Should the Packers even allow Favre to practice?

[Patler]

I say, no; if it is their intent to trade him.

Clearly they have to add him to the roster, let him in to the facilities, etc. But they do not have to allow him to "practice" even if he is on the field.

If they intend to trade him, and do not intend to keep him on the roster under any circumstance, he should not practice. Letting him practice exposes him to possibly injury and the right to his full salary if it happens.

Then again, for all the conspiracy freaks, maybe they have planned a season-ending injury. Favre gets his money and goes back to Mississippi, never to be heard from again! :lol:

[sheepshead]

Do you even give these posts any thought?

[falco]

Do you even give these posts any thought?

of course not - everyone knows patler puts less thought and preparation into his posts than any other poster

:roll:

[mraynrand]

I say, no; if it is their intent to trade him.

Clearly they have to add him to the roster, let him in to the facilities, etc. But they do not have to allow him to "practice" even if he is on the field.


They have to let him use the toilet to relieve himself. But I'm guessing he can't practice since he doesn't have a locker to change at (unless he brings it with him)

[Spaulding]

Based on the recent reports with their being little interest in him at the Packers requested compensation, I'm guessing he ends up joining the roster, being marked as #2 on the depth chart and eventually being allowed to compete for his position.

Ultimately, this may end up being the best thing for the Packers in 2008 if circus like atmosphere can be controlled as it provides depth and a proven QB who can win in the playoffs.

Best QB (likely Favre) wins and if he doesn't commit to M3's controlled traditional West Coast offense and somewhate conservative plays then he gets the hook and Rodgers gets his chance. Ugly PR situation but we end up fielding the best player or the best player for the scheme.

All I know is that it might end polarizing the locker room something fierce and thus potentially negate the above positive.

[mission]

a proven QB who can win in the playoffs.

who's that?

[Patler]

Do you even give these posts any thought?

So is this one of your highly articulate responses that you will criticize me for not responding to, as you did in another thread?

[sheepshead]

no man, its just there are a million reasons why they can not and will not do that. Unless a trade is a done deal, he's under contract. Thus oh jeez..never mind...

[Pacopete4]

of course you let him practice.. there will be no trade, i repeat... no trade... teams will not give up a huge price for the guy so we will have to hold on to him, why not use him?

[hurleyfan]

I'm not sure where this whole mess is going to go :(

On one hand, I say how can you not take him back (he changed his mind, big deal right!)

On the other hand, hasn't he burned just about all bridges? How do the spin doctors handle this?? No team stepping up with great trade offers..

Gut feel, in the long run, Favre comes to camp and gets to compete(TT & MM keep saying they are doing the best thing for the Packers) for the starting job.. Ofcourse he beats A-Rod for #1 and gets to start.

A-Rod has hurt feelings, but gets to play as Favre reverts to his 2006 form, throws too many INTs and gets pulled..

Brett retires for GOOD at end of year, and his jersey is retired on Monday night Football in 2009!!

[boiga]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3509944
McCarthy added: "The plan for Brett Favre will be discussed first with Brett Favre and then we'll make the public aware of it." Apparently that are going to try to figure out something Brett will agree to in order to avoid excessive sulking.

So we probably won't know what they are going to do with him until he shows up on the field.


Edit: @Hurley fan: Don't get your hopes up. It seems McCarthy does not want Brett to lead the team this year. No one in the entire organization has the heft to change his mind on that. There will be no competition.

[Pacopete4]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3509944
McCarthy added: "The plan for Brett Favre will be discussed first with Brett Favre and then we'll make the public aware of it." Apparently that are going to try to figure out something Brett will agree to in order to avoid excessive sulking.

So we probably won't know what they are going to do with him until he shows up on the field.


My guess is that he will get his shot to compete.. that is about the only way there is no bad blood with anyone.. and if he plays well, he gets his spot back and if not... well, thats his own mess then

[Patler]

no man, its just there are a million reasons why they can not and will not do that. Unless a trade is a done deal, he's under contract. Thus oh jeez..never mind...

Can not and will not do what? Not let him practice., or severely limit what he does in practice? Of course they can. Being under contract does not mean they have to let him take practice snaps.

Think back to Cletidus Hunt. It was widely assumed that TT would cut him, for salary and other reasons, but he brought him in to camp anyway. Sure enough, Hunt was injured very early, although it did not seem serious. When TT did cut him, Hunt filed a grievance, and the Packers were stuck with his full salary because he was a vested veteran injured in preseason. Many criticized TT for not cutting him before camp, because he was going to cut him anyway.

