From an NFL and Favre fan

[mngolf19]

This has nothing to do with my being a Viking fan.

Brett has meant so much to this league, in too many ways to mention. He is coming off a season that left him the runner up MVP. He carried the Packers last year, IMO. While he screwed up with his retirement, he needs to be in the NFL next year. The NFL NEEDS HIM! I want to see him play, he deserves to play, any fan of the NFL should want him out there. And it will be a travesty if he is not allowed to. The Packers need to allow him to be starter if they believe he is their best QB (he has to be) or they need to move him no matter how. He should not be held hostage to backup or retirement. There are too few players and characters like him to let this happen. I know this may not be the best interest of the Packers on one hand and is not a precedent to set for other players. But this is not your everyday player or situation and in some ways the Packers could look worse if they "force" Brett out of the game.

All just my opinion.

[Patler]

But this is not your everyday player or situation and in some ways the Packers could look worse if they "force" Brett out of the game.


True, but it will be short-lived. If the Packers have a good season this year, it will be forgotten before the end of the season.

Even if Rodgers bombs, in a couple seasons the "Favre Fiasco" will be ancient history of no real concern to anyone.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I want to see him play, he deserves to play, any fan of the NFL should want him out there. And it will be a travesty if he is not allowed to..... Packers could look worse if they "force" Brett out of the game.

The Packers are doing no such thing!

Favre is not filing his re-instatement papers, this blocks a trade to another team around the league.

The Packers have offered to take him back to compete for a job. Favre sneers at this suggestion.

What is going to happen is that public pressure is going to force the Packers to take Favre back on his terms - as a guaranteed starter - or Favre will remain retired. That's what we're down to.

[sharpe1027]

What is going to happen is that public pressure is going to force the Packers to take Favre back on his terms - as a guaranteed starter

Fat chance of that happening. I think a third option is that the Packers will try to talk more with Favre and something could still get worked out where he can come back to play for GB.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What is going to happen is that public pressure is going to force the Packers to take Favre back on his terms - as a guaranteed starter

Fat chance of that happening. I think a third option is that the Packers will try to talk more with Favre and something could still get worked out where he can come back to play for GB.

you're right, that is still a possibility. But I don't think TT and MM want him, that is the fundamental problem with his returning.

[The Leaper]

The Packers have offered to take him back to compete for a job.

Really? Can you provide evidence of this?

I've never seen any evidence that the Packers have offered to bring Favre back to compete for the starting job. If you are talking about being the waterboy, then I can agree with you.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Packers have offered to take him back to compete for a job.

Really? Can you provide evidence of this?

I've never seen any evidence that the Packers have offered to bring Favre back to compete for the starting job. If you are talking about being the waterboy, then I can agree with you.

Did you watch TT's press conference?

The notion that FAvre would be in a football camp and not be a consideration to be a starter is mental.

[The Leaper]

Did you watch TT's press conference?

The notion that FAvre would be in a football camp and not be a consideration to be a starter is mental.

Did you watch Favre's interview?

TT and MM made it clear to Favre that returning to Green Bay was not an option.

When it comes to honesty with the press, I'll believe Favre way before I'll believe Thompson. Thompson merely is trying to contain all of this by suffocating Favre's options to the point that he remains in retirement. He wants no part of having Favre as a backup to Rodgers...that kind of pressure could destroy Rodgers and would create a ridiculous media circus.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Did any of you Pack fans notice any sort of decline in Favre's play toward the end of last season? Honest question, I did not watch enough Packer's football to know.

The reason I ask is because perhaps that is a motivating factor in this situation.

Or there was no decline and this is just a supid question.

[packers11]

Did any of you Pack fans notice any sort of decline in Favre's play toward the end of last season? Honest question, I did not watch enough Packer's football to know.



His stats were better from the second half of the season then the first...

[Harlan Huckleby]

TT and MM made it clear to Favre that returning to Green Bay was not an option.

Their true feelings are that they don't want Favre to return, that was expressed directly and privately to Favre.

