Pack: Come On Back ... As A Backup

[packers11]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3484473

Packers GM, coach say team won't release Favre despite request

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- The Green Bay Packers' general manager and coach say they don't plan to grant Brett Favre's request for his release.

GM Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy told The Associated Press on Saturday that the star quarterback was welcome to rejoin the team but would have to be a backup.

It was their first public comments since Favre demanded his release this week. Favre held a tearful news conference to announce his retirement March 6.

Thompson and McCarthy did not want to discuss a possible trade. Thompson said he had not received any inquiries as of Saturday morning.

Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press

[GoPackGo]

Thats silly. I have a feeling it would work out when an injury happens though

[Gunakor]

I would think it would only be where they are listed on the depth chart during camp and preseason. I would expect an open competition for the starting job, running the offense that has been installed in the recent months tailored to A-Rod's strengths. The playbook that the players have been studying and mastering. If Favre can win the job then I'd expect he'd get it.

This could be all just another attempt to sway Favre into staying retired. They could be simply calling Brett's bluff. Even if Favre isn't bluffing, the Packers still have the advantage. Worst case scenario, they have a 13 million dollar backup to thier 2 million dollar starter. They certainly have enough space under the cap to make that work if that's what it comes down to.

[bobblehead]

For those of the opinion that rogers will be a monumental flop and/or get hurt on day two of training camp isn't this a perfect scenario??

[pbmax]

As much as I hope the Packers can come out of this in good shape, and if there must be a winner and a loser then I prefer them to win (my first hope is for it to be resolved amicably), the notion of Favre as backup seems more effective as a bluff than in practical effect.

McCarthy would have to be completely onboard to limit Favre's access to the 1st team offense, reps early in the pre-season, etc.

[motife]

TWELVE million $ per year backup?

not going to happen. don't waste time thinking about the logistics.

[PackerTimer]

i'm pretty sure they're just calling favre's bluff on this one. i think they're taking the approach that until he show's up he's retired. this way they have put the ball squarely in his court. if he show's up and asks for reinstatement then and only then will they have to consider moving him.

[VegasPackFan]

When I play this whole scenario out in my head, I cant imagine that it would be anything but an uncomfortable, tense, nightmare for everyone involved to have BF there as the backup. It seems a bit ridiculous.

It just has to be some type of bluff. Either to bluff Favre or to bluff the other teams in the NFL to give up more in a trade.

[HarveyWallbangers]

TWELVE million $ per year backup?

not going to happen. don't waste time thinking about the logistics.

What logistics?

[GBRulz]

If the Packers aren't going to release or trade Favre, then let him battle it out with Rodgers during training camp.

I sure the heck cannot see them keeping Favre as a backup though.

[motife]

What logistics?

Favre will not be on the Packers as a backup this year. So trying to imagine backup "scenarios" is a waste of time. Won't happen.

It would be like having 15 B.J. Sanders as reserve punters.

[3irty1]

Absolute nightmare for A-Rod to be the only guy in between Favre and a starting job in GB. Look at the tension caused by having Kurt Warner and Matt Leinart on the same team and multiply that by a thousand.

[imscott72]

Total bluff my TT..No doubt about it. Of course I see Favre taking him up on it and showing up. Going to be an interesting yet painful training camp I'm afraid..

[falco]

Total bluff my TT..No doubt about it. Of course I see Favre taking him up on it and showing up. Going to be an interesting yet painful training camp I'm afraid..

agreed - if Favre shows and is the backup, its a horrible distraction and ruins this team

this is either TT's prelude to Favre starting and easing off Rodgers hurt feelings, or Favre trade

[Scott Campbell]

I sure the heck cannot see them keeping Favre as a backup though.


What they're saying is "come back as a backup".

What they mean is "stay retired".



I think there is a very strong message here.

[Fritz]

TT was pretty harsh, man. I am in the first ranks of those disappointed with how Favre has handled this whole thing - letting his family air his complaints with Ted, denying the "rumors" that he wanted to come back when they were true (that is, he misled people deliberately), - but to suggest that Favre was welcome...as a backup - man, that's harsh, Ted.

[falco]

TT was pretty harsh, man. I am in the first ranks of those disappointed with how Favre has handled this whole thing - letting his family air his complaints with Ted, denying the "rumors" that he wanted to come back when they were true (that is, he misled people deliberately), - but to suggest that Favre was welcome...as a backup - man, that's harsh, Ted.

agreed again - Fritz u da man

[RashanGary]

Oh man, this thing got uglier than I ever imagined. If we don't start Brett I want him cut the day before the season. No way do I have him sitting around the sidelines on game days. You could see the sick look in his face in Dallas. I just don't want to deal with the headache during the season. TC is bad enough. Hopefully he takes a hint and finds a trade or stays home.

[Fosco33]

If Favre came back as a back-up - he'd be starting by week 4 after ARod gets hurt.

Then when ARod gets healthy, it'd be even a bigger QB controversy (bench ARod b/c of injury -- can starters lose their position b/c of injury?).

Then ARod would get hurt again, Favre would start again.

Then there will be all this comparison/analysis/apologists/cantankerous shit going on... Brett, it's the playoffs - you're record isn't great and ARod is the starter - so you're giving signals again from the bench.

I hope the message was clear, 'stay retired'. And while I don't think 'running him out of town' is the right approach (you hope a guy like Favre earns the respect/dignity to make his own call on play/not play).... it appears that's what they're doing. He partly brings this on himself with all the back/forth.

Disappointing.

[RashanGary]

And I don't believe for a second that this is gut-wretching for Thompson. He could care less except that he made a decision and it's such a delicate one that Murphy/Harlan are orchestrating the media aspect and Thompson has no choice but to sell out and go along with the plan. Well, he has a choice but if he goes cowboy on this I don't think Harlan or Murphy would be too impressed.

[Fosco33]

John Clayton is reporting that a call with TT says that he never said Favre would be a back-up. He clarified that he'd be an active member of the Packers and would have 'a role' of some sort. Really interesting - but not as harsh as, 'you're the back-up'. Talk of trade is only hypothetical to TT until Favre files reinstatement.

Maybe Favre is the starter but doesn't play 100% (best for specific situation/game)... hmm

[motife]

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0705/gallery.nfl.oldfaces.wrongplaces/images/unitas_.jpg

http://www.prosportspictures.com/images/kansas-city-chiefs/montana-kansas-city-chiefs.jpg

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2008/07/07/22/20-favrethumb_0708.embedded.prod_affiliate.56.gif

[RashanGary]

Good point about TT not saying he'd be a backup. That was all assumed. He said Favre would NOT start and didn't say he would be a backup either. Basically he said he's not going to release him and that was it. Nothing more. I think the bottom line is that Brett isn't going to play in the NFC North (Packers, Vikings or Bears) and the Packers have the power to insure that is the case.

[motife]

THOMPSON: AARON RODGERS IS OUR STARTER
Posted by Michael David Smith on July 12, 2008, 3:47 p.m.
In an interview today with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Packers General Manager Ted Thompson indicated that if Brett Favre is on the Packers this season, his job will be holding a clipboard on the sideline while Aaron Rodgers leads the team.

“Aaron Rodgers is our starting quarterback,” Thompson said.

When asked if Favre could play for the Packers this year, Thompson said, “Sure.” But when he was asked if Favre could be the starter, Thompson said, “I don’t know how to answer that. We have moved forward. So we’ll see where it goes.”

Reading between the lines, it’s clear from Thompson’s comments that he doesn’t want Favre to come back, but that he also doesn’t want to alienate Favre — or the tens of thousands of Favre fans who fill Lambeau Field eight times a year.

“People think I’m stoic and don’t care what anybody thinks,” Thompson said. “Sure I do. If it’s something like [fans criticizing] a draft pick, I’m fine with that. I want people to know that I know fans care so much and we care too. We care about the legacy of the Packers and the legacy of Brett Favre.”

[GrnBay007]

John Clayton is reporting that a call with TT says that he never said Favre would be a back-up. He clarified that he'd be an active member of the Packers and would have 'a role' of some sort. Really interesting - but not as harsh as, 'you're the back-up'. Talk of trade is only hypothetical to TT until Favre files reinstatement.

Maybe Favre is the starter but doesn't play 100% (best for specific situation/game)... hmm

IMO, the Packers are not going to bring back Brett Favre and have him sit on the bench. If anything they will use BOTH QB's where they are best suited. Remember, TT said he will do what is best for the Packer team. No way does that mean having BF sitting on the bench. I think it was also Leaper that mentioned this could be the best situation....having both Favre and Rodgers playing. Favre is having a rough time....bring out Rodgers. Cold weather game Favre is not looking good, bring in Rodgers. It's like the best scenario. In this case, it's probably Rodgers that will need to be convinced to stick around more so then Favre.

[Fosco33]

John Clayton is reporting that a call with TT says that he never said Favre would be a back-up. He clarified that he'd be an active member of the Packers and would have 'a role' of some sort. Really interesting - but not as harsh as, 'you're the back-up'. Talk of trade is only hypothetical to TT until Favre files reinstatement.

Maybe Favre is the starter but doesn't play 100% (best for specific situation/game)... hmm

IMO, the Packers are not going to bring back Brett Favre and have him sit on the bench. If anything they will use BOTH QB's where they are best suited. Remember, TT said he will do what is best for the Packer team. No way does that mean having BF sitting on the bench. I think it was also Leaper that mentioned this could be the best situation....having both Favre and Rodgers playing. Favre is having a rough time....bring out Rodgers. Cold weather game Favre is not looking good, bring in Rodgers. It's like the best scenario. In this case, it's probably Rodgers that will need to be convinced to stick around more so then Favre.

Almost 5000 posts 007 - impressive. And I agree (and sorta like) this approach from the others.

[motife]

http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/2008/07/12/favre-return-making-things-messy-for-thompson.aspx

Link to the JSO story. You will see Thompson is nuanced.

He says he has to deal with what is real. What is real is Aaron Rodgers is our starter.

[RashanGary]

Right on, Motife.

He's not coming back. He'll be reinstated but the Packers do not want him back. I don't think they want him anywhere near their lockerroom if they can help it and they will figure out a way to keep him as far away from Greenbay as possible while also keeping him away from our rivals.

[GrnBay007]

He says he has to deal with what is real. What is real is Aaron Rodgers is our starter.

OK TT....and are you ready to deal with what's real if you refuse to bring back Favre and Rodgers gets hurt early on? Is Brohm ready? doubtful.

[GrnBay007]

Right on, Motife.

He's not coming back. He'll be reinstated but the Packers do not want him back. I don't think they want him anywhere near their lockerroom if they can help it and they will figure out a way to keep him as far away from Greenbay as possible while also keeping him away from our rivals.

WHY JH? If you are so HIGH on TT, why in the world would you think he can't be planning to put the best QB on the field for 2008?

[RashanGary]

He just said when it came to core issues that mean as much as this one that he will now allow his organization to make the wrong decision. In the same breath he said Rodgers was his starting QB.

I don't know what exactly the finial straw is with TT or what that core issue is, but I think you can read between the lines that something Brett has done has crossed his line and he will not go back.

Thompson is a very big team guy. I think he sees Favre's actions as unforgivably selfish and disrespectfull to his teammates. I think he really cares about his guys and Favre, well, doesn't.

[digitaldean]

TT also said he visited with Favre in Mississippi in April and Favre didn't say a word about wanting to come back. Unless TT went there after April 26-27 draft days, it means Brett still could have said something before the Packers picked Brohm and Flynn.

As far as I'm concerned, Brett has egg all over his face on this. There is no reason for this to be dragging on.

It's turning out to be a hand of Texas hold 'em. Let's see who folds first....

