement Jake Plummer type trade with the Jets, a trade to the Bears, or a Roger Goodell compromise.

by Packschmid on Jul 31, 2008 4:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

monopoly exclusionism

Favre shouldn’t be bribed not to play. It is absurd that a league that should be built on competition and excellence in play should be encouraging a franchise to pay money to keep an excellent QB from playing. That is bad for the league, and it doesn’t teach any lesson worth teaching. If the Packers are so sure Favre is washed up, release him. If they aren’t, then why not let him compete for the job? This is hypocrisy. When a player takes a bribe on the field not to play, that is terrible. But there is something similar in a player taking money not to play, in that it withdraws from the game decisive factors of excellence that ought to be present. Competition and excellence should always trump parochial franchise interests.

by alan1 on Aug 2, 2008 12:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

No one on the Packers has ever said that they believe Brett is washed up, they said that they have moved forward with Aaron Rodgers as the starting QB. They made this decision after Brett retired and after he told them he was going to unretire at the end of March, only to change his mind again. Rodgers went through all of the minicamps and OTA’s as the starting QB. The Packers have made the decision that he is their starter. There is no competition in their eyes, just as if Rodgers had outplayed Favre in previous preseasons and training camps it wouldn’t have mattered because Brett was the starter. How is that hypocrisy? You can not like their decision to move forward all you want but that doesn’t make it hypocritical.

As for releasing him, why should the Packers do that? I quote Packschmid:

If Favre wants to PLAY, then he will have to be more receptive to Green Bay’s choice of trade partners.

He doesn’t have the ability to completely dictate where he wants to go. No player in the league should have that power or Chad Johnson wouldn’t still be on the Bengals right now. Brett doesn’t want to just PLAY, he wants to either play for the Packers (not an option according to mgmt) or stick it to the Packers. Thats not exactly a very mature attitude is it?

I’ve always thought that Brett retired in March because he thought it would be easier to retire and come back than it would be to say he was gonna play and then retire in June or July if he wasn’t ready to play. Everyone knew that Brett could never make a decision and stand by it as afar as retirement goes in March. He said himself that he could have just said “yeah I’m ready to go and just faked it and no one would have known” but I think he knew that if he tried that and decided in June or July that he couldn’t do it he would be hurting the franchise. So he chose the option of retiring thinking that if he chose to come back everyone would bow down and thank the heavens that Brett freakin Favre had come back. When that didn’t happen, he was hurt and now wants revenge by playing for the Vikings. If he really just wanted to play for the love of the game, as we’ve been told countless times that he does over the years, then he would be willing to look outside of the division for a team that was compatible. He does not want to play now unless it can inflict the most damage on the team and fans that he says he loves.

The Packers have handled this poorly, no doubt. But Brett is no angel in this. He seems to have very parochial (to use your choice of words) interests in this as well. That can’t be denied either.

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

by verno329 on Aug 2, 2008 8:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Former Packers (now Vikings) speculate about Favre

From this morning’s Minneapolis Star Tribune
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/26198379.html

The article includes this from Ryan Longwell, referring to the Marketing offer:

“Brett is one of the icons of the franchise, but at the same time I played with Reggie White, who was an icon of the Packers franchise, too, and they let him go. He played at Carolina his last year. So, totally big-name, big-icon guys and two totally different approaches to the end of their careers.”

And this from Darren Sharper:

“I still don’t think he’s going to do that,” Sharper said. “I think if he does it’s because it’s the only option. They are saying either you do this or you come back and you’re going to be a backup or you might not be able to play for us at all. I never knew you could hold a player hostage who just wants to play football, but I’m finding out something new.”

May the wind be always at your back, and may your placekicker have icewater in his veins.

by juperee on Aug 2, 2008 1:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs