PDA

View Full Version : Cliff Christl article on nfl.com



green_bowl_packer
07-26-2008, 11:01 AM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8097dce2&template=with-video&confirm=true

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- While it might seem contradictory, in truth, strong leadership often is exerted in subtle ways.

That also happened to be Bob Harlan's style during his 19 years as the Green Bay Packers' principal executive.

He rarely, if ever, overruled the people under him, but he influenced important decisions through his wisdom and guidance, especially in his areas of expertise -- public and community relations. And he did so in such a way that the Packers rarely were embroiled in bitter and enduring controversies during his reign.

Perhaps his lasting legacy will be that he was the best goodwill ambassador this storied, 90-year old franchise ever had.

That's why it's hard to imagine that the ongoing dispute between Brett Favre and the Packers would have dragged on this long or become this contentious if Harlan was still CEO. No matter how one slices it, the Packers likely will start training camp on Monday faced with a PR nightmare like none other in their history.

There was a time in this ongoing soap opera when playing the blame game was senseless.

There were no bad guys when Favre was waffling over his future -- theatrics and all -- and the Packers were deciding to move forward without him as their quarterback. It's still senseless to blame either side for anything that transpired from the time a choked-up Favre announced his retirement in early March until he asked for his release in a letter delivered July 12.

Favre changed his mind about retirement. Big deal. How many coaches and athletes in the pro ranks haven't? Is there anyone who goes through life without wavering or changing course on any number of important decisions?

At the same time, the Packers shouldn't be faulted for deciding to give Favre's job to Aaron Rodgers. Some might find that to be a rather curious decision, considering Favre was coming off a banner season, but it's not an unusual step in the National Football League. Teams are forever looking to replace older players, future Hall of Famers included. As the late George Young, general manager of the New York Giants' first two Super Bowl champions, was fond of saying: "It's a young man's game." The 38-year-old Favre, at least as a Packer, simply became a victim of that tenet.

There are also plenty of historical precedents to defend each side's position.

Favre isn't the first Packers star to retire and then want to unretire.

The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again.

On the flip side, Favre also isn't the first Packers great to be pushed out the door. Hall of Famer Paul Hornung, team leader and most valuable player of the Packers' first two championship teams under Lombardi, was dumped in an expansion draft. The legendary Ray Nitschke was benched and essentially shamed into retirement. Hall of Fame tailback and Green Bay native Arnie Herber was waived at the age of 31 during the final week of training camp in 1941, when he was just a season removed from leading the Packers to an NFL title.

But where this latest story line turned ugly was after Favre declared that he wanted to play again and general manager Ted Thompson responded by saying he'd take Favre back, but only as a backup. That's what has given this story life and given the Packers a black eye. It's what has embittered the greatest player in the franchise's history, invited a barrage of criticism from the national media and disaffected many of the team's fans.

After all Favre has done for the franchise -- more than anyone, he rescued it from the misery of the 1970s and ‘80s that threatened its very existence -- the Packers are unwilling to offer him the same opportunity or courtesy they've extended to other older players whose services were no longer needed.

When White decided he wanted to play again in 2000, the Packers willingly released him from his contract. When 12-year veteran William Henderson had the itch to play again last year after being told he no longer fit in the Packers' plans, Thompson released him, announcing that he was doing so to give Henderson a chance to "pursue other opportunities" with no strings attached.

The hunch here is that there has been only one team for which Favre really wants to play, and that's the Minnesota Vikings. And the reason being is that's the only place where he'd have a legitimate shot at winning another Super Bowl.

The Vikings had the No. 1-ranked run defense in the league last year and have added the best pass rusher in the game in defensive end Jared Allen. In Adrian Peterson, they have the NFL's most explosive runner. And their offensive line is good enough so that Favre shouldn't be constantly running for his life.

All Minnesota needs to become the NFC's preseason favorite is a quarterback.

With any other potential contender -- Tampa Bay, Chicago, Baltimore, the Jets -- Favre would have to carry a full load on offense. And he has suggested in the recent past that such a role would have little appeal to him.