[motife]

OK TT....and are you ready to deal with what's real if you refuse to bring back Favre and Rodgers gets hurt early on? Is Brohm ready? doubtful.

In the story, Silverstein notes Thompson is not ruling in or ruling out anything, (other than they will not release him). Wait and see is what he says, then they'll have internal discussions.

[GrnBay007]

My prediction - Brett will be back....and as starter. (although he may need to "share" more with Rodgers than in the past) They are going through the motions they need to at this point. With a winning team standing by NO WAY will they allow BF to slip away.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yes!

It's as if Thompson and McCarthy read my posts.

This is EXACTLY the way to handle this situation. All this silly crap about Favre holding all the cards, No Way! He does hold all the cards if the goal is be paid his $10 or 12 million. However, the Packers have the cap room to afford that and keep him as a backup/insurance policy.

Ideally, this will play out in a harmonious way, considering how great Favre has been in Green Bay. But if not, my loyalty is to the team first.

Brett has always seemed to be a suggestive person--a bunch of media and others suggest retirement, and he retires; A bunch of media and people start talking unretirement, and he now unretires. Hopefully, if McCarthy and others plant the seed of a backup role, and he will get used to it and be an asset to the team.

Of course, the more likely thing is that Thompson will pursue or at least consider trade opportunities. I'm just glad they didn't get all sentimental and release him for nothing.

[bobblehead]

John Clayton is reporting that a call with TT says that he never said Favre would be a back-up. He clarified that he'd be an active member of the Packers and would have 'a role' of some sort. Really interesting - but not as harsh as, 'you're the back-up'. Talk of trade is only hypothetical to TT until Favre files reinstatement.

Maybe Favre is the starter but doesn't play 100% (best for specific situation/game)... hmm

IMO, the Packers are not going to bring back Brett Favre and have him sit on the bench. If anything they will use BOTH QB's where they are best suited. Remember, TT said he will do what is best for the Packer team. No way does that mean having BF sitting on the bench. I think it was also Leaper that mentioned this could be the best situation....having both Favre and Rodgers playing. Favre is having a rough time....bring out Rodgers. Cold weather game Favre is not looking good, bring in Rodgers. It's like the best scenario. In this case, it's probably Rodgers that will need to be convinced to stick around more so then Favre.

Almost 5000 posts 007 - impressive. And I agree (and sorta like) this approach from the others.

Your both joking right? I mean, you have to know more about football than to be serious. No way you play QB shuffle as you suggest. In the NFL you have a starter and a backup. Look back at history and show me when playing musical QBs has been anything but a disaster.

[Scott Campbell]

Yes!

It's as if Thompson and McCarthy read my posts.


You mean the ones about this being nothing, and the media is just stirring up trouble? :lol:

[Dabaddestbear]

I do think that he will either eventually be released, or face bad chemistry in the locker room during the season.
And make no mistake, there is no way that the Packers organization will sit Brett in favor of Rodgers. That is a bluff I am sure Brett will call the entire organization on. I cant stand favre as a Packer, but I will take him on my side of the table in poker any day....lol

[texaspackerbacker]

Yes!

It's as if Thompson and McCarthy read my posts.


You mean the ones about this being nothing, and the media is just stirring up trouble? :lol:

I already dined on a healthy chunk of crow for that.

I mean where I said that Favre doesn't hold the cards here. All the Packers have to do is invite him to came as a backup--albeit a damned expensive backup--and then keep him as an insurance policy against Rodgers getting hurt, trading him, or just putting him in some status where he just sits and collects his pay--phantom injury, unfit to perform, etc.

[oregonpackfan]

Favre has too much pride to sit as a backup. Do you think someone who has started every game as QB for 16 straight years is suddenly willing to back up a younger, inexperienced QB?

Even if Rodgers legitimately beat him out in training camp, Favre would not be content to sit on the bench.

I agree with Bobblehead that switching QBs on a regular or even irregular basis would be disastrous in this situation.

If McCarthy goes ahead with his promise that Rodgers is the starting QB, I predict Favre will truly "retire" and stay retired.

