Speak up, Packers, if you don't want Favre

[packers11]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?id=3475850&sportCat=nfl




Speak up, Packers, if you don't want Favre

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Gene Wojciechowski
ESPN.com

Did Green Bay Packers management get dropped on its head as an infant? Tumble down a long row of Lambeau Field concrete steps? Suffer a series of second-degree concussions?

If not, there needs to be a shareholders meeting of the only fan-owned team in the NFL. Somebody needs to ask general manager Ted Thompson why he's gone underground on this Brett Favre un-retirement thing.


So far, the Packers' PR department has issued a "The Packers have no reaction." And Thompson, who wouldn't interrupt his vacation to comment, has been as useful as a grand piano in a marching band. But, of course, his silence says everything.

Thompson doesn't want Favre back. Not now. Not after Favre's official "It's over" announcement. Not after backup Aaron Rodgers was handed the car keys for the minicamps and OTAs (organized team activities). And not after Thompson dropped Favre from the 80-man roster and then drafted two other quarterbacks.

It all makes sense until you ask a simple, essential question: "Is my team better or worse with Brett Favre at quarterback?"

That's it. Nothing else should matter. Thompson's job is to construct the best possible Packers roster. And if he thinks Rodgers is better than Favre, then Thompson needs to submit his resignation yesterday.

Favre's agent, Bus Cook, called this scenario more than four months ago. He told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that Thompson did "nothing" to encourage Favre to continue playing.

That could mean two things: Thompson respected Favre's decision, or Thompson wanted to staple gun Favre's name to the NFL retirement list. I'm going with the staple gun plot.

When it comes to football, Favre is a grown kid. He played like a kid. He retired like a kid, all gooey, tearful and conflicted. He said he was retired, "but I know I can still play."

So the Packers closed the book on the Favre era, even though they should have known better. Check that. Packers coach Mike McCarthy knew better (he predicted Favre's "itch" to return), but Thompson didn't. Or didn't want to.

Thompson ought to be in Hattiesburg, Miss., right now, asking ... no, begging Favre to return. Whatever it takes -- ride shotgun on Favre's tractor, wear Wrangler jeans, spring for the worms at the local bait and tackle store -- Thompson should do it.

This can't be about agendas, egos, strategic plans, salary caps or Rodgers. If Favre had done what everyone expected him to do earlier this year -- announce he was coming back in 2009 -- Rodgers still would be on the bench. And anyway, if the Packers are so thrilled with Rodgers' potential, why exactly did they draft Brian Brohm in the second round and Matt Flynn in the seventh?

Favre is a living, breathing soap opera, but in a good way. We all know this. He's playing ... he's retiring. Playing ... retiring. What else is new? He waffles. But when you're just 38, and you can still throw the ball through sheet metal, and your team is good enough to make a long playoff run, well, waffling is an acceptable emotion. He was weary in March, now he's not. It happens.

Ignore for the moment that Favre is a three-time MVP, a nine-time Pro Bowler, owns a Super Bowl ring along with just about every meaningful passing record, and is coming off a 4,000-plus-yard/28-touchdown season. Instead, stay in the present.

The only NFL quarterbacks better than Favre right now are:

Tom Brady. Peyton Manning. And, uh ...

See what I mean? There are 32 teams, and Brady and Manning are the only two QBs you can absolutely, positively say are superior to Favre. And just to be polite, I'll add Ben Roethlisberger, Carson Palmer, Donovan McNabb, Matt Hasselbeck, Drew Brees and David Garrard to the mix.

That's eight. Maybe.

So there are at least 24 other teams, including the Packers, who have starting quarterbacks less desirable than Favre. Again, nothing against Rodgers, who finds himself between a rock and a legacy, but if the goal is to win as many games as possible, Thompson has to embrace Favre's possible return.

On the flip side, Favre owes it to the Packers to publicly announce his intentions. Back-channeling is nice, but the secret is out on this one. So release a statement, whatever, and tell everyone what you want to do. No more vague, half-denials.

Look, Michael Jordan retired three times before it stuck. It didn't make him any less of a legend, any less of a Chicago Bulls icon. His career was defined by what he did in that uniform, not by what he did with the Birmingham Barons or Washington Wizards.