Publically, TT said in his news conference that Favre is welcome to return, but he will not be guaranteed a starter job. I agree that this is again TT's way of suggesting to Favre that he would prefer that he not come back.

But it's also true that TT would stand by his words and allow Favre to compete for a job. I believe that Favre would win the starter postition if he did swallow his pride and show up at camp.

[The Leaper]

Did any of you Pack fans notice any sort of decline in Favre's play toward the end of last season? Honest question, I did not watch enough Packer's football to know.

I don't think there was a huge decline, but there is no doubt in my mind that Favre does wear down as the year goes on.

Favre had an incredible run after the bye week last year...5 straight games over 70% passing, 13 TDs, 2 INTs. Then he got tossed on his head against Dallas. He returned and had a very good game against Oakland and decent game against the Rams. Then he played in the frigid wind fest in Chicago and looked horrible. Of course, those conditions were so bad that I'm not sure how much you can hold it against him. He also looked very good against Detroit in limited action.

So, can you really see a noteworthy decline there? I don't think so. I think the running game resurgence in the 2nd half really helped Favre maintain his stamina. If he would've had to keep tossing 45 passes a game like he did in the first half of the year, he would've been toast by week 15.

[The Leaper]

I believe that Favre would win the starter postition if he did swallow his pride and show up at camp.

I don't know. I'm guessing if Favre showed up at camp, he'd be traded to another team within 5 minutes.

If he were truly allowed to compete...then yes, I agree he would win the job. Thompson and McCarthy would look like fools among their peers to start Rodgers in front of Favre.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I believe that Favre would win the starter postition if he did swallow his pride and show up at camp.

I don't know. I'm guessing if Favre showed up at camp, he'd be traded to another team within 5 minutes.

possibly true. but impossible to know, there aren't that many suitable teams, and the rumors are they aren't interested.

IF the PAckers traded Favre to a crappy team, that team could end up releasing Favre. Exactly what the Packers wish to avoid.

[Merlin]

I read this from a poster at another site and after reading it, it kind of makes sense:

Brett files for reinstatement and Goodell resinates him:

"1) TT & MM fly to Brett's home to welcome him back as a starter
2) While in Mississippi, they rework a 1 year deal with Brett paying him atleast $12 million--leaving the door open for a return in 2009 if he is playing at a high level--if not he can become FA.
3) They rework AR's contract by extending his deal by 2 years--to make him realize he is the QB of the future, whether it is in 2009 or 2010."

I think this person has something there. If the Packers bring Favre back and re-work contracts so that Favre is only under contract for a year with additional years being optional and Rodgers is extended, it would open up possibilities on both sides. If Favre has another great season, then sign him to an option year for another season, if he doesn't then Rodgers is there and Favre can choose to retire, or find another team. That way, everything for Favre is on his shoulders for how he plays in 2008, the Packers keep Aaron Rodgers so if Favre doesn't play well they can not opt to extend him as the starter and let him go as a FA and Rodgers steps in. Rodgers is young and he will have a good 12-15 years in him if he is good enough even if Favre returns.


I have to really think about this because this seems like a very workable solution.

[Sparkey]

Did you watch TT's press conference?

The notion that FAvre would be in a football camp and not be a consideration to be a starter is mental.

Did you watch Favre's interview?

TT and MM made it clear to Favre that returning to Green Bay was not an option.

When it comes to honesty with the press, I'll believe Favre way before I'll believe Thompson. Thompson merely is trying to contain all of this by suffocating Favre's options to the point that he remains in retirement. He wants no part of having Favre as a backup to Rodgers...that kind of pressure could destroy Rodgers and would create a ridiculous media circus.

Honesty? Like when Favre texted his grunt man at ESPN that his wanting to return was "all rumor" Didn't know honesty was a one way street in Kiln, MS

[Patler]

I think the running game resurgence in the 2nd half really helped Favre maintain his stamina. If he would've had to keep tossing 45 passes a game like he did in the first half of the year, he would've been toast by week 15.

I think that is true, because there was a more noticeable decline in his play the second half of both 2006 and 2005. Of course by the second half of 2005 he didn't even know the names of the players he was throwing to!

[Merlin]

The second half of 2007, any QB would have been spent. I mean seriously, the guy literally carried the team. His numbers were phenomenal. One thing McCarthy told Favre and it is a well known quote, Favre would not have to carry the offense. Yet for the past two seasons he has been called upon to do just that, for many games in a row. I agree that with the resurgence of the running game, Favre did not have to carry the team. But that wasn't every game of the second half of the season. When that running game isn't there, he should be expected to take on more load. We can't expect him or any QB to play a majority of the season with the offense on his shoulders and expect to win every time.

I know that Peyton Manning didn't look good for most of the season and he was taxed with carrying the offense. Now that could show you that Manning is nothing without his pro-bowlers or if you are a Manning fan that even he can't win them all himself. Favre basically had Driver to start the season. Some young players stepped up and things worked out. But it has been that way for Favre pretty much his whole career. Manning on the other hand has had a good offense behind him almost his entire career. That being said, I would rather have Favre over Manning if you were to compare the last years performances of the two.

[Patler]

I know that Peyton Manning didn't look good for most of the season and he was taxed with carrying the offense. Now that could show you that Manning is nothing without his pro-bowlers or if you are a Manning fan that even he can't win them all himself. Favre basically had Driver to start the season. Some young players stepped up and things worked out. But it has been that way for Favre pretty much his whole career. Manning on the other hand has had a good offense behind him almost his entire career. That being said, I would rather have Favre over Manning if you were to compare the last years performances of the two.

I think complaints about Favre's supporting cast on offense are mostly misplaced. He has had a decent line most of the time since the Super Bowl years, except for 2005 and probably most of 2006. In 16 years there are bound to be some ups and downs. He certainly couldn't complain about the Clifton, Wahle, Flanagan, Rivera, Tauscher years or many of the players a few years before that.

Favre may not have had a HOF receiver, but he has had a succession of decent receivers from Sharpe through Jennings. Injuries have dropped a lot of them out of the picture, but they were good while they played.

He has been supported by a decent running game through out the middle of his career, with Levens and Green. During his packer years, Green was as good of a running back as there was in the NFL.

There have been some bad years, and some weak starters here and there, but overall I think his supporting cast on offense has been at least decent, and very good in some areas for some years.

[The Leaper]

IF the PAckers traded Favre to a crappy team, that team could end up releasing Favre. Exactly what the Packers wish to avoid.

Well, Green Bay may offer up a 7th round pick to another team just to take Favre and not release him...if they are that scared of him hitting the open market.

But again...if they are THAT SCARED of him, why the hell not play the guy?

[cpk1994]

IF the PAckers traded Favre to a crappy team, that team could end up releasing Favre. Exactly what the Packers wish to avoid.

Well, Green Bay may offer up a 7th round pick to another team just to take Favre and not release him...if they are that scared of him hitting the open market.

But again...if they are THAT SCARED of him, why the hell not play the guy?Why would they be scared of hi hitting the open market, WHEN THEY CONTROL IF HE GETS THERE OR NOT. Just moronic.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I know that Peyton Manning didn't look good for most of the season and he was taxed with carrying the offense. Now that could show you that Manning is nothing without his pro-bowlers or if you are a Manning fan that even he can't win them all himself. Favre basically had Driver to start the season. Some young players stepped up and things worked out. But it has been that way for Favre pretty much his whole career. Manning on the other hand has had a good offense behind him almost his entire career. That being said, I would rather have Favre over Manning if you were to compare the last years performances of the two.

I think complaints about Favre's supporting cast on offense are mostly misplaced. He has had a decent line most of the time since the Super Bowl years, except for 2005 and probably most of 2006. In 16 years there are bound to be some ups and downs. He certainly couldn't complain about the Clifton, Wahle, Flanagan, Rivera, Tauscher years or many of the players a few years before that.

Favre may not have had a HOF receiver, but he has had a succession of decent receivers from Sharpe through Jennings. Injuries have dropped a lot of them out of the picture, but they were good while they played.