[Dabaddestbear]

Favre has too much pride to sit as a backup. Do you think someone who has started every game as QB for 16 straight years is suddenly willing to back up a younger, inexperienced QB?

Even if Rodgers legitimately beat him out in training camp, Favre would not be content to sit on the bench.

I agree with Bobblehead that switching QBs on a regular or even irregular basis would be disastrous in this situation.

If McCarthy goes ahead with his promise that Rodgers is the starting QB, I predict Favre will truly "retire" and stay retired.
I say if MM sticks to that plan that Brett will call his bluff and let his fans speak for him. He knows how hard pressed it will be for Rodgers knowing that his every mistake with Brett on the bench will have everyone calling for his head.

I say Brett calls their bluff. :twisted:

[Scott Campbell]

I say if MM sticks to that plan that Brett will call his bluff and let his fans speak for him. He knows how hard pressed it will be for Rodgers knowing that his every mistake with Brett on the bench will have everyone calling for his head.

I say Brett calls their bluff. :twisted:


They could easily just cut him at the end of camp. Then he heads into the season with a brand new playbook, brand new team mates, and no training camp to figure either of them out.

[RIPackerFan]

I have to believe that everyone is trying to save some face here.

First of all - if Brett calls the bluff - he is serious about coming back. To be willing to compete for a starting position - would be a significant step in committment (thus removes the iffy position that TT still believes Favre has).

In addition, Arod is still told the team is his - if he can't beat Brett out (with the first team) - then he shouldn't be starting.

Finally, I think they all know that Brett, even with the second team, will easily beat Arod out. Unless he has taken a huge step backwards (which I doubt), he will pass him and get the starting job by the last preseason game.

Thus, they ensure committment from Brett, they give Arod their support (giving him every opportunity to win the job) and in the end, get Brett for at least another year as the starting QB.

A lot of people are thinking that they would bring him in with no intention of letting him earn the starting position. Sorry - don't see it. First, the fans watch practices - they will know who is outperforming who. In addition, Favre has an immense amount of credibility with the players (especially the older ones) - you don't think there would be a revolt if the players truly believed that Favre was outperforming Arod and didn't get the shot?

Finally, some people think that they would release him right before the first game. Do you really want that to happen or do you think its smart - get Favre pissed off? There is no doubt, MN or Chicago would take him in a second and have him ready to play by the 3rd game - heck - I wouldn't even be surprised if he play for the veteran's minimum just so that he could show up TT? Personally, I would hate to see a pissed off (and rededicated) Favre going to another team.

Thats my take.

[Bretsky]

TT was pretty harsh, man. I am in the first ranks of those disappointed with how Favre has handled this whole thing - letting his family air his complaints with Ted, denying the "rumors" that he wanted to come back when they were true (that is, he misled people deliberately), - but to suggest that Favre was welcome...as a backup - man, that's harsh, Ted.


I'd actually consider it assenine to say that; I have no problem with his we'll do what's in the best interests of the Green Bay Packers..aka...trade him....we've moved on...etc....all that stuff.

But if mention was made as him coming back as a backup that is assenine, stupid, and insulting to those who know football.

Just say you are moving on with AROD in a way that we all assume that Favre will be moved.

[Bretsky]

John Clayton is reporting that a call with TT says that he never said Favre would be a back-up. He clarified that he'd be an active member of the Packers and would have 'a role' of some sort. Really interesting - but not as harsh as, 'you're the back-up'. Talk of trade is only hypothetical to TT until Favre files reinstatement.

Maybe Favre is the starter but doesn't play 100% (best for specific situation/game)... hmm


Gosh I haven't clarified anything.......but I will say this. Milwaukee TMJ station reported TT wants Favre back only as a backup. I don't know if it was said or implied but that is what's being reported locally

[swede]

John Clayton is reporting that a call with TT says that he never said Favre would be a back-up. He clarified that he'd be an active member of the Packers and would have 'a role' of some sort. Really interesting - but not as harsh as, 'you're the back-up'. Talk of trade is only hypothetical to TT until Favre files reinstatement.