The same goes for Favre. If the Packers don't want him in 2009, or if Favre doesn't want the Packers, it doesn't lessen the bond between him and Green Bay's fans. That relationship is as tight as a green and gold square knot.

A season or two of Favre in some other team's uni would be weird, but not unprecedented. Joe Montana finished his career with the Kansas City Chiefs, but in the end, he will forever be known as a San Francisco 49er. Favre and the Packers are also joined at the chin strap.

The Packers' training camp begins July 28. Between now and then, Thompson needs to understand there are worse things than having Favre as Green Bay's starting quarterback.

Like, not having Favre as Green Bay's starting quarterback.

[GoPackGo]

Oh to be a fly on the wall in Ted Thompson's office and Brett Favre's kitchen.........

[The Leaper]

I agree 100% with the article...and I think Gene must be channeling me, since he's copied several of the items I've been saying for the past few days. Bastard.

[Packnut]

Great article IMO. It really states the whole scenario as it is. I cannot understand the mentality of some here who believe it's better to give Rodgers his year or 2 of game experience at the cost of winning now.

If you examine the history of the game, all the odds are against us for several reasons with the key one being the injury thing. Never have 2 consecutive good QB's for a team escaped the severe injury bug. We all know the law of averages and only a fool would believe it is not a significant factor in Rodgers taking over.

What I find even more perplexing, is this "play for the future" attitude. I got news for ya, the future is now with FAVRE. I seriously doubt even the strongest Rodgers/TT supporter in this forum could make a sound logical case of how we would have a better chance this season at a SB with Rodgers than Favre. NO FREAKIN WAY!

The reason you cannot worry about anything else other than winning this season is because getting to the big dance is a very fragile concept in today's NFL. To many things can go wrong.

For example: Let's say TT does'nt let Brett back. Ok, so Rodgers is thrown into the fire. No one can argue that he is'nt going to have his growing pains. There is no substitute for game experience and we all know that. So now A-Rod gains his experience and the 2010 season comes. Well, with the upcoming labor dispute, can we really count on anything?

Let's also say for the sake of argument cooler heads prevail and these idiots don't cut their own throat. What happens if in the first game of the 2010 season Grant blows out a knee? Or Jennings gets hurt? Clifton retires and now Rodgers blind spot is not as secure as before?

My point being to many damn things can happen. When your chance comes around to win, you'd better grab it cause it might not come again for a long time. Thompson and Favre need to settle this shit now once and for all.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Oh to be a fly on the wall in Ted Thompson's office and Brett Favre's kitchen.........

i bet there's much more for a fly to eat in Favre's kitchen. TT seems like a very tidy guy, I bet he packs his sandwhich in tupperware every morning, never leaves any crumbs on his desk.

[The Leaper]

I cannot understand the mentality of some here who believe it's better to give Rodgers his year or 2 of game experience at the cost of winning now.

I can't either. Some on here seem convinced that the team won't miss a beat without Favre. I can't agree with that logic.

I also can't agree with the attitude that Favre's dumbass handling of his retirement in some way should negate his ability to have a desire to play now. You might disagree with how Favre handled this...I'm guessing most would...but Favre is still under contract with Green Bay and has every right to change his mind and play if he is willing.

Like Gene said...had Favre said he was coming back in March, he'd be the unquestioned starting QB right now. All these "tell Favre to stuff it" fans would be talking about how Green Bay was a title contender because Favre was going to put on a repeat performance in 2008. Now they want him to stay away...because it will fuck the team up? What?

[The Shadow]

Rodgers is a #1 pick who has gained valuable experience with McCarthy's offense.
Time for him to begin the job he was drafted for.

[Gunakor]

I cannot understand the mentality of some here who believe it's better to give Rodgers his year or 2 of game experience at the cost of winning now.

I can't either. Some on here seem convinced that the team won't miss a beat without Favre. I can't agree with that logic.

I also can't agree with the attitude that Favre's dumbass handling of his retirement in some way should negate his ability to have a desire to play now. You might disagree with how Favre handled this...I'm guessing most would...but Favre is still under contract with Green Bay and has every right to change his mind and play if he is willing.