He has been supported by a decent running game through out the middle of his career, with Levens and Green. During his packer years, Green was as good of a running back as there was in the NFL.

There have been some bad years, and some weak starters here and there, but overall I think his supporting cast on offense has been at least decent, and very good in some areas for some years.

He also had some good TEs and FBs in there. West Coast x factors that Favre used well.

[The Leaper]

There have been some bad years, and some weak starters here and there, but overall I think his supporting cast on offense has been at least decent, and very good in some areas for some years.

I would agree with you completely Patler in terms of the NFL in general.

In terms of OL and RB, Favre has done pretty well. Receivers...he hasn't been blessed there IMO, but he's had enough to get by. Sharpe was the only HOF caliber talent Favre has had to work with, and that was a brief stint. The only other consistent long term receiver Favre has worked with is Driver. Some other good ones have come and gone...usually pretty quickly though. Favre has consistently had to get used to new receivers...he's never had a relationship like a Montana-Rice or Manning-Harrison.

If you are simply comparing Favre to Manning, there really isn't a comparison. Manning has had far more talent around him on offense on a consistent basis than Favre ever had. He's always had a HOF caliber WR, and now he's had Wayne for a good portion of years as well. He's typically always had a tremendous OL and running game as well.

[Patler]

[quote=Patler] Sharpe was the only HOF caliber talent Favre has had to work with, and that was a brief stint. The only other consistent long term receiver Favre has worked with is Driver. Some other good ones have come and gone...usually pretty quickly though. Favre has consistently had to get used to new receivers...he's never had a relationship like a Montana-Rice or Manning-Harrison.

If you are simply comparing Favre to Manning, there really isn't a comparison. Manning has had far more talent around him on offense on a consistent basis than Favre ever had. He's always had a HOF caliber WR, and now he's had Wayne for a good portion of years as well. He's typically always had a tremendous OL and running game as well.

I am not comparing the supporting cast to that in Indianapolis or anywhere else specifically, just the general comments that Favre has had to carry the offense alone for most of his career. I don't think that is really true.

Not every quarterback is blessed with having a Hall of Fame receiver. However, if some of the Packer receivers had remained healthy, who knows what their careers might have been? Clearly having Sharpe continue to play for another 10 years would have been tremendous. Absent the injury, he could have played into the Sherman years. The statistics he and Favre might have generated would have been mind-boggling. Having Brooks stay around, or Walker not become an idiot would have been interesting, too. For the receivers, it has been more unfortunate circumstances than a lack of enough quality.

[GrnBay007]

This has nothing to do with my being a Viking fan.

Brett has meant so much to this league, in too many ways to mention. He is coming off a season that left him the runner up MVP. He carried the Packers last year, IMO. While he screwed up with his retirement, he needs to be in the NFL next year. The NFL NEEDS HIM! I want to see him play, he deserves to play, any fan of the NFL should want him out there. And it will be a travesty if he is not allowed to. The Packers need to allow him to be starter if they believe he is their best QB (he has to be) or they need to move him no matter how. He should not be held hostage to backup or retirement. There are too few players and characters like him to let this happen. I know this may not be the best interest of the Packers on one hand and is not a precedent to set for other players. But this is not your everyday player or situation and in some ways the Packers could look worse if they "force" Brett out of the game.

All just my opinion.

This was a very nice post mngolf. I think, like yourself, there are countless fans out there (of other NFL teams) that like Brett Favre for the kind of player he is and what he has meant to the game. I'm sure many of you have Viking and/or Bear fan friends that have told you while they hated that Favre gave the Packers an edge, they still loved to watch him play.

It will be a shame if he can't play this year after stating he made a mistake in retiring. Like you said, there are far too few players out there like him to let this happen. The NFL is turning into a gang bangers paradise is seems. Favre is as "down home" and as original as they come. If he wants to play and is committed there is no way he should not be out on that field this year. Players like Favre come around maybe once in our lifetime. We've been lucky to have had the chance to cheer him on as a Packer.