Have you ever been in the Packer's predicament?

[Patler]

I have been.

I once had an extremely valuable employee who was responsible for well over one-half of our total work output, and an even larger portion of the dollar-value. It was a very demanding job and one that she performed exceptionally well. She came to me and said she just couldn't do it anymore and needed a change. She had found a position outside of our company that she wanted to take, something different. We tried to make changes in her job but couldn't convince her to stay. She left, and her former assistant took her place.

Less than a year later she came back saying she had made a mistake and wanted to return. We would have liked to have her back in her former position; however, her replacement was doing well, although it put a burden on others to help her and we recognized that she would take several years of growth and may never be as good as the first person, but clearly would be as good as we really could expect in the position.

What did I do? We told the first employee that she could return but in another position that was open. It was a lower level position, but she accepted it. I couldn't justify removing her replacement who was not as good but was not a disappointment either. Ultimately, after some other things occurred, the first employee returned to her former position and the one who had replaced her moved into another position that she liked even better.

Not completely the same, but I can certainly understand the Packers predicament. Sometimes you simply can't roll back the clock even if you want to.

[Tarlam!]

Do wives/marriage break-ups count?

[Rastak]

I have been.

I once had an extremely valuable employee who was responsible for well over one-half of our total work output, and an even larger portion of the dollar-value. It was a very demanding job and one that she performed exceptionally well. She came to me and said she just couldn't do it anymore and needed a change. She had found a position outside of our company that she wanted to take, something different. We tried to make changes in her job but couldn't convince her to stay. She left, and her former assistant took her place.

Less than a year later she came back saying she had made a mistake and wanted to return. We would have liked to have her back in her former position; however, her replacement was doing well, although it put a burden on others to help her and we recognized that she would take several years of growth and may never be as good as the first person, but clearly would be as good as we really could expect in the position.

What did I do? We told the first employee that she could return but in another position that was open. It was a lower level position, but she accepted it. I couldn't justify removing her replacement who was not as good but was not a disappointment either. Ultimately, after some other things occurred, the first employee returned to her former position and the one who had replaced her moved into another position that she liked even better.

Not completely the same, but I can certainly understand the Packers predicament. Sometimes you simply can't roll back the clock even if you want to.


An interesting story. What if the replacement hadn't actually started working yet? Let's assume the replacement was on a two week vacation and when about to return the old employee calls and said "I made a mistake and would like to come back"?

Then what? Alienate the replacement? You are certain to lose productivity.

What if the employee coming back is 63 and heading for retirement in a couple years?
You might want to groom the assitant.

Lots of factors to consider.

[Patler]

An interesting story. What if the replacement hadn't actually started working yet? Let's assume the replacement was on a two week vacation and when about to return the old employee calls and said "I made a mistake and would like to come back"?

Then what? Alienate the replacement? You are certain to lose productivity.

What if the employee coming back is 63 and heading for retirement in a couple years?
You might want to groom the assitant.

Lots of factors to consider.

There was a big difference in age between the two employees, something like 20-25 years or so. The first was less than 10 years from expected retirement at the time.

The second was a very talented employee, too, and we certainly did not want to alienate her either. One of the difficulties we faced with her replacing the first was that it was a significant jump for her, but one that we felt she could handle and grow into over time.

Ultimately it came down to this for me in deciding: The situation was caused by the first employee deciding to leave. I felt it only fair that she be the one to make concessions if she were to return. The rest of us had "moved on", so to speak! :lol:

[LL2]

Patler...I think your situation is similar to what the Packers are going through and are handling it about the same. It's the real world and the way things turn out sometimes, but when it comes to sports and NFL Legends we tend to think it should be handled differently.

[The Leaper]

The situation is somewhat similar, but I also agree with Rastak's points. You had already installed another worker and gone through the transition process. The Packers have installed another person, but mainly in title only at this point...and the transition process is barely underway.

Besides, the NFL is a little more volatile in terms of employment all around than your regular company.

It is a tough decision for both sides...which is why I think both sides have made mistakes that have led to this debacle.

[oregonpackfan]

I haven't been in the Packers' management position but in the "players" position.

When I approached age 55 as a teacher, I grew drained with the 60-70 hour workweeks, the de-evolution of eduction priorities("teaching to the test" to meet the skewed demands of Leave No Child Behind Act), putting family needs a distant second to the needs of my job, inability to pursue hobbies or outside interests, etc.

I considered taking early retirement.

Despite several teaching awards, favorable reviews and many parent recommendations, the administration was very willing to accept my early retirement. In today's belt-tightening economy, they could hire a brand-new, inexperienced teacher at literally half my salary. It would be a big financial savings to them to hire an inexperienced teacher(which they did.)

Keep in mind that 40% of all teachers leave the field in the first 5 years of teaching. They don't realize how challenging the teaching profession can be.

Unlike Favre, I did not waffle in my decision. Once I made my decision in April of the school year, I stuck to it. I donated all my books and educational materials to other teachers and gracefully left.

Unlike some retired teachers who continually "hang around" their old school and almost become a nuisance, I only returned when invited for special events.

Satchel Paige, the great Negro(as African-Americans were called in his day) baseball pitcher once said, "Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you."

I try to look forward and enjoy this new stage of my life.

[Patler]

The situation is somewhat similar, but I also agree with Rastak's points. You had already installed another worker and gone through the transition process. The Packers have installed another person, but mainly in title only at this point...and the transition process is barely underway.

Besides, the NFL is a little more volatile in terms of employment all around than your regular company.

It is a tough decision for both sides...which is why I think both sides have made mistakes that have led to this debacle.

While both sides may have made mistakes, I tend to look at it more as a situation in which you really can't blame the Packers for doing what they're doing.

Rastak's question about what we would have done if the replacement had been on vacation but was given the job before leaving, and the other changed her mind in the mean time, is a very difficult one. Probably a more accurate similarity would be if it had been after a few weeks or so later. After it had been announced to all, and she had "assumed" the position of sorts, without fully taking over. After all, Rodgers has assumed the position with respect to the team, the media, etc. He has begun functioning in the role in minicamps, etc. even though he has not taken over completely.

I'm not sure that I would have reacted much differently. I tend to approach problems from a going forward analysis. After changes have been made, you can never truly go back. Trying to recapture something from the past is generally a waste of time.

[Patler]

Unlike some retired teachers who continually "hang around" their old school and almost become a nuisance, I only returned when invited for special events.


I have seen that in others who retired. We had one who would come back so frequently that we finally had to tell him he couldn't keep dropping in the way he was and staying as long as he did. It simply interrupted things too much. He was welcome to drop in occasionally, but it had seemingly turned into a weekly schedule for him to do so. A very difficult conversation with a former long-time employee.

This may be something that Favre is going through right now. Some find it very difficult to see another taking over their job. They simply can't let go. Not unlike the spurned boyfriend being jealous of the new suitor for "his" girlfriend.

[The Leaper]

While both sides may have made mistakes, I tend to look at it more as a situation in which you really can't blame the Packers for doing what they're doing.

I agree...but I think the same can be said for Favre. It isn't honest for him to claim 100% commmitment in March...and getting a call EVERY WEEK from McCarthy searching for an answer has to get on your nerves.

He needed time to make a decision, and the Packers had the ability to wait. I'm not sure why the Packers were so eager for a decision, or why Favre was so eager to make it...but it has led to a bad situation where neither side wins.

[Patler]

I agree...but I think the same can be said for Favre. It isn't honest for him to claim 100% commmitment in March...and getting a call EVERY WEEK from McCarthy searching for an answer has to get on your nerves.

He needed time to make a decision, and the Packers had the ability to wait. I'm not sure why the Packers were so eager for a decision, or why Favre was so eager to make it...but it has led to a bad situation where neither side wins.

I blame Favre for the way he or his group have handled the last couple weeks. Upon deciding to come back, he should have handled things much differently. But, we all know about hindsight.......

[The Leaper]

I blame Favre for the way he or his group have handled the last couple weeks. Upon deciding to come back, he should have handled things much differently. But, we all know about hindsight.......

I agree on the handling part.

However, when the team you are fiercely loyal to tells you that you are no longer welcome there...it has to hurt. A lot.

I don't blame Favre for feeling sore. I think he could've handled things better, but I don't blame him for feeling like a castoff or cornered animal.

[Patler]

I blame Favre for the way he or his group have handled the last couple weeks. Upon deciding to come back, he should have handled things much differently. But, we all know about hindsight.......

I agree on the handling part.

However, when the team you are fiercely loyal to tells you that you are no longer welcome there...it has to hurt. A lot.

I don't blame Favre for feeling sore. I think he could've handled things better, but I don't blame him for feeling like a castoff or cornered animal.

I can certainly understand that he feels hurt, and don't blame him for feeling that way. I would, too. However, I'm not sure what kind of response he expected in the way this has occurred. I'm also not sure what good he thinks will come from the VanSustern thing. It seemingly can only do more harm, certainly no good.

Favre needed to decide what he wanted to do, then get his butt up to GB and sit down with TT and MM face-to-face, saying "I can't stand not playing. I intend to apply for reinstatement. How are WE going to handle that?"

[Carolina_Packer]

I think that's a good comparison. Boyfriend/Fiancee calls it off because he can't be 100 percent committed, girl moves on, rekindles relationship she had with someone she already knew, the get heavily involved and become a couple, then fiancee reconsiders and wants her back.

The difference is, this is clearly a marriage between Favre and the Packers/fans. The Packers/fans have given him a lot, and he has given a lot. We love each other, even though we both might have some annoying little habits like leaving the retirement seat up. Taking each other for granted, etc.

The spotlight shines really brightly on this situation. The big picture is the All-time great, future HOF'er in waiting being able to have more leeway. He's built his own reputation, mostly good, some bad, but overall loved very much. Most of us don't have the kind of work legacy and organizational legacy because well, nobody outside the worker and come co-workers, customers ultimately cares about the retirement of one person. It's just the way it works. We love sports/celebrity and have been fortunate to have such a good face/guy at the helm for so long. It's gone way beyond images of his play.

Sometimes you have to do things that may be against your own plans or system because of the gravity and nature of the situation, like being a storied franchise with an incredible fan-base that live/breath their team with a QB who has earned a lot of respect through his tough play, but also his good ol' boy, common guy nature, and his love for the Packers/community. If you want to protect a legacy, protect team's and Brett's and have him back as the starter, and look past what has transpired. There are a lot more tentacles to this one than just honoring someone who took over and asking the productive one who left to take another role.

I suspect your company did not go under Patler because of what went down, but the Packers as a name, and brand could take a hit if they hitch their star to Rodgers and he really struggles and if we could have just buried the hatchet and forgiven Brett whatever bad situation he might have caused. Also, it's not like we're trotting a guy back out just to be nice and won't the fans love seeing him play one more time. The guy can still play and likely better than A-Rod. Protect the legacy of all involved, patch things up, explain things to A-Rod that this is bigger than any one person, and you think Brett can still win and that's the decision. He's still being paid too. If Brett plays one more year and finally does ride into the sunset, the A-Rod i playing out a contract to see if he's got it. Not ideal, but all legacies here are bigger/badder and more important than A-Rod's. Sorry kid.

[The Leaper]

Favre needed to decide what he wanted to do, then get his butt up to GB and sit down with TT and MM face-to-face, saying "I can't stand not playing. I intend to apply for reinstatement. How are WE going to handle that?"

I have no disagreement there.

At the same time, the Packers could do the same thing right now. This is a huge distraction...and they have every right to do the same thing. Stop talking about how you want to preserve Favre's legacy and actually do something about it. If you truly have "moved on" and believe Rodgers is the future and a better choice than Favre now, then release Favre and let him do what he wants. He's earned that level of respect from Green Bay.

The blame is on both sides. I don't get why people are so adamant that one side or the other is fully to blame in this.

[Patler]

Favre needed to decide what he wanted to do, then get his butt up to GB and sit down with TT and MM face-to-face, saying "I can't stand not playing. I intend to apply for reinstatement. How are WE going to handle that?"

I have no disagreement there.

At the same time, the Packers could do the same thing right now. This is a huge distraction...and they have every right to do the same thing. Stop talking about how you want to preserve Favre's legacy and actually do something about it. If you truly have "moved on" and believe Rodgers is the future and a better choice than Favre now, then release Favre and let him do what he wants. He's earned that level of respect from Green Bay.

The blame is on both sides. I don't get why people are so adamant that one side or the other is fully to blame in this.

I think the problem that the Packers have right now is that they don't know if Favre really wants to play or not. Apparently they tried to go down there in March to work out his "return", should they do it again now?

Unfortunately, I think the ball is clearly in Favre's court. He needs to do something that is definite, firm and 100% reliable. Since he can't seem to do that, the Packers really can't do anything other than what they are currently doing. I really think there might be concern on their part that they could welcome him back, only to have him decide before the start of training camp that he really is retired.

[The Leaper]

I think the problem that the Packers have right now is that they don't know if Favre really wants to play or not. Apparently they tried to go down there in March to work out his "return", should they do it again now?

I don't think there is any problem with that. Favre clearly wants to play in 2008. He asked for his release so that he could play after the Packers told him they had moved on.

What else do you or the Packers need, Patler? Favre is 100% right now about playing in 2008...he has stated so publically and his actions to this point support his public statements. By all accounts, he made that known to the Packers weeks ago.

[MadtownPacker]

Ultimately, after some other things occurred, the first employee returned to her former position and the one who had replaced her moved into another position that she liked even better.So in your story Favre gets his starting job back? :D

One other factor, you wanted her back. I dont think that is the case in GB.

[Sparkey]

This is a bit different direction, but the over-all issue is similar.

I used to play on a softball team that was "pretty good". Mostly buddies that played more for the enjoyment of competition than "winning at all costs". We would normally finish about the top third of the league each year.

Well, we added a player who made us a top tier team. The kind of player that, although he was average defensively, he could rip the cover off a softball.

Well, after about a month, he came to us and said he didn't really want to play any more. We asked why and got a few lame, mumblings of this and that and so we decided fine, then go. The next season we added a "new guy" to play his spot. Average player, but fun guy to play with. Anyways, two weeks into the season, previous guy wants to play with us again. We decided, sure what the heck, as he would make us a better offensive team. However, "new guy" lost a lot of his playing time and decided it wasn't fair and quit our team to join another. Well, a month later, the previous guy AGAIN, decided he wasn't having as much fun as he thought he should and left us. A few years later this same guy who had quit on us twice, wanted to play with our team again. He said he'd play 3rd again and when we said we already have a 3rd baseman, but we'll make room for you some place, he decided that wasn't good enough for him. SO we decided we did not need him on the team, because even though he made us better on the field, it created problems off the field.

The irony, the original new guy that was average, after a few years turns out to be one of the better players in the league.

[3irty1]

My father has a story similar to Patler's with a different outcome. My dad was a senior engineer at John Deere in Horicon. After being with the company 11 or 12 years in Horicon and 4 years in Dubuque before that, he decided he was tired of the way things were at Deere and took a terrific offer from Harley Davidson in Milwaukee. At first it seemed like a dream job. He got to wear jeans, the thrill of working with motorcycles instead of designing mower decks, etc. I was shocked when he told me he was leaving Deere to be honest. It just didn't seem like something my dad would do although it must have been a great offer and I was very happy for him. After about a month he realized that he made a huge mistake and being an engineer for Harley wasn't all it was cracked up to be. He contacted Deere about getting his old job back but someone had been promoted to his old position. They took him back but in a slightly lower position in of the mower deck group although he did get his old salary.

I asked my father how he felt about the Favre situation given his similar experience and he laughed and told me he was jealous of Favre. My dad was picking the job he hated less. Favre is pursuing what he loves most. But all the same my dad hopes that Favre will accept any job the Packers can offer him and see it for what it is: an opportunity to do the thing you love most (or hate less :D ).

[Patler]

I think the problem that the Packers have right now is that they don't know if Favre really wants to play or not. Apparently they tried to go down there in March to work out his "return", should they do it again now?

I don't think there is any problem with that. Favre clearly wants to play in 2008. He asked for his release so that he could play after the Packers told him they had moved on.

What else do you or the Packers need, Patler? Favre is 100% right now about playing in 2008...he has stated so publically and his actions to this point support his public statements. By all accounts, he made that known to the Packers weeks ago.

Oh, something simple, like requesting the NFL to remove him from the retired/inactive list and place him on the active list. Until he does that, he is retired whether he likes it or not.

[The Leaper]

Oh, something simple, like requesting the NFL to remove him from the retired/inactive list and place him on the active list. Until he does that, he is retired whether he likes it or not.