Maybe Favre is the starter but doesn't play 100% (best for specific situation/game)... hmm


Gosh I haven't clarified anything.......but I will say this. Milwaukee TMJ station reported TT wants Favre back only as a backup. I don't know if it was said or implied but that is what's being reported locally

When TT said that Rogers is the starting quarterback he was referring to the depth chart as it is presently. The media felt justified in declaring Favre the backup, but that is a bit premature since Brett only asked to be released. As far as the organization is concerned a retired Brett is on nobody's depth chart, and should a reinstated Brett show up someday we can then start talking about who the starter will be.

If he files for reinstatement the media can ask the question again.

[MJZiggy]

Nicely put, Mr. Schwede.

[woodbuck27]

Nicely put, Mr. Schwede.

Yes I see it that way too and realistically.

I believe Favre will be the starting QB once he re-instates and wins his job back. I just hope Aaron Rodgers is ready for reality as he seems 'in Aaron's world' now. :D

I want Favre back as our starting QB as the season begins.

PACKERS FOREVER!

[Dabaddestbear]

Question?
How many years do Rodgers have left on his contract?
And do any of you think that if Brett was given the starting job if that would force Rodgers to look for another team after his contract expires out of spite?

[MJZiggy]

He's under contract through 2009, and no, if Brett comes back for a year, it doesn't FORCE A-Rod to do anything. He could choose to do that, but if he's willing to hang with it, he could also choose to stick around.

[Partial]

Whatever happened to a fair competition? I don't see any reason that the better man should not start. That is so political and BS. I'm surprised a tough pittsburg guy like M3 would stand for TT's drama and poor decision making.

[Harlan Huckleby]

TT's drama and poor decision making.

Please be specific: exactly when did TT make a bad decision?

And what drama are you talking about?


I'd be tempted to say that you are just a blow hard, but of course I know bettter.

[Bossman641]

What exatly did TT say? Did he say, "Brett you can come back and you're gonna be a backup and that's it" or did he say "Brett you can come back but as of now Arod is our starter?" If it's the second way, then I see no problem with it. There's no way Favre should just walk back in and be handed the starting job. This creates fair competition and shifts the responsibility back to Favre, just how bad does he want to play.

[Partial]

TT's drama and poor decision making.

Please be specific: exactly when and where did TT make a bad decision?

And what drama are you talking about?


I'd be tempted to say that you are just a blow hard, but of course I know bettter.

starting little dog over the 2nd best player in the NFL from last year. www.tedsbigego.com

[Harlan Huckleby]

TT's drama and poor decision making.

Please be specific: exactly when and where did TT make a bad decision?

And what drama are you talking about?


I'd be tempted to say that you are just a blow hard, but of course I know bettter.

starting little dog over the 2nd best player in the NFL from last year. www.tedsbigego.com

I was looking for something a little more specific. Favre retired, that is why Rodgers was promoted. Exactly when did TT make a bad decision?

[MJZiggy]

He never said anything of the sort was cast in stone, P. There's no reason for you to start a website about it. He is waiting until Brett actually applies for reinstatement to make any decisions at all.

[Partial]

TT's drama and poor decision making.

Please be specific: exactly when and where did TT make a bad decision?

And what drama are you talking about?


I'd be tempted to say that you are just a blow hard, but of course I know bettter.

starting little dog over the 2nd best player in the NFL from last year. www.tedsbigego.com

I was looking for something a little more specific. Favre retired, that is why Rodgers was promoted. Exactly when did TT make a bad decision?

By not offering a fair competition?

[MJZiggy]

Show me where TT said that if Favre applied for reinstatement he wouldn't allow a competition at the QB position.

[Scott Campbell]

If Ted's ego wasn't so big, he'd lure Brett back by taking bratwurst off the Lambeau menu and replace it with grits.

Any reasonable GM would have at least done that.

[gbgary]

thompson's already denied saying/meaning Brett had to be a back-up. why are people still arguing about this? :shock: