Tom Silverstein's take

[GoPackGo]

Well put Tom


http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/2008/07/11/why-the-packers-won-t-take-favre-back.aspx#comments

Why the Packers won't take Favre back
By Tom Silverstein
Friday, Jul 11 2008, 05:48 PM

A lot of people are wondering what is the Packers' rationale in not allowing Brett Favre to return to the team.

Neither general manager Ted Thompson nor coach Mike McCarthy have addressed this issue (even though they need to immediately).

But two sources, one familiar with Thompson and the other with McCarthy, described the thought process as they understood it.

First and foremost, Thompson took Favre at his word that when he announced his retirement that he was finished. There's no question Thompson could have done more to get Favre to come back, but he couldn't wait until June for an answer and he didn't think he needed to talk Favre into playing if he didn't want to.

Still, what would be the harm in letting Favre change his mind and come back for another season? After all, he was one bad throw away from going to the Super Bowl, and chances are the team will be better this year than last year.

According to one of the sources, Thompson has done more than he has let on in regard to giving Favre the opportunity to return. He said Thompson won't reveal those attempts publicly because he doesn't think it's necessary. He said he did not think it was his place to reveal them either.

Apparently, however, one of those instances occurred in late March and early April. According to FOXSports.com, Thompson and McCarthy received word Favre wanted to return, and decided they would be open to the idea. However, a couple of days before they were to meet with Favre to finalize his return, Favre called them and told them he had changed his mind.

As one of the sources said, Thompson sees things in very black and white terms and if he tells someone he'll meet them for lunch at noon or will lend them $50 or or will count every shot on the golf course, he's resolute about doing it. As a player, he fought every season to make the Houston Oilers roster and when his career was over it wasn't by his choice. In his mind, you either want to play or you don't.

Thompson has had a very hard time dealing with Favre's indecision over the past three years, in part because of his NFL background and in part because he doesn't think any one player should be held above the team. He has acknowledged that Favre deserves special consideration because of his status, but he refuses to bend too far for fear that the atmosphere will start to slide back to what it was under Mike Sherman when Favre basically had his way on everything.

Beyond the constant waffling, there are other factors involved.

According to one of the sources, if Favre comes back, the Packers will lose Aaron Rodgers, Favre's presumptive successor, for good. There is no way after three years as a backup and a fourth as a spurned starter, that he will re-sign with the Packers when his contract is up after 2009. His spirit will be broken and his bitterness will be hard to deny.

The Packers will have wasted three years of grooming a quarterback and have only rookies Brian Brohm and Matt Flynn as possible successors. There are no guarantees that Rodgers will be as successful as Favre was last year, but there's also no guarantee that Favre will be as good as he was last year either.

As is the case with most rookie quarterbacks these days, it takes two or three years to develop into a reliable starter. Most NFL insiders have said that Rodgers' situation has been ideal and gives him the best chance to succeed because he wasn't thrown into the fire. There is still plenty of uncertainty about Rodgers and whether he's equipped to be a successful NFL starter, especially where durability is concerned, but the Packers seem sold on him completely.

And there is also the undeniable fact that Favre faltered in the cold and was outplayed by Kyle Orton and Eli Manning in severe weather conditions. Those might have been aberrations, but they certainly are something to consider.

There are also some of the statements Favre made at his retirement press conference that would scare most coaches and general managers, most notably those about being burned out and questioning whether the pressure was getting to him. If Favre was burned out as late as April and hasn't been working out the way he did in recent years, there may be reason to worry about him getting burned out or physically tired during the season.

Thompson's philosophy since becoming general manager in 2005 has been to create an atmosphere of equality and brotherhood in the locker room. When he got there, coach Mike Sherman had created a situation where Favre was given latitude no other player was given. Understandably, he deserved most of it, but his absence from mini-camps and off-season workouts was setting a poor example for the rest of the team.

Both Thompson and McCarthy fought hard to change the dynamics in the locker room and began to demand more accountability from Favre and other veterans. That push and pull to create more of an equal state in the locker room created an undercurrent of tension between Thompson and Favre, who were in different stages of their careers (Thompson at the start of his, Favre at the end of his).

[The Shadow]

Well put Tom


http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/2008/07/11/why-the-packers-won-t-take-favre-back.aspx#comments

Why the Packers won't take Favre back
By Tom Silverstein
Friday, Jul 11 2008, 05:48 PM

A lot of people are wondering what is the Packers' rationale in not allowing Brett Favre to return to the team.

Neither general manager Ted Thompson nor coach Mike McCarthy have addressed this issue (even though they need to immediately).

But two sources, one familiar with Thompson and the other with McCarthy, described the thought process as they understood it.

First and foremost, Thompson took Favre at his word that when he announced his retirement that he was finished. There's no question Thompson could have done more to get Favre to come back, but he couldn't wait until June for an answer and he didn't think he needed to talk Favre into playing if he didn't want to.