Like Gene said...had Favre said he was coming back in March, he'd be the unquestioned starting QB right now. All these "tell Favre to stuff it" fans would be talking about how Green Bay was a title contender because Favre was going to put on a repeat performance in 2008. Now they want him to stay away...because it will fuck the team up? What?


You are absolutely right. If Favre had said he was coming back in March it would be different. But Favre said he was done. He said he didn't want to do it anymore. And the team moved on. FFS if we brought him back and let him start this season, what do we do next year when he as another teary press conference where he re-retires for a couple months and then comes back next July pulling this same crap on the Packers? Eventually, we HAVE to move on. Why not now, especially since Favre's replacement is absolutely READY to play now?

If Favre starts this year I can almost guarantee that Rodgers demands a trade to somewhere he'll actually have a shot at playing. Then what do we do? Brian Brohm isn't nearly as ready to play in the NFL as Rodgers is. If Favre calls it quits for good next year and we don't have an Aaron Rodgers to take over for him we're fucked at QB. That's not only possible, it's very likely. So, is that worth bringing an 80% committed Favre back for a potential SB run in 2008? If we don't win the SB is it still worth it?

[Scott Campbell]

The Packers are a better team this year with Favre at the helm than without him at the helm. No question. And I say that reluctantly because I was ready to move on. I think this will retard Aaron's long term growth, though he can recover. But maybe not with the Packers.

[Pacopete4]

[/quote]So, is that worth bringing an 80% committed Favre back for a potential SB run in 2008? If we don't win the SB is it still worth it?[/quote]


yes.

[Scott Campbell]

I also can't agree with the attitude that Favre's dumbass handling of his retirement in some way should negate his ability to have a desire to play now.



I think it's reasonable to question the guys desire seeing that he's been so damned wishy washy on playing. Its no wonder he looked so uncomfortable on Letterman.

[bobblehead]

If brett attended OTA's and mini's like MM and TT wanted him to instead of retiring they would welcome him back. One of the biggest rifts between them and favre is that he didn't want to put in the time necessary to win.

Now that he has artfully avoided putting in a bunch of time that MM had required of him in the past he wants back in. I wouldn't let him. It sends a horrible message. It ruins the direction EVERYONE is heading in. It sets you up for the same shit next year. If you allow this you might as well tell him he doesn't need to do anything next offseason either and please let us know right before TC breaks if you will be there or not. Sorry, I have moved on. I wanted him back after last season, but not now.

[Gunakor]

So, is that worth bringing an 80% committed Favre back for a potential SB run in 2008? If we don't win the SB is it still worth it?[/quote]


yes.[/quote]


Really Pacopete? If we don't have a legitimate QB next year, maybe the next several years, it would still be worth it? We have a legitimate QB to replace him right now, but if he walks then we don't have a replacement...


By the way, NFLN is reporting that the Packers front office is really considering bringing Favre back to start this year. So all of you guys clammoring to bring Favre back just might get your wish. We'll see about Rodgers, but hopefully he won't demand out of Green Bay. Brohm isn't gonna be ready next year. Rodgers is ready THIS year. So we'll see. But if I know anything for certain, it's that Favre isn't going to give a 2 year committment if he does come back. He'll come play this year and then play the wait and see game again next spring. That isn't good for the Packers...

[The Leaper]

You are absolutely right. If Favre had said he was coming back in March it would be different. But Favre said he was done. He said he didn't want to do it anymore. And the team moved on. FFS if we brought him back and let him start this season, what do we do next year when he as another teary press conference where he re-retires for a couple months and then comes back next July pulling this same crap on the Packers? Eventually, we HAVE to move on. Why not now, especially since Favre's replacement is absolutely READY to play now?

I can understand part of that logic. I've argued that if Favre comes back, I would prefer that it was under the agreement that this would be his final year...a last hurrah knowing all the pieces are in place, which INCLUDES a capable backup that can spell Favre and keep him fresh for a postseason run.


