Teammates 'moving forward' with Favre

[packers11]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/PKR01/80803090/1058

Donald Driver got the text message from Brett Favre shortly before Sunday’s Family Night scrimmage: I’m on the plane, getting ready to come that way.

“I just started smiling,” Driver said. “Texted him back and started laughing. I said, ‘Will I see you tonight?’ He said, ‘Probably tomorrow.’”

Like everyone else in the locker room, Driver said he was taking a wait-and-see approach to what the legendary quarterback’s return means for the Green Bay Packers.

But Driver has spoken out as favorably as any player as Favre’s comeback has progressed — slowly — over the past month.

“I love him,” said Driver, who has made three Pro Bowls with Favre throwing him the ball.

“That’s one thing I’ve always said. We have a very, very close relationship, so it’s good to have a close friend around, and that’s the biggest thing to me. He knows that I love him. He loves me the same.”

Few other Packers have as tight of a relationship with Favre, who at 38 is at least a decade older than all but six players in the locker room. Coach Mike McCarthy noted last week that 21 percent of the roster never had met Favre; five of the 10 receivers on the roster and three of the five tight ends never have taken the field with him.

“Everyone back home’s saying, ‘Have you met Brett?’” rookie tight end Jermichael Finley said. “I’m like, ‘Nah, man. He hasn’t showed up.’ It’s going to be great to meet him.”

Driver said he doesn’t think pulling everyone together will be a problem.

“I don’t think we ever separated, and that’s the good thing,” Driver said. “I think we kept our chemistry together, and that’s what we wanted to be able to keep. And right now, it’s just moving forward, and that’s the good thing about us right now, is that we can just continue moving forward.”

That phrase — moving forward — has been used often by members of the organization when speaking about Aaron Rodgers taking over as the starting quarterback.

With Favre apparently on course to take the field for practice on Tuesday afternoon, the connotations have changed.

“The only person I really worry about is Aaron, and I think he’s handling it real well,” receiver James Jones said. “However they play it out, they play it out. Aaron’s a man. He’ll handle whatever situation. If he’s the starter, he’s going to handle that as the starter. Something comes up where Brett is the starter, then (Rodgers) will handle it that way. He’ll be fine.”

[Pacopete4]

it sounds like whoever the man is and I think most seem to feel it will be Favre, that the Packers team is going to stick together and play together... to be honest, thats a great thing to hear

[The Leaper]

I don't think there will be any problems in the locker room because of this...I think all of the players recognize this is a unique situation and will be happy to take the field with either guy.

[]{ilr]3]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/PKR01/80803090/1058



“The only person I really worry about is Aaron, and I think he’s handling it real well,” receiver James Jones said. “However they play it out, they play it out. Aaron’s a man. He’ll handle whatever situation. If he’s the starter, he’s going to handle that as the starter. Something comes up where Brett is the starter, then (Rodgers) will handle it that way. He’ll be fine.”

I would think A-Rod's got plenty to be pissed about:


Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.

[ND72]

{ilr]3]
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/PKR01/80803090/1058



“The only person I really worry about is Aaron, and I think he’s handling it real well,” receiver James Jones said. “However they play it out, they play it out. Aaron’s a man. He’ll handle whatever situation. If he’s the starter, he’s going to handle that as the starter. Something comes up where Brett is the starter, then (Rodgers) will handle it that way. He’ll be fine.”

I would think A-Rod's got plenty to be pissed about:


Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


If this plays out the way I'm picturing, Teddy should show his commitment to Rodgers and bump up his pay and extend his contract, especialy since we might lose him before we "get him".

[Carolina_Packer]

{ilr]3]
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/PKR01/80803090/1058



“The only person I really worry about is Aaron, and I think he’s handling it real well,” receiver James Jones said. “However they play it out, they play it out. Aaron’s a man. He’ll handle whatever situation. If he’s the starter, he’s going to handle that as the starter. Something comes up where Brett is the starter, then (Rodgers) will handle it that way. He’ll be fine.”

I would think A-Rod's got plenty to be pissed about:


Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.

That is too bad for A-Rod about the compensation issue and all, but really, I don't care much. You have to pick your battles and allegiances carefully, and I'll side with Favre before A-Rod until Favre loses it. No disrespect to A-Rod and his ability, just complete loyalty and respect for Favre; yes, even though he did some dumb stuff. Haven't we all?! You don't just have to take the man back because of his past laurels, hell, take him back because he still has it and can still win games, and the fans, despite some obvious waffling/PR blunders would still watch the guy play to see if he can continue his high level of play under center. He's a living legend, and he's inter-twined with the Pack, so you cut him slack. A-Rod, sorry man.

[mmmdk]

Deep down I don't care who starts; Rodgers or Favre. Getting a Lombardi trophy to the Packers is paramount. Packers winning is everything.

The only winners, for sure, from such a debacle are millionaire punks like T.O., Walker, Moss, now even Favre and numerous others.

Give the fans a Super Bowl and all is good...still...or else :P

[Patler]

{ilr]3]
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/PKR01/80803090/1058



“The only person I really worry about is Aaron, and I think he’s handling it real well,” receiver James Jones said. “However they play it out, they play it out. Aaron’s a man. He’ll handle whatever situation. If he’s the starter, he’s going to handle that as the starter. Something comes up where Brett is the starter, then (Rodgers) will handle it that way. He’ll be fine.”

I would think A-Rod's got plenty to be pissed about:


Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.

What's to be pissed about? It is what it is. Eventually he will have an opportunity to prove himself, and if he succeeds he will be paid 10s of millions of dollars per year. The few million "missed out on" will be long forgotten.

He should be happy to have the opportunity he does. He had fallen quite far in the draft.

[Bossman641]

it sounds like whoever the man is and I think most seem to feel it will be Favre, that the Packers team is going to stick together and play together... to be honest, thats a great thing to hear

Yea, the Packers "team" is going to stick it out and play together. Question is, will Favre?

I guarantee that if Rodgers beats Favre out he will either immediately retire or throw another fit and continue his spoiled child act to get traded to another team. Can't wait to see how you spin that one.

[packinpatland]

{ilr]3]
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/PKR01/80803090/1058



“The only person I really worry about is Aaron, and I think he’s handling it real well,” receiver James Jones said. “However they play it out, they play it out. Aaron’s a man. He’ll handle whatever situation. If he’s the starter, he’s going to handle that as the starter. Something comes up where Brett is the starter, then (Rodgers) will handle it that way. He’ll be fine.”

I would think A-Rod's got plenty to be pissed about:


Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


If this plays out the way I'm picturing, Teddy should show his commitment to Rodgers and bump up his pay and extend his contract, especialy since we might lose him before we "get him".


Give him some of the 'stay retired' money they were going to offer Brett.

[Gunakor]

{ilr]3]
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/PKR01/80803090/1058



“The only person I really worry about is Aaron, and I think he’s handling it real well,” receiver James Jones said. “However they play it out, they play it out. Aaron’s a man. He’ll handle whatever situation. If he’s the starter, he’s going to handle that as the starter. Something comes up where Brett is the starter, then (Rodgers) will handle it that way. He’ll be fine.”

I would think A-Rod's got plenty to be pissed about:


Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


If this plays out the way I'm picturing, Teddy should show his commitment to Rodgers and bump up his pay and extend his contract, especialy since we might lose him before we "get him".


Absolutely agreed. There is no way A-Rod should have to suffer because Favre is indecisive. I do not want to lose Rodgers over this. He's gotta be feeling like his best opportunity to play is somewhere else now, and I wouldn't be suprised if his quest to be traded starts the very moment Favre is named the starter again. After watching last night's scrimmage, how on earth can anybody feel as comfortable with Brohm as or future QB as they do about Rodgers? I'd lose a lot of respect for the Packers front office if they allow MM to name Favre the starter, while not making every possible effort to lock up Rodgers beyond 2009.

[Gunakor]

{ilr]3]
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/PKR01/80803090/1058



“The only person I really worry about is Aaron, and I think he’s handling it real well,” receiver James Jones said. “However they play it out, they play it out. Aaron’s a man. He’ll handle whatever situation. If he’s the starter, he’s going to handle that as the starter. Something comes up where Brett is the starter, then (Rodgers) will handle it that way. He’ll be fine.”

I would think A-Rod's got plenty to be pissed about:


Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


If this plays out the way I'm picturing, Teddy should show his commitment to Rodgers and bump up his pay and extend his contract, especialy since we might lose him before we "get him".


Give him some of the 'stay retired' money they were going to offer Brett.

Oh my god, get of the bribery tip. Favre himself said it wasn't "Stay retired money". It was "Let us use your name and likeness to make shit tons of money after you retire money." And that offer is still surely going to be made to him after he's retired anyway. It wasn't a bribe. That straight out of Favre's mouth.