The situation is similar with Favre.
IF they know they will not keep him into the season, they should not let him participate fully in practice. Broken hads and fingers happen quite easily with QBs, even without "hitting" taking place. An injury like that to Favre would destroy any reasonable chance to trade him, even if he can arguably play with it.

On the other hand, if you are willing to have him on your roster for game #1 of the regular season, you go ahead an let him practice.

[hurleyfan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3509944
McCarthy added: "The plan for Brett Favre will be discussed first with Brett Favre and then we'll make the public aware of it." Apparently that are going to try to figure out something Brett will agree to in order to avoid excessive sulking.

So we probably won't know what they are going to do with him until he shows up on the field.


Edit: @Hurley fan: Don't get your hopes up. It seems McCarthy does not want Brett to lead the team this year. No one in the entire organization has the heft to change his mind on that. There will be no competition.

Boiga,
I don't know where to "put my hopes!"

I see the Packer braintrust coming to the realization there is no winners & losers at this point, Brett gets invited to camp for a shot to compete for the starting job.. and from there, anything is possible.

I just hate to see this crap going on in Green Bay.. it's usually reserved for the circus in Dallas or Oakland :roll:

[Lurker64]

The Packers are in an odd position because while I believe they would like to trade Favre, I believe that of the 28 NFL teams not in the NFC North, none of them particularly want to trade for Favre.

So I'm not sure what they could do to increase the value and probability of a trade, short of sending people to break Jeff Garcia's legs.

[Patler]

The Packers are in an odd position because while I believe they would like to trade Favre, I believe that of the 28 NFL teams not in the NFC North, none of them particularly want to trade for Favre.

So I'm not sure what they could do to increase the value and probability of a trade, short of sending people to break Jeff Garcia's legs.

That does seem to be the case, and some of it may have to do with his salary. To trade for him you accept his contract and his salary. For many teams, he simply may not be worth the money.

[sheepshead]

no man, its just there are a million reasons why they can not and will not do that. Unless a trade is a done deal, he's under contract. Thus oh jeez..never mind...

Can not and will not do what? Not let him practice., or severely limit what he does in practice? Of course they can. Being under contract does not mean they have to let him take practice snaps.

Think back to Cletidus Hunt. It was widely assumed that TT would cut him, for salary and other reasons, but he brought him in to camp anyway. Sure enough, Hunt was injured very early, although it did not seem serious. When TT did cut him, Hunt filed a grievance, and the Packers were stuck with his full salary because he was a vested veteran injured in preseason. Many criticized TT for not cutting him before camp, because he was going to cut him anyway.

The situation is similar with Favre.
IF they know they will not keep him into the season, they should not let him participate fully in practice. Broken hads and fingers happen quite easily with QBs, even without "hitting" taking place. An injury like that to Favre would destroy any reasonable chance to trade him, even if he can arguably play with it.

On the other hand, if you are willing to have him on your roster for game #1 of the regular season, you go ahead an let him practice.

ok, well you said 'not practice". of course MM can dictate what takes place on Hinkle Field. Telling him to not be there is a whole different ball of snakes.

[boiga]

Boiga,
I don't know where to "put my hopes!" Me neither honestly. All I know is that at some point this off season, McCarthy (not Ted) decided that the team doesn't need Brett anymore. He thinks that if you give Rodgers playing time, he can take us to the end. Brett, no matter how good, is old. He is a player on the decline, and it is better to cut ties a year too early than rely on him a year too long. Also, Brett simply pissed him off by dismissing the value of the offseason program, throwing Campen under the Bus, and demanding to be coddled.

So, for all these reasons, there will be no competition. Unless he is injured or seriously bombs, Aaron Rodgers is going to be our quarterback. If Brett wants the backup job, it's his. But no one thinks he'd accept that, so it's a moot point.

The only hope we can have at this point is that Rodgers is as good as McCarthy thinks.

[Patler]

ok, well you said 'not practice". of course MM can dictate what takes place on Hinkle Field. Telling him to not be there is a whole different ball of snakes.

You really should read more carefully. What I wrote in the original post was:

But they do not have to allow him to "practice" even if he is on the field.

Notice "practice" was in quotes; and
I stated "even if he is on the field".

Now, that being said, if they are working on a trade, I think they can still simply tell him not to come on the field. They probably couldn't do it for the whole preseason, but for a while I doubt it would be a problem. The latest CBA made some changes in that regard.

[Guiness]

Not letting him practice is not w/o precedent. Remember McNair when the Titans decided they were done with him?

They wouldn't even let him use the facilities for fear of him being injured, although I think they got their hands slapped for that one.

[Patler]

Not letting him practice is not w/o precedent. Remember McNair when the Titans decided they were done with him?

They wouldn't even let him use the facilities for fear of him being injured, although I think they got their hands slapped for that one.

Ya, they effectively locked him out completely; and that is not permitted under the CBA. Some of this also came out of the TO/Eagles situations, and one other WR who slips my mind that was told to stay away the last couple weeks of the season, because he would not be on the game day roster.

[hurleyfan]

Boiga,
I don't know where to "put my hopes!" Me neither honestly. All I know is that at some point this off season, McCarthy (not Ted) decided that the team doesn't need Brett anymore. He thinks that if you give Rodgers playing time, he can take us to the end. Brett, no matter how good, is old. He is a player on the decline, and it is better to cut ties a year too early than rely on him a year too long. Also, Brett simply pissed him off by dismissing the value of the offseason program, throwing Campen under the Bus, and demanding to be coddled.

So, for all these reasons, there will be no competition. Unless he is injured or seriously bombs, Aaron Rodgers is going to be our quarterback. If Brett wants the backup job, it's his. But no one thinks he'd accept that, so it's a moot point.

The only hope we can have at this point is that Rodgers is as good as McCarthy thinks.

Totally agree..

Ron Wolf said(I think) better to get rid of a player one year too soon, than hang on to him one year too long.. or something along those lines...

[Rastak]

Do you even give these posts any thought?

So is this one of your highly articulate responses that you will criticize me for not responding to, as you did in another thread?


You have to admit it was a well constructed response. I would guess even more thought went into his post than yours.

:wink:

[Rastak]

Not letting him practice is not w/o precedent. Remember McNair when the Titans decided they were done with him?

They wouldn't even let him use the facilities for fear of him being injured, although I think they got their hands slapped for that one.

Ya, they effectively locked him out completely; and that is not permitted under the CBA. Some of this also came out of the TO/Eagles situations, and one other WR who slips my mind that was told to stay away the last couple weeks of the season, because he would not be on the game day roster.


Yea, McNair challenged that and won. In this case if they refuse to let him practice aren;t they inviting an even bigger response and outcry?


If you really don't want him and he's considered that worthless to the team, trade him for peanuts.


edit: I see your point Patler after re-reading what you wrote. Yes, they could severly limit him in drills but what I said above would apply I believe.

[sheepshead]

Do you even give these posts any thought?

So is this one of your highly articulate responses that you will criticize me for not responding to, as you did in another thread?


You have to admit it was a well constructed response. I would guess even more thought went into his post than yours.

:wink:

thanks

[sheepshead]

ok, well you said 'not practice". of course MM can dictate what takes place on Hinkle Field. Telling him to not be there is a whole different ball of snakes.

You really should read more carefully. What I wrote in the original post was:

But they do not have to allow him to "practice" even if he is on the field.

Notice "practice" was in quotes; and
I stated "even if he is on the field".

Now, that being said, if they are working on a trade, I think they can still simply tell him not to come on the field. They probably couldn't do it for the whole preseason, but for a while I doubt it would be a problem. The latest CBA made some changes in that regard.

Are you female? This is really like arguing with a chick that needs to have the last word by back peddling and mincing words.

[Rastak]

Do you even give these posts any thought?

So is this one of your highly articulate responses that you will criticize me for not responding to, as you did in another thread?


You have to admit it was a well constructed response. I would guess even more thought went into his post than yours.

:wink:

thanks


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[sheepshead]

Boiga,
I don't know where to "put my hopes!" Me neither honestly. All I know is that at some point this off season, McCarthy (not Ted) decided that the team doesn't need Brett anymore. He thinks that if you give Rodgers playing time, he can take us to the end. Brett, no matter how good, is old. He is a player on the decline, and it is better to cut ties a year too early than rely on him a year too long. Also, Brett simply pissed him off by dismissing the value of the offseason program, throwing Campen under the Bus, and demanding to be coddled.

So, for all these reasons, there will be no competition. Unless he is injured or seriously bombs, Aaron Rodgers is going to be our quarterback. If Brett wants the backup job, it's his. But no one thinks he'd accept that, so it's a moot point.

The only hope we can have at this point is that Rodgers is as good as McCarthy thinks.

Totally agree..

Ron Wolf said(I think) better to get rid of a player one year too soon, than hang on to him one year too long.. or something along those lines...


something i remember from business school, hire slowly, fire quickly.

[MJZiggy]

ok, well you said 'not practice". of course MM can dictate what takes place on Hinkle Field. Telling him to not be there is a whole different ball of snakes.

You really should read more carefully. What I wrote in the original post was:

But they do not have to allow him to "practice" even if he is on the field.

Notice "practice" was in quotes; and
I stated "even if he is on the field".

Now, that being said, if they are working on a trade, I think they can still simply tell him not to come on the field. They probably couldn't do it for the whole preseason, but for a while I doubt it would be a problem. The latest CBA made some changes in that regard.

Are you female? This is really like arguing with a chick that needs to have the last word by back peddling and mincing words.

Or perhaps by tossing gender into a discussion where it has no place? Just like a man to not read a perfectly well written post properly and then blame the writer.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

ok, well you said 'not practice". of course MM can dictate what takes place on Hinkle Field. Telling him to not be there is a whole different ball of snakes.

You really should read more carefully. What I wrote in the original post was:

But they do not have to allow him to "practice" even if he is on the field.

Notice "practice" was in quotes; and
I stated "even if he is on the field".

Now, that being said, if they are working on a trade, I think they can still simply tell him not to come on the field. They probably couldn't do it for the whole preseason, but for a while I doubt it would be a problem. The latest CBA made some changes in that regard.

Are you female? This is really like arguing with a chick that needs to have the last word by back peddling and mincing words.

what argument. You continue to look stupid, patler merely illluminates it for the slow children.

Sign of maturity is admitting when you are wrong. Try it.

[Freak Out]

I say, no; if it is their intent to trade him.

Clearly they have to add him to the roster, let him in to the facilities, etc. But they do not have to allow him to "practice" even if he is on the field.

If they intend to trade him, and do not intend to keep him on the roster under any circumstance, he should not practice. Letting him practice exposes him to possibly injury and the right to his full salary if it happens.

Then again, for all the conspiracy freaks, maybe they have planned a season-ending injury. Favre gets his money and goes back to Mississippi, never to be heard from again! :lol:

If the plan is to trade or release him then hell no...and I think that will happen (trade) before he even shows up in GB.

[Rastak]

ok, well you said 'not practice". of course MM can dictate what takes place on Hinkle Field. Telling him to not be there is a whole different ball of snakes.

You really should read more carefully. What I wrote in the original post was:

But they do not have to allow him to "practice" even if he is on the field.

Notice "practice" was in quotes; and
I stated "even if he is on the field".

Now, that being said, if they are working on a trade, I think they can still simply tell him not to come on the field. They probably couldn't do it for the whole preseason, but for a while I doubt it would be a problem. The latest CBA made some changes in that regard.

Are you female? This is really like arguing with a chick that needs to have the last word by back peddling and mincing words.

Or perhaps by tossing gender into a discussion where it has no place? Just like a man to not read a perfectly well written post properly and then blame the writer.


I left that one on the tee for you and you swung for the fences.

[Patler]

ok, well you said 'not practice". of course MM can dictate what takes place on Hinkle Field. Telling him to not be there is a whole different ball of snakes.

You really should read more carefully. What I wrote in the original post was:

But they do not have to allow him to "practice" even if he is on the field.

Notice "practice" was in quotes; and
I stated "even if he is on the field".

Now, that being said, if they are working on a trade, I think they can still simply tell him not to come on the field. They probably couldn't do it for the whole preseason, but for a while I doubt it would be a problem. The latest CBA made some changes in that regard.

Are you female? This is really like arguing with a chick that needs to have the last word by back peddling and mincing words.

Interesting approach when you have no argument. So by me responding, now you can come back with something like, "See, you're doing it again."

But actually I am not, because I am instead asking you to respond to the second half of the post you followed, which you conveniently ignored. I will highlight for you:


Now, that being said, if they are working on a trade, I think they can still simply tell him not to come on the field. They probably couldn't do it for the whole preseason, but for a while I doubt it would be a problem. The latest CBA made some changes in that regard.

To simplify it for you:

I think you are wrong even in your original (albeit inaccurate) interpretation of my topic. I think for at least a while they can simply tell Favre not to come out to practice, because a trade is being worked on.

Do you agree or disagree?