If Favre starts this year I can almost guarantee that Rodgers demands a trade to somewhere he'll actually have a shot at playing. Then what do we do? Brian Brohm isn't nearly as ready to play in the NFL as Rodgers is. If Favre calls it quits for good next year and we don't have an Aaron Rodgers to take over for him we're fucked at QB.

I disagree with this logic. Exactly what power does Rodgers hold in this situation? He's under contract through 2009, and the Packers certainly don't have to move him if they don't want to. If Favre comes back for one more year, Rodgers can still start in 2009. Now, I admit that this scenario doesn't give Green Bay a full 2 years to evaluate Rodgers, and it is likely Rodgers could bolt Green Bay after 2009 as a free agent. However, if Favre returns for one more year, I see no reason to assume that that Rodgers won't be the QB in 2009. By 2010...who the hell knows?

People have become spoiled by Favre. They expect Rodgers to have another 15 year career of excellence. The truth is that few NFL QBs pan out...and even those who do usually don't last much more than 4 or 5 years.

Having a chance at a title is EXTREMELY rare...and Green Bay with Favre has that chance. You can argue that his postseason success is minimal in recent years, but that doesn't change the fact that he still brings Green Bay the FAR greater chance at a SB title in 2008.

Isn't that why you take the field in the first place?

[twoseven]

Great article, both Favre and TT need to stop playing fucking games and get it all out on the table.

[Packerarcher]

I just don't understand how some of you think Rodgers is the QB to win with. He is a frickin puss,plus all he really has is fair mobility. Favre is the way to win you guys want to win don't you. Go ahead and back a injury prone QB that is a prick to the fans.

[billy_oliver880]

I just don't understand how some of you think Rodgers is the QB to win with. He is a frickin puss,plus all he really has is fair mobility. Favre is the way to win you guys want to win don't you. Go ahead and back a injury prone QB that is a prick to the fans.

Tell us how you really feel.

I think the packers just don't want to deal with the see sawing that favre does every off season. Talk is cheap. Once camp starts we will know what is going on.

[Fred's Slacks]

I just don't understand how some of you think Rodgers is the QB to win with. He is a frickin puss,plus all he really has is fair mobility. Favre is the way to win you guys want to win don't you. Go ahead and back a injury prone QB that is a prick to the fans.

Come on now. You can call him injury prone but puss? Seriously? Being injury prone and being soft are two completely different things. The guy played with a broken foot. Rodgers is not soft. He maybe injury prone, but he's not soft.

[MJZiggy]

I agree 100% with the article...and I think Gene must be channeling me, since he's copied several of the items I've been saying for the past few days. Bastard.

The man is quoting what Thompson "would have said" because he didn't say anything. Maybe Thompson didn't say anything because Favre didn't say anything...Either way, you can't deduct what he would have said from silence. That's just stupid.

Damn, he dropped Favre from the 80-man roster after he retired. The BASTARD!!

Why would Thompson go back to Hattiesburg? Rumor has it he was just there a couple weeks ago...

God I hate national media!!

[DannoMac21]

So, is that worth bringing an 80% committed Favre back for a potential SB run in 2008? If we don't win the SB is it still worth it?[/quote]


yes.[/quote]

Really? How so? Please do elaborate. Let's think about this for a second.

We bring Favre back. We lose in the Playoffs. Rodgers becomes unhappy and asks for a trade. Packers give in and trade him, or we wait until he becomes a free agent. Rodgers becomes a stud, and we're left with a falling prospect in Brohm. That's worth it? Awesome!

[Pacopete4]

So, is that worth bringing an 80% committed Favre back for a potential SB run in 2008? If we don't win the SB is it still worth it?


yes.[/quote]

Really? How so? Please do elaborate. Let's think about this for a second.