P.S. The "Stay retired money" you speak of wasn't going to count twoards the salary cap. Any additional money given to Rodgers would. Not the same.

[cpk1994]

{ilr]3]
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/PKR01/80803090/1058



“The only person I really worry about is Aaron, and I think he’s handling it real well,” receiver James Jones said. “However they play it out, they play it out. Aaron’s a man. He’ll handle whatever situation. If he’s the starter, he’s going to handle that as the starter. Something comes up where Brett is the starter, then (Rodgers) will handle it that way. He’ll be fine.”

I would think A-Rod's got plenty to be pissed about:


Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


If this plays out the way I'm picturing, Teddy should show his commitment to Rodgers and bump up his pay and extend his contract, especialy since we might lose him before we "get him".


Absolutely agreed. There is no way A-Rod should have to suffer because Favre is indecisive. I do not want to lose Rodgers over this. He's gotta be feeling like his best opportunity to play is somewhere else now, and I wouldn't be suprised if his quest to be traded starts the very moment Favre is named the starter again. After watching last night's scrimmage, how on earth can anybody feel as comfortable with Brohm as or future QB as they do about Rodgers? I'd lose a lot of respect for the Packers front office if they allow MM to name Favre the starter, while not making every possible effort to lock up Rodgers beyond 2009.Well, if MM names Favre the starter, ARod is going to give TT the giant middle finger and thats good. TT needs to fired over this.

[Pacopete4]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

[ND72]

{ilr]3]
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/PKR01/80803090/1058



“The only person I really worry about is Aaron, and I think he’s handling it real well,” receiver James Jones said. “However they play it out, they play it out. Aaron’s a man. He’ll handle whatever situation. If he’s the starter, he’s going to handle that as the starter. Something comes up where Brett is the starter, then (Rodgers) will handle it that way. He’ll be fine.”

I would think A-Rod's got plenty to be pissed about:


Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


If this plays out the way I'm picturing, Teddy should show his commitment to Rodgers and bump up his pay and extend his contract, especialy since we might lose him before we "get him".


Absolutely agreed. There is no way A-Rod should have to suffer because Favre is indecisive. I do not want to lose Rodgers over this. He's gotta be feeling like his best opportunity to play is somewhere else now, and I wouldn't be suprised if his quest to be traded starts the very moment Favre is named the starter again. After watching last night's scrimmage, how on earth can anybody feel as comfortable with Brohm as or future QB as they do about Rodgers? I'd lose a lot of respect for the Packers front office if they allow MM to name Favre the starter, while not making every possible effort to lock up Rodgers beyond 2009.Well, if MM names Favre the starter, ARod is going to give TT the giant middle finger and thats good. TT needs to fired over this.

Why? This is all on Favre's shoulders. Thompson asked him to reconsider before announcing his retirement, Favre didn't listen and retired. Now it's Thompson's fault Football Queen Favre wavered and wants to come back? Thompson is much like what Aaron Rodgers will be...when they win, it's all on McCarthy, when they lose, it has to be Thompson's fault. That's bullshit.

[cpk1994]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs FlynnHe would have zero complaint becuase he would't have management telling him, You are the starter, repeating that time and time again to the press, and then saying at the last minute "Im sorry we lied". They trold Aaron all summer long that he was the guy. If I were Arron I would tell M3 and TT where to stuff it if Favre is stater and I would support him if he did.

[Gunakor]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn


Of course Rodgers has the right to be bitter. Rodgers was told HE WAS THE GUY this year. If Rodgers isn't the guy, that means that his bosses have went back on thier word. It does not matter why.

Put yourself in his shoes. Your desire to play is far stronger than your emotional bond to Favre. You are not a Favre fan, you are a goddamn QB looking to play. You are told by your head coach and general manager that you would be the starter this year. You work your ass of getting into shape and getting timing down with your offense. You host get togethers at your house with your offense, trying to form close relationships with each of them. You have bought into a concept of TEAM, and you have worked very very hard to become the leader of it.

Then one day, the former starter comes back and says "I was just kidding". All of the work you've put in and all of the things you've done to prepare for your opportuinity are irrelevant now, because that opportunity still isn't coming. Wouldn't you be bitter? I sure as hell would.

[Pacopete4]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs FlynnHe would have zero complaint becuase he would't have management telling him, You are the starter, repeating that time and time again to the press, and then saying at the last minute "Im sorry we lied". They trold Aaron all summer long that he was the guy. If I were Arron I would tell M3 and TT where to stuff it if Favre is stater and I would support him if he did.