Still, what would be the harm in letting Favre change his mind and come back for another season? After all, he was one bad throw away from going to the Super Bowl, and chances are the team will be better this year than last year.

According to one of the sources, Thompson has done more than he has let on in regard to giving Favre the opportunity to return. He said Thompson won't reveal those attempts publicly because he doesn't think it's necessary. He said he did not think it was his place to reveal them either.

Apparently, however, one of those instances occurred in late March and early April. According to FOXSports.com, Thompson and McCarthy received word Favre wanted to return, and decided they would be open to the idea. However, a couple of days before they were to meet with Favre to finalize his return, Favre called them and told them he had changed his mind.

As one of the sources said, Thompson sees things in very black and white terms and if he tells someone he'll meet them for lunch at noon or will lend them $50 or or will count every shot on the golf course, he's resolute about doing it. As a player, he fought every season to make the Houston Oilers roster and when his career was over it wasn't by his choice. In his mind, you either want to play or you don't.

Thompson has had a very hard time dealing with Favre's indecision over the past three years, in part because of his NFL background and in part because he doesn't think any one player should be held above the team. He has acknowledged that Favre deserves special consideration because of his status, but he refuses to bend too far for fear that the atmosphere will start to slide back to what it was under Mike Sherman when Favre basically had his way on everything.

Beyond the constant waffling, there are other factors involved.

According to one of the sources, if Favre comes back, the Packers will lose Aaron Rodgers, Favre's presumptive successor, for good. There is no way after three years as a backup and a fourth as a spurned starter, that he will re-sign with the Packers when his contract is up after 2009. His spirit will be broken and his bitterness will be hard to deny.

The Packers will have wasted three years of grooming a quarterback and have only rookies Brian Brohm and Matt Flynn as possible successors. There are no guarantees that Rodgers will be as successful as Favre was last year, but there's also no guarantee that Favre will be as good as he was last year either.

As is the case with most rookie quarterbacks these days, it takes two or three years to develop into a reliable starter. Most NFL insiders have said that Rodgers' situation has been ideal and gives him the best chance to succeed because he wasn't thrown into the fire. There is still plenty of uncertainty about Rodgers and whether he's equipped to be a successful NFL starter, especially where durability is concerned, but the Packers seem sold on him completely.

And there is also the undeniable fact that Favre faltered in the cold and was outplayed by Kyle Orton and Eli Manning in severe weather conditions. Those might have been aberrations, but they certainly are something to consider.

There are also some of the statements Favre made at his retirement press conference that would scare most coaches and general managers, most notably those about being burned out and questioning whether the pressure was getting to him. If Favre was burned out as late as April and hasn't been working out the way he did in recent years, there may be reason to worry about him getting burned out or physically tired during the season.

Thompson's philosophy since becoming general manager in 2005 has been to create an atmosphere of equality and brotherhood in the locker room. When he got there, coach Mike Sherman had created a situation where Favre was given latitude no other player was given. Understandably, he deserved most of it, but his absence from mini-camps and off-season workouts was setting a poor example for the rest of the team.

Both Thompson and McCarthy fought hard to change the dynamics in the locker room and began to demand more accountability from Favre and other veterans. That push and pull to create more of an equal state in the locker room created an undercurrent of tension between Thompson and Favre, who were in different stages of their careers (Thompson at the start of his, Favre at the end of his).

Great article.

[RashanGary]

Wow. That was orgasmic.

Really.

[channtheman]

Very good article. Thompson did enough to have Favre back and was going to have a press conference announcing his un-retirement. Favre backed out, not Thompson.

[GoPackGo]

Wow. That was orgasmic.

Really.

Ever tried pussy? :rs:

my apologies to the 3 female rats

[RashanGary]

Great reasoning too. I love the emphasis that Thompson puts on football guys, guys who want to be there and guys who love everything football. I have a really good feeling about this season. The Packers have been doing the right thing for three years in a row now. I see no reason to think the trend will change.

[The Shadow]

Great reasoning too. I love the emphasis that Thompson puts on football guys, guys who want to be there and guys who love everything football. I have a really good feeling about this season. The Packers have been doing the right thing for three years in a row now. I see no reason to think the trend will change.


I'll second that.

[The Leaper]

This article makes sense. So why doesn't Thompson come out and say the same thing? Why is he such a pussy?

The scary thing here for me is that if Thompson is truly calling Favre's bluff, and Favre shows his cards (i.e. comes to camp on July 27th), the media circus is not going to be good for Rodgers.

How can Favre come to camp and be the backup? Does that mean he would not even be given a chance to start? What happens if Rodgers plays like crap in the first 3 games?

This isn't going to turn out well no matter how it plays out IMO.

[The Shadow]

This article makes sense. So why doesn't Thompson come out and say the same thing? Why is he such a pussy?

The scary thing here for me is that if Thompson is truly calling Favre's bluff, and Favre shows his cards (i.e. comes to camp on July 27th), the media circus is not going to be good for Rodgers.

How can Favre come to camp and be the backup? Does that mean he would not even be given a chance to start? What happens if Rodgers plays like crap in the first 3 games?

This isn't going to turn out well no matter how it plays out IMO.

Favre's ego would never go for being less than the big star.

[RashanGary]

I don't know, Leaper. The Packers can keep control of him until the day before the season starts and they can just tell him to stay home. He can have a training camp off. I doubt too many teams will be as interested if they can't get a TC to get him up to speed on a whole new offense.

It's not going to end up bad for the Packers. The Packers have a lot of leverage. I initially thought Favre had it, but some other rats showed me the light. The Packers will get something for him and it will be from a team of their choice. Mark it down.

[GoPackGo]

This really shows how Favre has gone from everyone's hero to everyone's hemroid doesn't it?

[Packerarcher]

Who gives a fuck if they lose Rodgers,TT can't have as much faith in him as he proclaims or he would not have drafted two QB's. I said it before TT fucks this up and good luck getting ANYBODY to sign with the Pack. He will coe across as the egotistical prick that drove the legend out of Green Bay. It doesn't even matter if he did,players will have thier preconcieved ideas alredy.

[pbmax]

Thompson alluded to this once, about what he felt were proper reasons to put something in the paper. Basically, he thought most information regarding players, their salaries, their contracts and standing should be private. He wasn't taking a stance of opposing NFL rules on media access, but it was clear he had a preference for leaving things OUT of the paper.

This has always reminded me of a quote that I think originated during the Civil War. A Southern gentleman is being questioned about something or other that has happened and he uniformly refuses to comment and is quite clearly affronted. Asked to explain, he states: "The only acceptable times for a gentleman to see his name in a paper are in the case of his birth, his marriage or his death."


This article makes sense. So why doesn't Thompson come out and say the same thing? Why is he such a pussy?

The scary thing here for me is that if Thompson is truly calling Favre's bluff, and Favre shows his cards (i.e. comes to camp on July 27th), the media circus is not going to be good for Rodgers.

How can Favre come to camp and be the backup? Does that mean he would not even be given a chance to start? What happens if Rodgers plays like crap in the first 3 games?

This isn't going to turn out well no matter how it plays out IMO.

[The Leaper]

Favre's ego would never go for being less than the big star.

I'm guessing you are right...and that is what I've maintained all along. The Packers are hoping to drive Favre into retirement permanently...and by reducing his options to retirement or backup, it seems fairly cut or dry for Mr. Favre.

However, my question was a what-if scenario. I realize Favre isn't likely to come back as a backup...but what happens if he does? Is that something Thompson is prepared to deal with? That could turn the 2008 season into a nightmare.

[3irty1]

Favre's ego would never go for being less than the big star.

I'm guessing you are right...and that is what I've maintained all along. The Packers are hoping to drive Favre into retirement permanently...and by reducing his options to retirement or backup, it seems fairly cut or dry for Mr. Favre.

However, my question was a what-if scenario. I realize Favre isn't likely to come back as a backup...but what happens if he does? Is that something Thompson is prepared to deal with? That could turn the 2008 season into a nightmare.

More importantly that puts Rodgers in a nightmare situation.

[The Shadow]

Who gives a fuck if they lose Rodgers,TT can't have as much faith in him as he proclaims or he would not have drafted two QB's. I said it before TT fucks this up and good luck getting ANYBODY to sign with the Pack. He will coe across as the egotistical prick that drove the legend out of Green Bay. It doesn't even matter if he did,players will have thier preconcieved ideas alredy.


THOMPSON is the egotistical prick in this little Passion Play?????????

[sheepshead]

That's the best thing I have read in this whole ball of snakes. Nice find and a nice article. I love Favre to death but I think it's time. TT has an $800 million franchise to run. Time to make some tough calls.

[The Leaper]

It's not going to end up bad for the Packers.

If Favre shows up to camp, it will not be a good thing for Aaron Rodgers. That's my point.

The Packers have Favre pegged into a corner in terms of retirement or backup...hoping Favre won't be up to coming back if he isn't the starter. However, if he stuns us all and shows up anyway...things could get very interesting.

[RashanGary]

It's not going to end up bad for the Packers.

If Favre shows up to camp, it will not be a good thing for Aaron Rodgers. That's my point.

The Packers have Favre pegged into a corner in terms of retirement or backup...hoping Favre won't be up to coming back if he isn't the starter. However, if he stuns us all and shows up anyway...things could get very interesting.

I think the whole point here is that the Packers told him they didn't want him back. That tells me they're not going to allow him in camp.

They went on to say they were going to reinstate him and do what is best for the Packers. Why reinstate him and then cut him? They're going to wait until the last minute (putting FAvre in a really bad spot) or until something favorable to them comes up.

They're going to work a trade and where he goes is goint to be as important as what they get.

[The Leaper]

Thompson alluded to this once, about what he felt were proper reasons to put something in the paper. Basically, he thought most information regarding players, their salaries, their contracts and standing should be private. He wasn't taking a stance of opposing NFL rules on media access, but it was clear he had a preference for leaving things OUT of the paper.