Well, if the Packers told him there was no chance of him coming back and that they couldn't envision him playing for anyone else either, why would he be in a rush to reinstate himself?

As Favre correctly points out...the Packers goal right now is to keep Favre off any football field in 2008.

Favre no doubt will reinstate himself if he views it as the only way to force the Packers into doing something. I'm guessing he was hoping that the Packers would give him the freedom to move on...just as they had.

[Patler]

Oh, something simple, like requesting the NFL to remove him from the retired/inactive list and place him on the active list. Until he does that, he is retired whether he likes it or not.

Well, if the Packers told him there was no chance of him coming back and that they couldn't envision him playing for anyone else either, why would he be in a rush to reinstate himself?

As Favre correctly points out...the Packers goal right now is to keep Favre off any football field in 2008.

Favre no doubt will reinstate himself if he views it as the only way to force the Packers into doing something. I'm guessing he was hoping that the Packers would give him the freedom to move on...just as they had.

Nothing happens until Favre is "unretired". The Packers can't release him until he is active. There is nothing to release. If he comes off the retired list, the Packers have to do something with him. If he goes through camp and doesn't like the situation, and the Packers refuse to trade him or release him, he simply retires again. That is not likely to occur.

It is up to Favre to do something. Nothing happens until he does.

[hoosier]

I think the problem that the Packers have right now is that they don't know if Favre really wants to play or not. Apparently they tried to go down there in March to work out his "return", should they do it again now?

Unfortunately, I think the ball is clearly in Favre's court. He needs to do something that is definite, firm and 100% reliable. Since he can't seem to do that, the Packers really can't do anything other than what they are currently doing. I really think there might be concern on their part that they could welcome him back, only to have him decide before the start of training camp that he really is retired.

I think MM was being completely forthright when he (reportedly) said the Packers have decided to go a different direction. Favre's reported flip-flopping back in March may have driven them in that direction, but at this point I can't imagine they'd want BF back, at least not as starter (and let's agree to forget Favre consenting to come in as backup), even if he COULD do something to demonstrate that he's 100% committed. If they did take him back they'd be getting an aging QB who could lose it at any time, and would be shutting the door on Rodgers, who at this point looks like the Packers' future. We have no way of knowing who would be a more effective QB in 2009, but in my view it would be a terrible decision to throw away a legitimate prospect in order to (a) appease the legend or (b) hope that he has one more magical year left in him.

[The Leaper]

Nothing happens until Favre is "unretired". The Packers can't release him until he is active. There is nothing to release.

I figured that he was still listed on the roster...just under the "retired/inactive" roster. I would think you could release a player at any time...regardless of which roster category they are under. The release in essense terminates the contract, which in fact is still active right now even if Favre is in "retirement".

If the Packers could not really release Favre, then why was that point never brought up before? Obviously, the Packers do not wish to release Favre for business reasons...but I did not see anything suggesting it was impossible for them to do so.

[Patler]

Nothing happens until Favre is "unretired". The Packers can't release him until he is active. There is nothing to release.

I figured that he was still listed on the roster...just under the "retired/inactive" roster. I would think you could release a player at any time...regardless of which roster category they are under. The release in essense terminates the contract, which in fact is still active right now even if Favre is in "retirement".

If the Packers could not really release Favre, then why was that point never brought up before? Obviously, the Packers do not wish to release Favre for business reasons...but I did not see anything suggesting it was impossible for them to do so.

Whether it is completely impossible or not (I think it is, only active contracts can be altered) the practical side is that nothing will happen, nor should he expect it to happen with the Packers until he "unretires". Further, why would any other team negotiate with him until he "unretires" in view of his previous waffling about retirement?

It really is up to Favre to do something. No one else will until he does.

[Sparkey]

According to NFL.com

In the NFL transactions section, it lists Favre as retired on March 4th.

The Packers did not place him on the retired/reserved list until April 25th, so any talk of them pushing him out is wrong.

Now, since Green Bay placed him on the Retired/Reserved list, he needs to formally request re-instatement in writing to be added back onto Green Bay's active roster.

This all has to do with how the league verifies and tracks current salary cap requirements for the teams.

[mission]

Yeah -- I broke up with a really hot video model named Charmaine.

Then I wanted her back.

She was engaged.

Got her to have sex with me once, but it was weird, and never again.

I fucked up.