If Aaron does that he'd be throwing his future away with any team i think.. he'l never get his payday

[cpk1994]

{ilr]3]
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/PKR01/80803090/1058



“The only person I really worry about is Aaron, and I think he’s handling it real well,” receiver James Jones said. “However they play it out, they play it out. Aaron’s a man. He’ll handle whatever situation. If he’s the starter, he’s going to handle that as the starter. Something comes up where Brett is the starter, then (Rodgers) will handle it that way. He’ll be fine.”

I would think A-Rod's got plenty to be pissed about:


Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


If this plays out the way I'm picturing, Teddy should show his commitment to Rodgers and bump up his pay and extend his contract, especialy since we might lose him before we "get him".


Absolutely agreed. There is no way A-Rod should have to suffer because Favre is indecisive. I do not want to lose Rodgers over this. He's gotta be feeling like his best opportunity to play is somewhere else now, and I wouldn't be suprised if his quest to be traded starts the very moment Favre is named the starter again. After watching last night's scrimmage, how on earth can anybody feel as comfortable with Brohm as or future QB as they do about Rodgers? I'd lose a lot of respect for the Packers front office if they allow MM to name Favre the starter, while not making every possible effort to lock up Rodgers beyond 2009.Well, if MM names Favre the starter, ARod is going to give TT the giant middle finger and thats good. TT needs to fired over this.

Why? This is all on Favre's shoulders. Thompson asked him to reconsider before announcing his retirement, Favre didn't listen and retired. Now it's Thompson's fault Football Queen Favre wavered and wants to come back? Thompson is much like what Aaron Rodgers will be...when they win, it's all on McCarthy, when they lose, it has to be Thompson's fault. That's bullshit.You are not quite getting my point. Im saying that if M3 names Favre the starter, its going to cost the team Rodgers and TT should be fired for that. HE should be fired for selling us bullshit all summer. M3 should be fired for selling us that bullshit called "team committment" all summer.

[cpk1994]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs FlynnHe would have zero complaint becuase he would't have management telling him, You are the starter, repeating that time and time again to the press, and then saying at the last minute "Im sorry we lied". They trold Aaron all summer long that he was the guy. If I were Arron I would tell M3 and TT where to stuff it if Favre is stater and I would support him if he did.



If Aaron does that he'd be throwing his future away with any team i think.. he'l never get his paydayWHy not, there are other teams that wuold take him and more than likey stay true to their word.

[Packers4Ever]

{ilr]3]
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/PKR01/80803090/1058



“The only person I really worry about is Aaron, and I think he’s handling it real well,” receiver James Jones said. “However they play it out, they play it out. Aaron’s a man. He’ll handle whatever situation. If he’s the starter, he’s going to handle that as the starter. Something comes up where Brett is the starter, then (Rodgers) will handle it that way. He’ll be fine.”

I would think A-Rod's got plenty to be pissed about:


Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


If this plays out the way I'm picturing, Teddy should show his commitment to Rodgers and bump up his pay and extend his contract, especialy since we might lose him before we "get him".

And that would be the classy thing to do.

[Pacopete4]

Rodgers said until he plays he wont talk extension..

[cpk1994]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn


Of course Rodgers has the right to be bitter. Rodgers was told HE WAS THE GUY this year. If Rodgers isn't the guy, that means that his bosses have went back on thier word. It does not matter why.

Put yourself in his shoes. Your desire to play is far stronger than your emotional bond to Favre. You are not a Favre fan, you are a goddamn QB looking to play. You are told by your head coach and general manager that you would be the starter this year. You work your ass of getting into shape and getting timing down with your offense. You host get togethers at your house with your offense, trying to form close relationships with each of them. You have bought into a concept of TEAM, and you have worked very very hard to become the leader of it.

Then one day, the former starter comes back and says "I was just kidding". All of the work you've put in and all of the things you've done to prepare for your opportuinity are irrelevant now, because that opportunity still isn't coming. Wouldn't you be bitter? I sure as hell would.

:bclap::bclap::bclap::bclap::bclap:

[cpk1994]

{ilr]3]
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/PKR01/80803090/1058



“The only person I really worry about is Aaron, and I think he’s handling it real well,” receiver James Jones said. “However they play it out, they play it out. Aaron’s a man. He’ll handle whatever situation. If he’s the starter, he’s going to handle that as the starter. Something comes up where Brett is the starter, then (Rodgers) will handle it that way. He’ll be fine.”