Generally, I can agree with that.

However, in this case, when it comes down to explaining to the Packer nation why all of this is happening with probably the most famous Packer player in history...I would offer up a public explanation. The rumors and gossip do not help the team or the situation.

It saves face for the team...and probably saves face some for Favre as well. It puts an end to this debacle.

[The Leaper]

I think the whole point here is that the Packers told him they didn't want him back. That tells me they're not going to allow him in camp.

If he applies for reinstatement, they have to let him back into camp.

If Favre sends a letter asking for reinstatement sometime next week...and Goodell gives him the OK, for sake of argument, on the 21st of July...it only gives Green Bay one week to trade Favre before he has every right to stroll into camp and cause a ruckus.

Considering the complexities a trade like this would entail...I can't see it happening in a week's time.

[RashanGary]

Not true. The Packers do not have to do anything other than reinstate him and pay his salary (only if he's on the roster opening day). Plenty of team have told players to just stay home. Favre is not coming into camp whether he wants to or not. See Steve McNair. It gets ugly.

[The Leaper]

Not true. The Packers do not have to do anything other than reinstate him and pay his salary (only if he's on the roster opening day). Plenty of team have told players to just stay home. Favre is not coming into camp whether he wants to or not. See Steve McNair. It gets ugly.

McNair's situation was during OTAs...not training camp.

I'm guessing that the collective bargaining agreement forbids teams from restricting players from coming to training camp...otherwise teams would do it all the time to get rid of guys they didn't want.

If you are an active player on an NFL roster, I think you are REQUIRED to attend camp. That is why teams can fine guys for not showing up.

[texaspackerbacker]

I hardly think it would cause a ruckus if he came to camp.

This is a pretty fair and balanced analysis by Silverstein.

The bottom line of all this mess, though, is that the Packers are exactly the same team they were a couple of months ago when so many of us were predicting 13-3 or close to it or maybe better--with Rodgers as QB.

[Spaulding]

Thought what happened a few years ago in Tampa where they continued to pay Keyshawn but sent him home was still a possibility. Would make no sense and would be a lose (Thompson would be crucified) lose (Favre sits home stewing and doesn't generate draft picks in trade or possibly good QB play/insurance for the team).

[pbmax]

Not gonna happen. After the Keyshawn pay him to stay home Gruden affair, the new CBA limited the team disciplinary options to a four week suspension (with pay).

Given you would be hard pressed to demonstrate to an arbitrator or Special Master than Favre has engaged in actions detrimental to the team, you could not keep him out of camp.

If this is the route they choose, they either need to be prepared for reduced offers since everyone knows he will be traded or released. Or, they keep the backup option open to give Favre pause before reporting.


Not true. The Packers do not have to do anything other than reinstate him and pay his salary (only if he's on the roster opening day). Plenty of team have told players to just stay home. Favre is not coming into camp whether he wants to or not. See Steve McNair. It gets ugly.

[texaspackerbacker]

Thought what happened a few years ago in Tampa where they continued to pay Keyshawn but sent him home was still a possibility. Would make no sense and would be a lose (Thompson would be crucified) lose (Favre sits home stewing and doesn't generate draft picks in trade or possibly good QB play/insurance for the team).

I could live with that.

[pbmax]

McNair was not allowed into the building to use the facilities during the offseason, not Training Camp. And they lost the appeal. By then, he was traded.



Not true. The Packers do not have to do anything other than reinstate him and pay his salary (only if he's on the roster opening day). Plenty of team have told players to just stay home. Favre is not coming into camp whether he wants to or not. See Steve McNair. It gets ugly.

[Scott Campbell]

Not gonna happen. After the Keyshawn pay him to stay home Gruden affair, the new CBA limited the team disciplinary options to a four week suspension (with pay).

Given you would be hard pressed to demonstrate to an arbitrator or Special Master than Favre has engaged in actions detrimental to the team, you could not keep him out of camp.

If this is the route they choose, they either need to be prepared for reduced offers since everyone knows he will be traded or released. Or, they keep the backup option open to give Favre pause before reporting.


Not true. The Packers do not have to do anything other than reinstate him and pay his salary (only if he's on the roster opening day). Plenty of team have told players to just stay home. Favre is not coming into camp whether he wants to or not. See Steve McNair. It gets ugly.


They could make him suffer far worse in camp than staying at home. Taking reps behind Matt Flynn? Playing a couple of series in the 4th quarter during the preseason games?

Favre has plenty of reasons to play nice if he really thinks about this.

I expect both sides to work something out that's mutually beneficial once all the saber rattling is over.

[RashanGary]

They could give him the 4 week suspension at the start of the 4 week training camp. Regardless, Brett seems to have more pride than to show up somewhere that he is completely unwanted.

[The Leaper]

I hardly think it would cause a ruckus if he came to camp.

What world are you living in Tex?

Neither Favre or Thompson has even spoken a word today, and the only thing on any sports show tonight is the Favre situation.