We bring Favre back. We lose in the Playoffs. Rodgers becomes unhappy and asks for a trade. Packers give in and trade him, or we wait until he becomes a free agent. Rodgers becomes a stud, and we're left with a falling prospect in Brohm. That's worth it? Awesome![/quote]


I will save you the time of reading all of the reasons why Favre is superior to anything Rodgers is now or will be but the reason it is worth it is that NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING is ever guaranteed in sports.. there is not one guaranteed Rodgers is ever any good at all... but there is one that Favre is a HOF QB and may be the best we'll ever have... now if you don't want to take a shot with the best player the packers may ever have, then I don't know what the hells wrong with u... and on the fact of, if we have a QB of the future or not... well isn't that why we drafted Brohm in the 2nd round? It's not like he was drafted that much lower than Rodgers was in his draft... I just cannot believe the number of idiots that wouldn't roll with one of the best players that you may ever see...

[Pacopete4]

By the way, NFLN is reporting that the Packers front office is really considering bringing Favre back to start this year.


could you post something where it says that.. I only wish that charter communications would get the NFLN... thanks

[MJZiggy]

And could you let us know who from the Packer organization said this? The unnamed sources and unsubstantiated rumors are getting out of control.

[Joemailman]

And could you let us know who from the Packer organization said this? The unnamed sources and unsubstantiated rumors are getting out of control.

It was Ted Thompson's brother's friend's high school wrestling coach.

[Scott Campbell]

And could you let us know who from the Packer organization said this? The unnamed sources and unsubstantiated rumors are getting out of control.

It was Ted Thompson's brother's friend's high school wrestling coach.


Wow. Right from the top.

[MJZiggy]

Thanks, I'm glad we've cleared that up. Wait a minute, why is it the Packers' job to announce whether they want him if Favre hasn't applied for reinstatement? The Packers don't have to do shit right now. Favre is still retired until he indicates otherwise.

Notice how neither Favre nor the Packers have commented on this story in days (well to be fair, the Packers haven't commented on it since March) and yet it spins wilder and wilder, further out of control??? I wonder how that happens...

[retailguy]

And could you let us know who from the Packer organization said this? The unnamed sources and unsubstantiated rumors are getting out of control.

It was Ted Thompson's brother's friend's high school wrestling coach.


Was he buying a new Chevy from Van Boxtel Ford at the time too? :wink:

[GoPackGo]

Thanks, I'm glad we've cleared that up. Wait a minute, why is it the Packers' job to announce whether they want him if Favre hasn't applied for reinstatement? The Packers don't have to do shit right now. Favre is still retired until he indicates otherwise.

Notice how neither Favre nor the Packers have commented on this story in days (well to be fair, the Packers haven't commented on it since March) and yet it spins wilder and wilder, further out of control??? I wonder how that happens...

Bus Cook and ESPN are the ones spinning it

[Guiness]

Really? How so? Please do elaborate. Let's think about this for a second.

We bring Favre back. We lose in the Playoffs. Rodgers becomes unhappy and asks for a trade. Packers give in and trade him, or we wait until he becomes a free agent. Rodgers becomes a stud, and we're left with a falling prospect in Brohm. That's worth it? Awesome!

And what was Rodgers? Oh ya, a falling prospect 3 yrs ago.

Look, I doubt anyone likes the way Favre has handled this, but the truth is it looks like we've got a shot now, and we'd be daft not to take it. I agree that the team is young, and we should be good for a while, but this is the NFL, and shit happens.

I think Rodgers has a better shot than most at being a good QB in the NFL. He's been able to learn the game properly (I always thought the ways rookie QB's are thrown in is suicidal, and the reason for the high failure rate) but he's still what he is - a first year starter. And the truth is, we just can't be sure what we've got at this point.

Much is made about the thought if Favre is back, Rodgers hits the trail. That probably leaves us with Brohm. Who knows. It seems to have taken Rodgers 3yrs to mature. It might take Brohm that long, which means if he gets thrown in after one year on then bench it'll be trouble, but he may also pick it up well enough to be 'the guy' next year.

[mmmdk]

Great article, both Favre and TT need to stop playing fucking games and get it all out on the table.

I agree. Favre retired in march and should stay retired though; I wanted Favre to come back, post-retirement but what done is done. Just an opinion.

Note: I'm getting an eerie feeling about this upcoming season and it ain't thoughts of championships.

[DannoMac21]

Boy, if this happens, that potential Moss for Rodgers trade a year ago would be looking pretty good right now. Unbelievable.