[sheepshead]

If a trade is done, he doesnt practice. If it's simply TT's intent to trade him he practices. TT really has no choice. Bretts contract is just that. He could file a grievance and thats the last thing TT wants or needs at this point. While he could keep him out, he wouldnt, he would get fired in my opinion. Others have pointed out precedence to you. If it's true then it validates my point. Bretts contract is an agreement between two parties, if he gets fined for not show up under contract, then the Packers need a damn good reason to prevent him from participating. Not having a trade partner is not a good reason. MM can limit Bretts reps etc and keep him healthy and he doesnt need to get to know Jordy Nelson if he's not going to be here. But TT has rules he has to live by and playing unnecessary hardball for all to see probably isnt going to happen.

I assume your mom and your minions can read so I dont need to answer their non-sense.

[Bretsky]

TT and MM both, I think, indicated Favre would be allowed back in some capacity if he applies back for reinstatement. It's reasonable to think that means on the field.

I doubt TT has a deal in place; I'm sure he's trying like heck.

Not that they might give the fans/media information that is slightly misleading to make things easier :idea: , but if they stick to the impression they purposely gave us they will allow Favre back

[The Leaper]

Not letting him practice is not w/o precedent. Remember McNair when the Titans decided they were done with him?

That was VOLUNTARY offseason workouts that they held McNair out of...not training camp. So, the circumstances are a little different.

I would assume Favre could make a stink with the NFLPA if the Packers did not allow him to practice. The NFL wants to see Favre on the field in 2008...he's a moneymaker.

[Patler]

If a trade is done, he doesnt practice. If it's simply TT's intent to trade him he practices. TT really has no choice. Bretts contract is just that. He could file a grievance and thats the last thing TT wants or needs at this point. While he could keep him out, he wouldnt, he would get fired in my opinion. Others have pointed out precedence to you. If it's true then it validates my point. Bretts contract is an agreement between two parties, if he gets fined for not show up under contract, then the Packers need a damn good reason to prevent him from participating. Not having a trade partner is not a good reason. MM can limit Bretts reps etc and keep him healthy and he doesnt need to get to know Jordy Nelson if he's not going to be here. But TT has rules he has to live by and playing unnecessary hardball for all to see probably isnt going to happen.

I assume your mom and your minions can read so I dont need to answer their non-sense.

If a trade is done he's gone, so of course he doesn't practice.
File a grievance, for what? Being told not to practice?
I seriously doubt that the contract says he has to be allowed to practice. They can't lock him out of the facility, and won't. He will be allowed to train all he wants. But for a while, maybe a week or so, it would not surprise me if he simply did not take the field with the others while the Packers "work on a mutually agreeable trade."

In reality, he will be on the field but take very few snaps. MM will say they know what Favre can do, they have 2 rookies and an experienced "vet" who need the snaps more. If the media makes too much of it, they will close all practices.

Now what is it that you want to know about my mother? A great lady, respectful of everyone, and still alive I might add.

As for my "minions," I have none.

[Patler]

Not letting him practice is not w/o precedent. Remember McNair when the Titans decided they were done with him?

That was VOLUNTARY offseason workouts that they held McNair out of...not training camp. So, the circumstances are a little different.

I would assume Favre could make a stink with the NFLPA if the Packers did not allow him to practice. The NFL wants to see Favre on the field in 2008...he's a moneymaker.

The problem in the McNair situation was that they barred him from even using the facilities. He was not allowed to train at or use any team equipment. That, they couldn't do.

[boiga]

TT and MM both, I think, indicated Favre would be allowed back in some capacity if he applies back for reinstatement. It's reasonable to think that means on the field.

I doubt TT has a deal in place; I'm sure he's trying like heck.

Not that they might give the fans/media information that is slightly misleading to make things easier :idea: , but if they stick to the impression they purposely gave us they will allow Favre backThat depends on Brett's attitude too though. If he refuses to support the team as a backup in order to muscle a release/trade from Thompson, then all this talk is pointless. Brett can make a bigger stink on the sidelines signing autographs than playing third string.

[Rastak]

If a trade is done, he doesnt practice. If it's simply TT's intent to trade him he practices. TT really has no choice. Bretts contract is just that. He could file a grievance and thats the last thing TT wants or needs at this point. While he could keep him out, he wouldnt, he would get fired in my opinion. Others have pointed out precedence to you. If it's true then it validates my point. Bretts contract is an agreement between two parties, if he gets fined for not show up under contract, then the Packers need a damn good reason to prevent him from participating. Not having a trade partner is not a good reason. MM can limit Bretts reps etc and keep him healthy and he doesnt need to get to know Jordy Nelson if he's not going to be here. But TT has rules he has to live by and playing unnecessary hardball for all to see probably isnt going to happen.

I assume your mom and your minions can read so I dont need to answer their non-sense.

If a trade is done he's gone, so of course he doesn't practice.
File a grievance, for what? Being told not to practice?
I seriously doubt that the contract says he has to be allowed to practice. They can't lock him out of the facility, and won't. He will be allowed to train all he wants. But for a while, maybe a week or so, it would not surprise me if he simply did not take the field with the others while the Packers "work on a mutually agreeable trade."

In reality, he will be on the field but take very few snaps. MM will say they know what Favre can do, they have 2 rookies and an experienced "vet" who need the snaps more. If the media makes too much of it, they will close all practices.

Now what is it that you want to know about my mother? A great lady, respectful of everyone, and still alive I might add.

As for my "minions," I have none.


You underestimate yourself. You DO have minions. Of course you might want to save them for a worthy foe.

[Bretsky]

TT and MM both, I think, indicated Favre would be allowed back in some capacity if he applies back for reinstatement. It's reasonable to think that means on the field.

I doubt TT has a deal in place; I'm sure he's trying like heck.

Not that they might give the fans/media information that is slightly misleading to make things easier :idea: , but if they stick to the impression they purposely gave us they will allow Favre backThat depends on Brett's attitude too though. If he refuses to support the team as a backup in order to muscle a release/trade from Thompson, then all this talk is pointless. Brett can make a bigger stink on the sidelines signing autographs than playing third string.


If they ban Favre from practice they are looking at a media disaster

I don't think Favre has yet implied TT is asking too much so a trade does not occur.......aka...trying to force his hand into retiring.....but he could play that conspiracy card if he chose. Not being allowed on the field could push him to do that. And if they don't allow him on the field....and don't succeed in trading him.............yikes

It's very clear AROD has been told he is the starter over and over so it does not surprise me that TT and MM will not have an open competition to see who is the best QB for GB in 08

They need closure on this

[Patler]

You underestimate yourself. You DO have minions. Of course you might want to save them for a worthy foe.

:D Thanks Rastak! :D :D

[boiga]

My point was more that Brett could come out to the field, but not follow orders from the coaches. Like you said, they can't keep him off the field, but they also can not fully control his actions once on it.

For most players, the penalty for such insubordination would be demotion, bad relations, and a risk of being cut or rushed out into a trade. These penalties wouldn't really apply to Brett though, so he would be free to make as much a stink as he so desired.

Jeez... thinking through that scenario is pretty ugly. McCarthy would pop a lid, and considering how much weight he's put on over the off season, we'd be lucky if he got through it without a heart attack. I hope Brett has more class than that, but after this calling Ted "shattered" to national media, I'm not so sure anymore.

Todays press conference convinced me more than ever that M3's relationship with Brett is irrevocably ruined. He only referred to him as Brett Favre, never just Brett like always used to be the case. Brett's on Mike's shit list right now, no doubt about it.

[Patler]

If they ban Favre from practice they are looking at a media disaster

I don't think Favre has yet implied TT is asking too much so a trade does not occur.......aka...trying to force his hand into retiring.....but he could play that conspiracy card if he chose. Not being allowed on the field could push him to do that. And if they don't allow him on the field....and don't succeed in trading him.............yikes

It's very clear AROD has been told he is the starter over and over so it does not surprise me that TT and MM will not have an open competition to see who is the best QB for GB in 08

They need closure on this

Again, I think they could get away with it for a week or so, but if no trade develops, they at least have to make it look like they are willing to keep him on the roster in some capacity.

This could be very interesting, if no trade develops in the next week or so:

Do you "give him away" for a low draft pick just to end the situation; or
Do you hang on until the end of camp, in case a QB goes down (including maybe even Rodgers!)?

Final cut down; do you trade him for a low draft pick/no name player; do you release him; or do you keep him hoping for a trade during the season when someone loses their QB?

[Bretsky]

If they ban Favre from practice they are looking at a media disaster

I don't think Favre has yet implied TT is asking too much so a trade does not occur.......aka...trying to force his hand into retiring.....but he could play that conspiracy card if he chose. Not being allowed on the field could push him to do that. And if they don't allow him on the field....and don't succeed in trading him.............yikes

It's very clear AROD has been told he is the starter over and over so it does not surprise me that TT and MM will not have an open competition to see who is the best QB for GB in 08

They need closure on this

Again, I think they could get away with it for a week or so, but if no trade develops, they at least have to make it look like they are willing to keep him on the roster in some capacity.

This could be very interesting, if no trade develops in the next week or so:

Do you "give him away" for a low draft pick just to end the situation; or
Do you hang on until the end of camp, in case a QB goes down (including maybe even Rodgers!)?

Final cut down; do you trade him for a low draft pick/no name player; do you release him; or do you keep him hoping for a trade during the season when someone loses their QB?


To me it's clear that all that "we value your legacy" was just pure BS and an attempted manipulation to get Favre to retire. They knew form the start they had no interest in him coming in, and they knew they were not going to let him compete.

IF they try to "get away with it for a week" as you noted, more fans will begin to criticize TT and I do think he wants to minimize this and the circus that would develop.

My guess is they give him away for a low draft pick; if Favre badly outplays Rodgers in the preseason that would be a nightmare for them after giving the job to AROD and letting him know he's the guy regardless. That first interview, I think with Jim Rome was telling......when AROD said.....we're moving on as an organization. He'd been told that LONG before this fiasco started and stated it like it was a matter of fact IMO.

I can't imagine they want Brett Favre as a backup; and if they release him before the last cut.......which would be completely BUSH LEAGUE....he'd be a better starter with one week of preparation than Tavarius Jackson is with the whole offseason.

Should be interesting

[Patler]

To me it's clear that all that "we value your legacy" was just pure BS and an attempted manipulation to get Favre to retire. They knew form the start they had no interest in him coming in, and they knew they were not going to let him compete.

IF they try to "get away with it for a week" as you noted, more fans will begin to criticize TT and I do think he wants to minimize this and the circus that would develop.

My guess is they give him away for a low draft pick; if Favre badly outplays Rodgers in the preseason that would be a nightmare for them after giving the job to AROD and letting him know he's the guy regardless. That first interview, I think with Jim Rome was telling......when AROD said.....we're moving on as an organization. He'd been told that LONG before this fiasco started and stated it like it was a matter of fact IMO.

I can't imagine they want Brett Favre as a backup; and if they release him before the last cut.......which would be completely BUSH LEAGUE....he'd be a better starter with one week of preparation than Tavarius Jackson is with the whole offseason.

Should be interesting

Ya, the "legacy" argument was a weak one, I wonder who thought that one up.

No chance of Favre outplaying Rodgers in preseason even if he is with the packers. He won't see more than a series in a game, and they can control what plays are run.

I think most fans are resigned to the fact that Favre will be gone, sooner rather than later. If the Packers sat him for a week, I doubt much would be made of it, so long as it was coupled with their attempt to find a situation that is "good for Brett" as they have been saying recently.

I agree, a $XX million backup is not in the cards for the season. They will trade him for a 7th before that will happen.

[Bretsky]

To me it's clear that all that "we value your legacy" was just pure BS and an attempted manipulation to get Favre to retire. They knew form the start they had no interest in him coming in, and they knew they were not going to let him compete.

IF they try to "get away with it for a week" as you noted, more fans will begin to criticize TT and I do think he wants to minimize this and the circus that would develop.

My guess is they give him away for a low draft pick; if Favre badly outplays Rodgers in the preseason that would be a nightmare for them after giving the job to AROD and letting him know he's the guy regardless. That first interview, I think with Jim Rome was telling......when AROD said.....we're moving on as an organization. He'd been told that LONG before this fiasco started and stated it like it was a matter of fact IMO.

I can't imagine they want Brett Favre as a backup; and if they release him before the last cut.......which would be completely BUSH LEAGUE....he'd be a better starter with one week of preparation than Tavarius Jackson is with the whole offseason.

Should be interesting

Ya, the "legacy" argument was a weak one, I wonder who thought that one up.

No chance of Favre outplaying Rodgers in preseason even if he is with the packers. He won't see more than a series in a game, and they can control what plays are run.

I think most fans are resigned to the fact that Favre will be gone, sooner rather than later. If the Packers sat him for a week, I doubt much would be made of it, so long as it was coupled with their attempt to find a situation that is "good for Brett" as they have been saying recently.

I agree, a $XX million backup is not in the cards for the season. They will trade him for a 7th before that will happen.


That legacy one was humorous...but I've said all along TT knows how to manipulate the media and is much more media smart than most give him credit for. Legacy Schmegacy. He could care less about that and was using it to make Favre think about staying away from Green Bay.

I never thought about the second point I bolded. But you are absolutely right.

The playcalling could certainly be swayed so AROD looks a heck of a lot better than Favre.

Heck, they could leave the starters in longer with AROD and then start Favre the next game with scabby OL against starters. I hadn't even thought of that.

[MJZiggy]

Heck, they could leave the starters in longer with AROD and then start Favre the next game with scabby OL against starters. I hadn't even thought of that.

They'd never get away with that. These are not Buffalo fans here, they know their stuff and most would pick up on that in practice in a heartbeat and howl to the moon about it.

[MadtownPacker]

I assume your mom and your minions can read so I dont need to answer their non-sense.You know that I got your back when Tarlam and Nutz said you where a piece of shit but now I have to say I agree. Why involve someone's Mom? Are you really that low? Was I really that wrong about you??

I dont agree with half the shit Patler says but he doesnt get into throwing shots like that and posters respect that as his way. Some people like to sling mud, myself included but some dont. Maybe you need to tune you senses to recognize that.

If not dont cry like a little bitch when everyone piles on you.

[sheepshead]

I didnt mean his real mom, the woman that sticks up for him every time I challenge something he says(mjziggy), acts like his mom. I didnt want to belabor it because I emailed her privately and we have it settled. Wheres the humor?

[sheepshead]

Not letting him practice is not w/o precedent. Remember McNair when the Titans decided they were done with him?

That was VOLUNTARY offseason workouts that they held McNair out of...not training camp. So, the circumstances are a little different.

I would assume Favre could make a stink with the NFLPA if the Packers did not allow him to practice. The NFL wants to see Favre on the field in 2008...he's a moneymaker.

The problem in the McNair situation was that they barred him from even using the facilities. He was not allowed to train at or use any team equipment. That, they couldn't do.

hair splitting? mincing words? any of this ring true for you?

[Harlan Huckleby]

mad loves his mom. don't ever say anything bad about moms to that guy.

i think its a latino thing.

[sheepshead]

I love my mom too..


and this in the JSO speaks to my point:

On June 5, 2007, Miami acquired quarterback Trent Green in a trade. Three days later, the Dolphins informed Daunte Culpepper that he couldn't take reps in practice. Almost immediately, Culpepper left an off-season practice.

Four days after that, the NFL Players Association filed a breach-of-contract grievance on behalf of Culpepper.

"The first paragraph of the player contract says, 'Club employs player as a skilled football player,' " Richard Berthelsen, the NFLPA's general counsel, said at the time. "They are, in effect, breaching his contract by refusing to employ him. He either has a right to be employed there or elsewhere."

Eventually, a hearing was scheduled for July 18. The Dolphins cut Culpepper July 17.

Attempts by management to keep Favre off the field obviously would run the risk of alienating his teammates and fans.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GjxlguPYo0

but if you really love her, you'll want to dance to the extended version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeaokA-G8gA

[sheepshead]

nice... :hrt:

[cpk1994]

My point was more that Brett could come out to the field, but not follow orders from the coaches. Like you said, they can't keep him off the field, but they also can not fully control his actions once on it.

For most players, the penalty for such insubordination would be demotion, bad relations, and a risk of being cut or rushed out into a trade. These penalties wouldn't really apply to Brett though, so he would be free to make as much a stink as he so desired.

Jeez... thinking through that scenario is pretty ugly. McCarthy would pop a lid, and considering how much weight he's put on over the off season, we'd be lucky if he got through it without a heart attack. I hope Brett has more class than that, but after this calling Ted "shattered" to national media, I'm not so sure anymore.

Todays press conference convinced me more than ever that M3's relationship with Brett is irrevocably ruined. He only referred to him as Brett Favre, never just Brett like always used to be the case. Brett's on Mike's shit list right now, no doubt about it.Those penalties would appy to Brett and give M3 the reason to keep Favre as number 2. If Favre becomes insubordinate, M3 just tells the press, "Due to Brett's insuboridination he has been demoted to 3rd QB." Brett doing that would be the biggest mistake he has made yet.

[Patler]

Not letting him practice is not w/o precedent. Remember McNair when the Titans decided they were done with him?

That was VOLUNTARY offseason workouts that they held McNair out of...not training camp. So, the circumstances are a little different.

I would assume Favre could make a stink with the NFLPA if the Packers did not allow him to practice. The NFL wants to see Favre on the field in 2008...he's a moneymaker.

The problem in the McNair situation was that they barred him from even using the facilities. He was not allowed to train at or use any team equipment. That, they couldn't do.

hair splitting? mincing words? any of this ring true for you?

What the hell is your problem??????

[sheepshead]

You are a piece of work my Packer brothah, you truly are.

[Patler]

You are a piece of work my Packer brothah, you truly are.

Another intelligent response. (I hope sarcasm is not lost on you.)