If Favre comes into Packers camp as a backup to Rodgers, the media frenzy would be immense...and the pressure on Rodgers would be unreal. Plus, the players would start taking sides at that point. It would be ugly.

[Packerarcher]

They could give him the 4 week suspension at the start of the 4 week training camp. Regardless, Brett seems to have more pride than to show up somewhere that he is completely unwanted.

Pride yes but I think he might be stubborn enough to do it.

[motife]

http://www.packersnews.com/ic/blogs/outofbounds/uploaded_images/strablog-737411.jpg

From GBPG:

"Maybe Mike Strahan can unretire and have a fake sack to go with Favre's fake tear filled retirement."

[The Leaper]

They could give him the 4 week suspension at the start of the 4 week training camp.

No they can't. Favre has done nothing to warrant discipline. He would appeal and the suspension would be overturned very quickly...and the Packers would look EXTREMELY bad around the league.

[Scott Campbell]

This article makes sense. So why doesn't Thompson come out and say the same thing? Why is he such a pussy?



My take? Thompson doesn't want to get into the gutter. If Brett goes there, well that's on him. But Thompson ain't going there.

[The Leaper]

My take? Thompson doesn't want to get into the gutter. If Brett goes there, well that's on him. But Thompson ain't going there.

But how is coming out and stating the facts regarding the situation "getting into the gutter"?

[Scott Campbell]

Who gives a fuck if they lose Rodgers,TT can't have as much faith in him as he proclaims or he would not have drafted two QB's. I said it before TT fucks this up and good luck getting ANYBODY to sign with the Pack. He will coe across as the egotistical prick that drove the legend out of Green Bay. It doesn't even matter if he did,players will have thier preconcieved ideas alredy.


Would you sign with a team where the GM's favorites got treated like Diva's?

[RashanGary]

Alright, let him show up. Give him a clipboard and treat him with little kid gloves. It's not the most pridefull situation for a guy who considers himself a strong man but I guess it's an option for him. It would be sort of pathetic but possible I guess. Believe it or not, I do have a higher opinion of Favre than that, but I guess I wouldn't be shocked by anything from that guy.

[motife]

Chris Myers Fox Sports Radio : "Do you think he (Favre) should come back?"

Charles Barkley: "I do not. He's a pain in the ass. There are more important things to worry about than him coming back. He's had his day, he's only going to get worse. It's a shame what he's doing to Green Bay."

[Scott Campbell]

It's not going to end up bad for the Packers.

If Favre shows up to camp, it will not be a good thing for Aaron Rodgers. That's my point.

The Packers have Favre pegged into a corner in terms of retirement or backup...hoping Favre won't be up to coming back if he isn't the starter. However, if he stuns us all and shows up anyway...things could get very interesting.


It wouldn't be a problem in the locker room. Favre has his own wing. He doesn't co-mingle with the ordinary players.

[Scott Campbell]

However, in this case, when it comes down to explaining to the Packer nation why all of this is happening with probably the most famous Packer player in history...I would offer up a public explanation. The rumors and gossip do not help the team or the situation.

It saves face for the team...and probably saves face some for Favre as well. It puts an end to this debacle.


I don't think you can let players box you into a corner like that. The Packers don't have to go there. Take the high road Ted.

[RashanGary]

However, in this case, when it comes down to explaining to the Packer nation why all of this is happening with probably the most famous Packer player in history...I would offer up a public explanation. The rumors and gossip do not help the team or the situation.

It saves face for the team...and probably saves face some for Favre as well. It puts an end to this debacle.


I don't think you can let players box you into a corner like that. The Packers don't have to go there. Take the high road Ted.

Ditto. Don't say anything. Let Favre whine in Mississippi. There is a faction of fans who have whined for three years. They're still whining. Big deal. It's nothing worth addressing. The reports that are out explain enough. Favre's actions explain enough to a good portion of Packer nation.

[Scott Campbell]

And I think they've already addressed it. Favre retired. Team moved on. The end.

Anything else is just mudslinging.

[Joemailman]

This whole thing is starting to sound like Favre's retirement was orchestrated to get him out of Green Bay all along. The time line is this:

Favre announces retirement in early March.

Shortly after retirement press conference, Favre tells Letterman "something is bound to happen:.

Favre tells Packers in late March/early April that he wants to come back, expecting Thompson to say no. But Thompson says yes, much to Favre's surprise. Favre therefore "changes his mind" again and stays retired.

With Favre staying retired, Packers draft Brohm and Flynn. They proceed with OTA's and mini-camp, and are now thoroughly committed to Rodgers.

In July, Favre again approaches Packers about a return, again figuring they will say no. This time he is right. Therefore Favre asks for release.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but this is how it looks to me right now. I think the best solution now is a gentleman's agreement. Packers agree to release Favre as lomh as Favre agrees not to sign with anyone in NFC North.

[RashanGary]

One thing about this whole situation that might turn into a huge positive is how Rodgers teammates are going to view him after this. The Packer brass just chose Rodgers over Favre. They are jumping through all the BS to give Rodgers his chance. I'm pretty sure everyone in that lockerroom is going to have a pretty good idea who "the guy" is now.

Rodgers may or may not succeed, but he's been given the keys and the respect of the organization. He's definilty going to get a real chance and obviously has the confidence of the Packers.

[Scott Campbell]

Plausible Joe.

[Scott Campbell]

Damn though. Rodgers has to feel pretty good right now, having been giving the job OVER Brett freakin Favre.


One thing about this whole situation that might turn into a huge positive is how Rodgers teammates are going to view him after this. The Packer brass just chose Rodgers over Favre. They are jumping through all the BS to give Rodgers his chance. I'm pretty sure everyone in that lockerroom is going to have a pretty good idea who "the guy" is now.



Though it ain't over till it's over. I won't rule out Ted changing his mind. There's nothing yet done that can't be undone.

But I wouldn't bet on Brett as the starter against Minny.

[RashanGary]

Bobby Carpenter is talking about Favre vs Rodgers. He said that when Rodgers came in there was a new challenge to try to defend the threat of the run. Also said Rodgers makes things happen with his arm. He said Rodgers can do things that Favre used to be able to do, almost liek Tony Romo. Doesn't want to see Favre retire and respects him, but also likes Rodgers chances.


Seems like a pretty solid opinion. Sounds like it was a challenge to defend Rodgers.

[Brando19]

Bobby Carpenter is talking about Favre vs Rodgers. He said that when Rodgers came in there was a new challenge to try to defend the threat of the run. Also said Rodgers makes things happen with his arm. He said Rodgers can do things that Favre used to be able to do, almost liek Tony Romo. Doesn't want to see Favre retire and respects him, but also likes Rodgers chances.


Seems like a pretty solid opinion. Sounds like it was a challenge to defend Rodgers.

Duh...do you honestly think they took one second to prepare for Rodgers? Noone expected Favre to get hurt that game. It was a challenge because everything they had prepared for was thrown out the window.

[Scott Campbell]

Duh...do you honestly think they took one second to prepare for Rodgers?


By "they", do you mean the Packers, because the Packers didn't gameplan around Rodgers strengths either. He didn't get any 1st team reps all week leading up to the game. I think that argument cuts both ways, and his performance in that game shouldn't be dismissed.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Bobby Carpenter is talking about Favre vs Rodgers. He said that when Rodgers came in there was a new challenge to try to defend the threat of the run. Also said Rodgers makes things happen with his arm. He said Rodgers can do things that Favre used to be able to do, almost liek Tony Romo. Doesn't want to see Favre retire and respects him, but also likes Rodgers chances.


Seems like a pretty solid opinion. Sounds like it was a challenge to defend Rodgers.

Duh...do you honestly think they took one second to prepare for Rodgers? Noone expected Favre to get hurt that game. It was a challenge because everything they had prepared for was thrown out the window.

Agreed. Let's try not to pretend that ARod will likely be the better QB this year. I'm for shipping Favre out, but I'm not going to rip Brett for his ability. He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year, and he's probabbly one of the five best QBs in the game ever.

[bobblehead]

Who gives a fuck if they lose Rodgers,TT can't have as much faith in him as he proclaims or he would not have drafted two QB's. I said it before TT fucks this up and good luck getting ANYBODY to sign with the Pack. He will coe across as the egotistical prick that drove the legend out of Green Bay. It doesn't even matter if he did,players will have thier preconcieved ideas alredy.

Not true, just like always god will tell the players to go to the team offering the most money.....god is funny that way.

[Scott Campbell]

He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year,.........


Are you talking about the Dallas game? Because he was one of the three best in that game - barely. :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year,.........

Are you talking about the Dallas game? Because he was one of the three best in that game - barely. :lol:

And Tom Brady was less than stellar in the Super Bowl. Big deal. We don't get close to 13-3 without Favre (or Brady and maybe Manning) last year.

[pbmax]

While this is correct, Scott is also right that the gameplan wasn't tailored to Rodgers. And this is in essence what being an NFL QB is all about. And what makes the difference between practice and preseason or mop-up duty.

If you have a chance to prepare your O, can you as a QB take advantage of that gameplan (or help influence that gameplan) to beat a defense designed to stop your favorite or most effective plays?

That is the question no one can answer without at least one years worth of starts. And it is what makes it impossible to be sure Rodgers will fall short of Favre this year. That, and the fact that age might affect Favre in unanticipated ways.




Bobby Carpenter is talking about Favre vs Rodgers. He said that when Rodgers came in there was a new challenge to try to defend the threat of the run. Also said Rodgers makes things happen with his arm. He said Rodgers can do things that Favre used to be able to do, almost liek Tony Romo. Doesn't want to see Favre retire and respects him, but also likes Rodgers chances.


Seems like a pretty solid opinion. Sounds like it was a challenge to defend Rodgers.

Duh...do you honestly think they took one second to prepare for Rodgers? Noone expected Favre to get hurt that game. It was a challenge because everything they had prepared for was thrown out the window.

Agreed. Let's try not to pretend that ARod will likely be the better QB this year. I'm for shipping Favre out, but I'm not going to rip Brett for his ability. He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year, and he's probabbly one of the five best QBs in the game ever.

[GBRulz]

He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year,.........

Are you talking about the Dallas game? Because he was one of the three best in that game - barely. :lol:

And Tom Brady was less than stellar in the Super Bowl. Big deal. We don't get close to 13-3 without Favre (or Brady and maybe Manning) last year.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Scott Campbell]

He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year,.........

Are you talking about the Dallas game? Because he was one of the three best in that game - barely. :lol:

And Tom Brady was less than stellar in the Super Bowl. Big deal. We don't get close to 13-3 without Favre (or Brady and maybe Manning) last year.


I was just being a smartass. :P

[HarveyWallbangers]

While this is correct, Scott is also right that the gameplan wasn't tailored to Rodgers. And this is in essence what being an NFL QB is all about. And what makes the difference between practice and preseason or mop-up duty.

Not sure what exactly you are getting at. ARod looked good against Dallas. Dallas didn't game-plan against him. Maybe the Packers didn't tailor their offense for Rodgers. (Doubt it though, since they seemed to have more movement plays when Rodgers went in.) I'm excited about his future. However, decent QBs look good for awhile, but then teams learn how to game-plan them. With great (or legendary) QBs, it rarely matters what the game-plan is. We have no idea what we'll get with ARod.

[Scott Campbell]

He was one of the three best QBs in the game last year,.........

Are you talking about the Dallas game? Because he was one of the three best in that game - barely. :lol:

And Tom Brady was less than stellar in the Super Bowl. Big deal. We don't get close to 13-3 without Favre (or Brady and maybe Manning) last year.


I was just being a smartass. :P

[pbmax]

This wasn't the Derek Anderson experience. He didn't come into that game with an entire preseason of practice with the first team and an entire offseason to gear a gameplan around. Anderson looked lights out for half the season until he played his division again and everyone had tape. Then the numbers came down.

ARog had the Favre gameplan and whatever McCarthy thought up in the moment. I agree with you that the edge probably goes to the offense here, since the defense had no idea what Rodgers might do. But the Packers clearly couldn't have maximized Rodgers strengths during that game.

The movement plays I remember were Rodgers moving out of pressure, but as I was watching in a watering hole (thank you NFL network) I may not remember every play as well as I normally would.

So my point was, if the gameplan is designed around your strengths, can you as a QB beat a defense that knows what those strengths are? Like Anderson found out, can you be effective after everyone has seen you on tape or in person? That is the question about A Rog that we cannot answer when we compare him to Favre. It'll take a year at least. Normally, I would say longer, but unlike Favre or Marino, Rodgers has had three years prep work.

Favre clearly could beat many defenses that knew what he wanted to do. But his question is different: what skills will erode this year?

Its impossible to be sure. But I would rather trust the next five years of the Packers to Rodgers and Brohm than to Favre and Brohm. Becuase Brett might really be gone next year.



While this is correct, Scott is also right that the gameplan wasn't tailored to Rodgers. And this is in essence what being an NFL QB is all about. And what makes the difference between practice and preseason or mop-up duty.

Not sure what exactly you are getting at. ARod looked good against Dallas. Dallas didn't game-plan against him. Maybe the Packers didn't tailor their offense for Rodgers. (Doubt it though, since they seemed to have more movement plays when Rodgers went in.) I'm excited about his future. However, decent QBs look good for awhile, but then teams learn how to game-plan them. With great (or legendary) QBs, it rarely matters what the game-plan is. We have no idea what we'll get with ARod.

[HarveyWallbangers]

But I would rather trust the next five years of the Packers to Rodgers and Brohm than to Favre and Brohm. Becuase Brett might really be gone next year.

I'm with you, but the Dallas game didn't really prove anything one way or the other. He didn't look very good in his other appearances in the regular season. I feel good about him because he has the physical ability to be good, he's shown solid improvement each preseason, and his teammates/coaches seem to really believe in him. I am worried about his durability though. He could be great, but if he's not on the field, we have no shot with a rookie QB playing behind him.

[VegasPackFan]

Back to this article:

I have been a little perplexed at the Packers' attitude and positition on this situation as it has unfolded, but this article seems to fit right in and explain a little more of what has really been going on.

There was seemingly no reason for the Pack to NOT want BF back, but if the March/April details are correct, then I totally understand where the team is coming from.

[RashanGary]

But I would rather trust the next five years of the Packers to Rodgers and Brohm than to Favre and Brohm. Becuase Brett might really be gone next year.