No doubt that also has been the Packers' greatest fear -- that Favre will sign with the Vikings. In all likelihood, it was the impetus for their cockamamie response to Favre's request to be released: That he could come back, but only to carry a clipboard.

In other words, they're playing scared.

If Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy truly believe the Packers are a better team with Rodgers at quarterback, they should have the courage of their convictions. If they have as much confidence in Rodgers and their team as they say they do, they shouldn't fear facing Favre in another uniform.

The Packers could have defused this controversy and made this a much less messy divorce if they had given Favre his release soon after he asked for it. Had they exercised the kind of PR savvy that marked the Harlan administration, they would have released Favre and simply announced that they were doing so only to honor his request.

They still could do that and eliminate what could be a major distraction throughout camp.

Or they also could think outside the box and reap a nice return.

Why not trade Favre to the Vikings? After all, that would be the team most likely to part with a high draft pick in return.

Sure, there would be tremendous risk involved. It would substantially improve the Vikings' chances of winning the Super Bowl this coming season. Then again, New England's loss last February served as yet another reminder that championships aren't won on paper. Moreover, many of the Vikings' best players are on the downside of their careers, and such a trade might even hurt them in the long run, especially if they lose another draft pick over the Packers' tampering charge.

Over the past three years, the Packers have said goodbye to two other key players, Darren Sharper and Ryan Longwell, knowing full well that both could sign with the Vikings, as both ultimately did. But rather than fret the consequences, the Packers responded by winning four of the six meetings between the two teams.

If Thompson should have learned anything from his mentor Ron Wolf, it was that when faced with a tough decision, be bold. But he has been anything but as of late.

The Packers have told Favre they don't want him back as a starting quarterback, yet they're acting as if they're terrified that he'll come back to haunt them.

It just doesn't compute.

Cliff Christl is an award-winning sports reporter and columnist who had covered the Green Bay Packers since 1970 before retiring last year.

RashanGary
07-26-2008, 11:09 AM
The Packers aren't going to cut Favre. I don't think any team in the league would. He signed a contract and now the Packers can either use him as a backup (something I don't want but the team might) or sell him to the highest bidder outside the division.

RashanGary
07-26-2008, 11:10 AM
Favre looks out for Favre's best intrest

The Packers look out for the Packers best interest



Shouldn't all opinions be filtered through that before they are considered valid?

pbmax
07-26-2008, 11:20 AM
Boy that was a good Cleft Crusty imitation. I can't say that I disagree with the logic. But he cites Lobardi, Reggie and William as examples of folks who have been released and left to pursue other oppotunities.

But what about Hornung, Herber and Nitschke? They didn't get their release. Who falls into which category here Cliff? Isn't this ultimately about who holds the power?

digitaldean
07-26-2008, 11:30 AM
Right now, the Vikings just need a halfway decent QB. The Packers aren't going to give them the ammunition to take the division from them.

Let Childress go with Jackson.

I disagree that they're playing scared. They are tired of the "will he or won't he" gig. They, rightly or wrongly, want to see if Rodgers is the QB of the future. They can't go back now after they committed to him. Brett does have to live with his indecision.

If they make the commitment to ARod and it succeeds, they're geniuses. If they don't succeed they'll be out of a job eventually. (especially if ARod bombs and Favre succeeds).

They may not have the type of courage Crusty the clown wants. But they're doing what they need to do.

Bretsky
07-26-2008, 11:30 AM
First off a lot of good points made in here; but to be honest this forum is so through we've been through all of them

A few tidbits

I agree if Harlan was in charge he might have found a way to make this go smoother

While I want Favre back, it's clear TT does not.

With that being said I've flipped on one view I had when this began.

I'm fine with TT trading Favre to the highest bidder, and I don't care who that bidder is. Short term it might....might have a negative effect. But if TT wants AROD to start then why be a wuss and avoid certain teams if they offer the best pick ? Send him to the highest bidder. At worst Favre tears us apart for a year or two...if that long....big deal. We still get a better player for the future and that is part of why this decision is being made anyways.

It's nuts that IMO that anybody thinks we can get a first. I've said from the start a 3rd is likely but if we can get a 2nd all the more power to TT.

Favre not being as sharp due to the time he has missed is drivel to me

On the other hand, I do give credibility to those who downgrade Favre and the chemistry he might lose by missing the time and upgrade Rodgers because he's been establishing that with him teammates.

TT is showing stones by trying to send Favre away
TT should show more stones by taking the highest draft pick he can get regardless of team for the teams best long term interests IMO

RashanGary
07-26-2008, 11:34 AM
I still don't know if that article was really written by James "bus" Cook or Cliff Christl :)

PackerBlues
07-26-2008, 11:42 AM
All of you seem to be assuming that Favre will accept a trade. I have heard nothing from Favre or his agent stating that they want a trade.

Now that Favre might actually show for camp, Thompson seems a lot more interested in making a trade happen. He seems to be far more enthusiastic about the trade idea than he was when he thought that ignoring Favre's desire to play was his best option.

Face it, Thompson is not going to want to put up with the media circus and all of the second guessing involved with having Favre sitting on the bench.

Now take into consideration that Favre can put a stop to any trade by simply not reporting, add to that the fact that the Commisioner is on Brett's side............

That unconditional release is looking more and more possible.

MJZiggy
07-26-2008, 11:50 AM
Cliffy, Cliffy...As usual, I'd have expected better. The facts and logic are faulty. Firstly TT never said he'd have to be a backup and when the media started reporting that after his presser, he specifically called them on it and corrected them. He's just using it as propaganda now.

Reggie White took a year off before deciding to come out of retirement and didn't ask the Packers to sit his replacement so he could start. He wanted to go to a team that needed a DE and it's not like he was looking at the Bears. Henderson was CUT because he was no longer performing at the level the Pack expected. Of course they didn't care where he went. And the Packers never said Favre no longer played at a high level so they care where he goes. Again, Lombardi did not ask for his release as a GM so he could Manage the Bears front office. The dude just wanted to coach again and he wasn't willing to take the job away from his replacement. Hornung was moved because he was injured and still Lombardi hated doing it. He was not dumped because of age.

The Packers don't want to release Favre to go to the Vikings because even if they do want to play Rodgers, they still recognize that Favre is still a damn good quarterback and you don't want to hand your competition a good player that would make their team complete. Sharper and Longwell debatably could have made that team better, but neither was the piece that made them a contender either. Cliffy's also missed the ENORMOUS point that Favre still has trade value. Even White didn't have all that much value after being gone for a year.

This is why I don't miss Cristl.

RashanGary
07-26-2008, 11:55 AM
TT described Brett as an all pro QB who still has a couple-three years left. Why would he even consider giving that up for nothing even if he does want to move forward.

Brett is obviously a good player and obvioulsy a valuable piece to other teams. The Packers have him under contract. No way are they going to give him up for nothing.

digitaldean
07-26-2008, 12:01 PM
All of you seem to be assuming that Favre will accept a trade. I have heard nothing from Favre or his agent stating that they want a trade.

Now that Favre might actually show for camp, Thompson seems a lot more interested in making a trade happen. He seems to be far more enthusiastic about the trade idea than he was when he thought that ignoring Favre's desire to play was his best option.

Face it, Thompson is not going to want to put up with the media circus and all of the second guessing involved with having Favre sitting on the bench.

Now take into consideration that Favre can put a stop to any trade by simply not reporting, add to that the fact that the Commisioner is on Brett's side............

That unconditional release is looking more and more possible.

True, TT will want Favre traded IF he comes to camp. If Favre gets traded, even if he doesn't ask for reinstatement, the rights to his services go to that team. If he doesn't report, that's their problem. Favre can not veto a trade because he doesn't have a "no-trade" clause. The team he gets traded to, can then decide to release him or trade him.

The Packers have a 1% chance to release him. I see more of a likelihood of the Packers trading him for far below market value than them releasing him outright.

No matter what has transpired between BF and the Packers, if Favre gets released and does go to the Vikings, it will affect his standing with a fair amt. of fans. The diehards on both sides won't be swayed, but if he goes running to one of our most-hated rivals, a lot of people are going to be upset. Just like those who were upset that BF wasn't welcomed back no matter what.

Bretsky
07-26-2008, 12:03 PM
TT described Brett as an all pro QB who still has a couple-three years left. Why would he even consider giving that up for nothing even if he does want to move forward.

Brett is obviously a good player and obvioulsy a valuable piece to other teams. The Packers have him under contract. No way are they going to give him up for nothing.


Completely agree; and another thing I flipped on. I was frustrated enough at first to say...fine TT...fck it.......release him and move on with this mess

No way should be give him up for nothing; get the highest pick you can...which often ends up being 2-3 players after TT's trade downs.

He's under contract and still a very good player. You want to go with AROD. Favre will play one or two more years.....trade him to the highest bidder. And if AROD is your man than be confident he can beat Favre if he's playing for your competitor.

prsnfoto
07-26-2008, 12:32 PM
The Packers aren't going to cut Favre. I don't think any team in the league would. He signed a contract and now the Packers can either use him as a backup (something I don't want but the team might) or sell him to the highest bidder outside the division.

So did Reggie White what is your logic behind that situation.

Guiness
07-26-2008, 12:32 PM
I agree with him that with Harlan here, this well may not have happened.

As far as granting releases vs holding on to the rights, I think we have to look at recent history opposed to what happened in the 50's to early 70's...how the team decided to treat situations with Nitschke, Hornung and Hutson can't be compared to today's NFL.

Yes, the Pack granted a release to Henderson and White, but won't to Favre. I think that speaks to the fact that they think (know?) that Favre has something left in the tank, and could start elsewhere, whereas the other two were pretty much done. Henderson couldn't stick, and although White started, it had a lot more to do with reputation than his play at that point in his career.

So, I think their behavior is twofold - as a potential starter, they want something for him (and they should get it), and his other statement, while exaggerated, is relatively true.

yet they're acting as if they're terrified that he'll come back to haunt them.

prsnfoto
07-26-2008, 12:41 PM
All of you seem to be assuming that Favre will accept a trade. I have heard nothing from Favre or his agent stating that they want a trade.

Now that Favre might actually show for camp, Thompson seems a lot more interested in making a trade happen. He seems to be far more enthusiastic about the trade idea than he was when he thought that ignoring Favre's desire to play was his best option.

Face it, Thompson is not going to want to put up with the media circus and all of the second guessing involved with having Favre sitting on the bench.

Now take into consideration that Favre can put a stop to any trade by simply not reporting, add to that the fact that the Commisioner is on Brett's side............

That unconditional release is looking more and more possible.

True, TT will want Favre traded IF he comes to camp. If Favre gets traded, even if he doesn't ask for reinstatement, the rights to his services go to that team. If he doesn't report, that's their problem. Favre can not veto a trade because he doesn't have a "no-trade" clause. The team he gets traded to, can then decide to release him or trade him.

The Packers have a 1% chance to release him. I see more of a likelihood of the Packers trading him for far below market value than them releasing him outright.

No matter what has transpired between BF and the Packers, if Favre gets released and does go to the Vikings, it will affect his standing with a fair amt. of fans. The diehards on both sides won't be swayed, but if he goes running to one of our most-hated rivals, a lot of people are going to be upset. Just like those who were upset that BF wasn't welcomed back no matter what.


Brett has one card left he could come out and say I will under no circumstance play for any team that trades for me, why would anyone give up even a 7th round pick then except for maybe Tampa those dumbass's did it once already!

bobblehead
07-26-2008, 12:44 PM
Cliffy, Cliffy...As usual, I'd have expected better. The facts and logic are faulty. Firstly TT never said he'd have to be a backup and when the media started reporting that after his presser, he specifically called them on it and corrected them. He's just using it as propaganda now.

Reggie White took a year off before deciding to come out of retirement and didn't ask the Packers to sit his replacement so he could start. He wanted to go to a team that needed a DE and it's not like he was looking at the Bears. Henderson was CUT because he was no longer performing at the level the Pack expected. Of course they didn't care where he went. And the Packers never said Favre no longer played at a high level so they care where he goes. Again, Lombardi did not ask for his release as a GM so he could Manage the Bears front office. The dude just wanted to coach again and he wasn't willing to take the job away from his replacement. Hornung was moved because he was injured and still Lombardi hated doing it. He was not dumped because of age.

The Packers don't want to release Favre to go to the Vikings because even if they do want to play Rodgers, they still recognize that Favre is still a damn good quarterback and you don't want to hand your competition a good player that would make their team complete. Sharper and Longwell debatably could have made that team better, but neither was the piece that made them a contender either. Cliffy's also missed the ENORMOUS point that Favre still has trade value. Even White didn't have all that much value after being gone for a year.

This is why I don't miss Cristl.

I miss cliff...he was sort of like bigguns in the RR.

bobblehead
07-26-2008, 12:50 PM
The Packers aren't going to cut Favre. I don't think any team in the league would. He signed a contract and now the Packers can either use him as a backup (something I don't want but the team might) or sell him to the highest bidder outside the division.

So did Reggie White what is your logic behind that situation.\

If brett sits this year out and asks for his release next year TT probably would grant it.

As it stands if brett is stubborn and says he won't report to anyone that trades for him the packers will put him on the sideline thru camp and release him before the season opener....unless he happily accepts a backup role waiting for rogers to flop or get hurt in which case MM will welcome him back...odds on that anyone?

I still don't see him playing for anyone but the vikes, I think this "reporting to camp" is just to pressure his release. I could be wrong, but if I were TT I would let him work out a trade with the vikes just to settle this mess, but my price would indeed be stiff.

MJZiggy
07-26-2008, 01:06 PM
All he costs TT is a roster spot and salary. If he does come back without the attitude of a team player, it's still bad news for Flynn...

TT has the option of just leaving him on the roster and M3 can even go so far as to place him as an inactive player/emergency quarterback and Brett can't force them to do any different.

And if Favre declares that he won't report to any team he's traded to, that team can still trade for his rights and then he's still in the same boat with the new team as he is with this one. Favre's only leverage here is fan pressure and he doesn't seem to be even doing that good of a job at forcing public opinion.

RashanGary
07-26-2008, 01:11 PM
The Dolphins should have just released Jason Taylor under this logic as well. They acted like scared fools to take that 2nd round pick from a non threatening NFC team.

RashanGary
07-26-2008, 01:15 PM
If Cliff would have said "they're acting like they have a valuable piece under contract" then I'd agree. I think they do and my guess is nothing will change their approach.

boiga
07-26-2008, 01:28 PM
What a bunch of bunkum, especially this bit here:
But where this latest story line turned ugly was after Favre declared that he wanted to play again and general manager Ted Thompson responded by saying he'd take Favre back, but only as a backup. That's what has given this story life and given the Packers a black eye. It's what has embittered the greatest player in the franchise's history, invited a barrage of criticism from the national media and disaffected many of the team's fans. Like MJZiggy wrote, Ted never claimed that Brett would necessarily stuck as backup, rather he just refused to guarantee him the starter position. But most importantly, that had nothing to do with the media uproar.

What caused the uproar was the 24 hour news cycle and Favre's ridiculous three day interview with Greta. Brett was the one that aired this out to the public in order to try to muscle his way out of the team by embarrassing the Packer management. Campen told him that he had the option to show up at training camp and return to the team. Instead he asked to be released first, and then only decided to come back to the Packers as a second choice when they wouldn't give him up for nothing. The only reason this wasn't resolved quietly is because Favre chose to make noise.

Before the 24 hour news channels, this issue would still have been resolved quietly because no credible news organization would have wasted space on Favre's tell all. The internet is culpable as well because it lets fools like us debate it based on late breaking rumors instead of spacing it out in the daily news.

Ted's choice to play hardball didn't create this media mess. Favre and hacks like Christl did by trying to stir up public sentiment for more readership or a better bargaining position.

mmmdk
07-26-2008, 01:31 PM
What a bunch of bunkum, especially this bit here:
But where this latest story line turned ugly was after Favre declared that he wanted to play again and general manager Ted Thompson responded by saying he'd take Favre back, but only as a backup. That's what has given this story life and given the Packers a black eye. It's what has embittered the greatest player in the franchise's history, invited a barrage of criticism from the national media and disaffected many of the team's fans. Like MJZiggy wrote, Ted never claimed that Brett would necessarily stuck as backup, rather he just refused to guarantee him the starter position. But most importantly, that had nothing to do with the media uproar.

What caused the uproar was the 24 hour news cycle and Favre's ridiculous three day interview with Greta. Brett was the one that aired this out to the public in order to try to muscle his way out of the team by embarrassing the Packer management. Campen told him that he had the option to show up at training camp and return to the team. Instead he asked to be released first, and then only decided to come back to the Packers as a second choice when they wouldn't give him up for nothing. The only reason this wasn't resolved quietly is because Favre chose to make noise.

Before the 24 hour news channels, this issue would still have been resolved quietly because no credible news organization would have wasted space on Favre's tell all. The internet is culpable as well because it lets fools like us debate it based on late breaking rumors instead of spacing it out in the daily news.

Ted's choice to play hardball didn't create this media mess. Favre and hacks like Christl did by trying to stir up public sentiment for more readership or a better bargaining position.

Spot on!

BTW - bratwurst is quite the filling meal - just stating the obvious :P

pbmax
07-26-2008, 06:14 PM
P-Blues, ask Jake Plummer how the refusal to report worked out. He didn't get his way and it cost him money.

While I am sure T2 wants a high pick, he can always make the deal conditional on Favre reporting. It is in both their interests that he find one of the potential trading partners worthy of approval.


All of you seem to be assuming that Favre will accept a trade. I have heard nothing from Favre or his agent stating that they want a trade.

Now that Favre might actually show for camp, Thompson seems a lot more interested in making a trade happen. He seems to be far more enthusiastic about the trade idea than he was when he thought that ignoring Favre's desire to play was his best option.

Face it, Thompson is not going to want to put up with the media circus and all of the second guessing involved with having Favre sitting on the bench.

Now take into consideration that Favre can put a stop to any trade by simply not reporting, add to that the fact that the Commisioner is on Brett's side............

That unconditional release is looking more and more possible.

HowardRoark
07-26-2008, 06:25 PM
This whole Harlan vs. Murphy thing I find interesting. Maybe it has already been discussed on a different thread, I don’t know. Harlan obviously did an outstanding job during his tenure. The last few weeks it seemed as though the organization was a rudderless ship.

For what it’s worth, Murphy’s dad was dying. That has to have some affect on his focus. This past week, since returning from burying his Dad, I have read a number of quotes from Murphy that I have found impressive. The tone now seems to be that the legacy of former Packers is very important, and Brett will always be a Packer....no matter what happens. Brett may be acting like an idiot, but he’s our idiot. And always will be.

The same tone seems to be working its way through the ranks. I find it impressive, and I believe it will be soon worked out with everyone feeling as though the have “won.” Just like a highly compensated CEO should make things work.

cpk1994
07-27-2008, 06:48 AM
I still don't know if that article was really written by James "bus" Cook or Cliff Christl :)I alwasys had a huch that ol'Cliffy had a vendetta against TT after the K-Rob artice. This just proves it. I wonder what TT did that pissed Cliff off.