I'm with you, but the Dallas game didn't really prove anything one way or the other. He didn't look very good in his other appearances in the regular season. I feel good about him because he has the physical ability to be good, he's shown solid improvement each preseason, and his teammates/coaches seem to really believe in him. I am worried about his durability though. He could be great, but if he's not on the field, we have no shot with a rookie QB playing behind him.

Strange reasoning. You're putting more stock in preseason games when nobody is trying to win than a regular season game that everyoen wanted to win.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This article makes sense. So why doesn't Thompson come out and say the same thing? Why is he such a pussy?

Maybe he is saying it through Silverstein. Those little tidbits didn't necessarily leak out accidentally.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Agreed. Let's try not to pretend that ARod will likely be the better QB this year.

I say wait and see. Favre is no spring chicken, he has to fade one of these years.

[Scott Campbell]

This article makes sense. So why doesn't Thompson come out and say the same thing? Why is he such a pussy?

Maybe he is saying it through Silverstein. Those little tidbits didn't necessarily leak out accidentally.



Hmmmmmm. Plausible.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Strange reasoning. You're putting more stock in preseason games when nobody is trying to win than a regular season game that everyoen wanted to win.

~4 full preseason games to evaluate him vs. 3/4 of one regular season game to evaluate. Neither the preseason games nor one regular season game (not even) are going to tell you much about how well he'll do reading defenses going forward, but you saw a lot more throws to evaluate in those preseason games.

[mraynrand]

Sorry, I'm not having an orgasm over this column like JH. Another collection of speculation and SOURCES. I'll believe it when one of these SOURCES speaks for him/herself.

OOOOooooo....Favre WAFFLED on his retirement decision. HORRORS!! That must mean he's just not dedicated - We now don't want him back - even though the guys we have on the roster haven't started a single game and Favre just had an MVP season and is the most popular guy in the NFL. We wouldn't want THAT.

IMO, the Packer organization is really fucking itself on this one. Hope they enjoy the orgasm.

[falco]

a nice piece of journalism by JSO - nice to see them able to get some inside scoop

[Bretsky]

It's not going to end up bad for the Packers.

If Favre shows up to camp, it will not be a good thing for Aaron Rodgers. That's my point.

The Packers have Favre pegged into a corner in terms of retirement or backup...hoping Favre won't be up to coming back if he isn't the starter. However, if he stuns us all and shows up anyway...things could get very interesting.

I think the whole point here is that the Packers told him they didn't want him back. That tells me they're not going to allow him in camp.

They went on to say they were going to reinstate him and do what is best for the Packers. Why reinstate him and then cut him? They're going to wait until the last minute (putting FAvre in a really bad spot) or until something favorable to them comes up.

They're going to work a trade and where he goes is goint to be as important as what they get.


They can reinstate him, release him, or trade him. If they reinstate him I find it hard to believe that they will not allow him to show up at camp.

If they milk everything out til the last minute then they deserve any ridicule they get. They should move fast for a resolution and put this mess behind them.

This whole day just sickens me

[HarveyWallbangers]

It sucks in a way, but in another way we may get basically something for nothing. I'm cool with that--as long as it's a team like Baltimore that we get the something from.

[Badgerinmaine]

That's the best thing I have read in this whole ball of snakes. Nice find and a nice article. I love Favre to death but I think it's time. TT has an $800 million franchise to run. Time to make some tough calls.
I agree across the board. TT is not exactly Mr. Warm and Fuzzy--I'm not sure he's the sort of person who would be a friend of mine. If Brett Favre was looking to have his ego stroked over the period of all of this conflict, looking to that from TT was looking in the wrong place. But even TT wouldn't have wanted to air all of the private conversations with Favre out publicly. He's also got a team to run, and needs to know well in advance of the season what he's got to plan for. I also agree with Harv that maybe it can work out in a way where there's a potential gain--if all of the conflict hasn't blown the possibility up.

[cpk1994]

Chris Myers Fox Sports Radio : "Do you think he (Favre) should come back?"

Charles Barkley: "I do not. He's a pain in the ass. There are more important things to worry about than him coming back. He's had his day, he's only going to get worse. It's a shame what he's doing to Green Bay." :bclap: :bclap: :bclap: :bclap: :bclap:

AMEN, SIR CHARLES!

[cpk1994]

Sorry, I'm not having an orgasm over this column like JH. Another collection of speculation and SOURCES. I'll believe it when one of these SOURCES speaks for him/herself.

OOOOooooo....Favre WAFFLED on his retirement decision. HORRORS!! That must mean he's just not dedicated - We now don't want him back - even though the guys we have on the roster haven't started a single game and Favre just had an MVP season and is the most popular guy in the NFL. We wouldn't want THAT.

IMO, the Packer organization is really fucking itself on this one. Hope they enjoy the orgasm.ONce again, you are full of BS. TT does not have to cater to Bretts every whim. Brett said he was done. TT said, OK and moved on. This is about the future of the franchise and being tired of Favre's shit for the past 5 years. Yes, Brett Favre is a household word. But so is garbage, and it stinks just as bad. Quit sniffing Favre's jock and comeboack to reality.