I would think A-Rod's got plenty to be pissed about:


Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


If this plays out the way I'm picturing, Teddy should show his commitment to Rodgers and bump up his pay and extend his contract, especialy since we might lose him before we "get him".

And that would be the classy thing to do.And then ARod would politely tell Thompson to fuck off.

[SnakeLH2006]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.

[Pacopete4]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


You shouldn't quote 2 guys that have actually played the game and who have actually experience the NFL when there are people here that know way more about the situation and can tell you they know for a fact that Rodgers is better and deserves a chance.......... :oops:

[Gunakor]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.

[Pacopete4]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....

[sharpe1027]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.

Where does the "ego" come from? Media speculation. Ask anyone to explain why they believe he has an ego and you get silence or a lot of hemming and hawing, but nothing to support their belief.

[Gunakor]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....


Ya he did. He also became a GM. That means he understands the business side of this league, while mere players such as Golic and Wiley do not. TT is a businessman, and is running this team quite well. Golic and Wiley are emotionally driven media assholes, and would run this team into the ground. Like I said, they should shut the hell up.

[SnakeLH2006]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


You shouldn't quote 2 guys that have actually played the game and who have actually experience the NFL when there are people here that know way more about the situation and can tell you they know for a fact that Rodgers is better and deserves a chance.......... :oops:

I'm just the reporter here, but obviously we're definitely not the Internet GM's. :roll:

[Pacopete4]

Sharpe, I'm a firm believer that TT does not want Favre around.. he thinks he can get "his" own player to get the job done for him and win a superbowl and this was a perfect way to get favre outta here and let Arod play.. now that Favre wants back in, even though Favre is the better player, he is reluctant to do so because of his ego....

[Gunakor]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....

So should we just name Brett Favre our new GM because he played for quite awhile in this league also?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Is it all that surprising that a couple of former players would support a player on an issue involving a player vs. an organization?

[Pacopete4]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....

So should we just name Brett Favre our new GM because he played for quite awhile in this league also?

That'd be fine by me... as long as TT gets the fuck outta town

[cpk1994]

Is it all that surprising that a couple of former players would support a player on an issue involving a player vs. an organization?NO it isn't. Its even less suprisng when it comes from FavreSPN employees.

[Pacopete4]

Is it all that surprising that a couple of former players would support a player on an issue involving a player vs. an organization?

I agree Harv, they usually do side with the player.. but I also think they made sense in how stupid this has become... Bretts back, hes committed, hes a proven winner, best all time... get his ass on the field already and stop with the shenanigans.. its a joke already

[Gunakor]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....

So should we just name Brett Favre our new GM because he played for quite awhile in this league also?

That'd be fine by me... as long as TT gets the fuck outta town


My guess is he'd run this team like his buddy Mike Sherman. He'd be as undisciplined a GM as he is a player. Welcome to Siberia again Paco. Enjoy the 80's.

[cpk1994]

Is it all that surprising that a couple of former players would support a player on an issue involving a player vs. an organization?

I agree Harv, they usually do side with the player.. but I also think they made sense in how stupid this has become... Bretts back, hes committed, hes a proven winner, best all time... get his ass on the field already and stop with the shenanigans.. its a joke already :bs2:

[cpk1994]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....

So should we just name Brett Favre our new GM because he played for quite awhile in this league also?

That'd be fine by me... as long as TT gets the fuck outta town


My guess is he'd run this team like his buddy Mike Sherman. He'd be as undisciplined a GM as he is a player. Welcome to Siberia again Paco. Enjoy the 80's.I think TT is already driving that bus now.

[Gunakor]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....

So should we just name Brett Favre our new GM because he played for quite awhile in this league also?

That'd be fine by me... as long as TT gets the fuck outta town


My guess is he'd run this team like his buddy Mike Sherman. He'd be as undisciplined a GM as he is a player. Welcome to Siberia again Paco. Enjoy the 80's.I think TT is already driving that bus now.

cpk, unless you are going to join the chorus in that 13-3 last year was all due to Brett Favre - and I'm sure that's not how you feel - then give Thompson credit for the job he's done.

[Pacopete4]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....

So should we just name Brett Favre our new GM because he played for quite awhile in this league also?

That'd be fine by me... as long as TT gets the fuck outta town


My guess is he'd run this team like his buddy Mike Sherman. He'd be as undisciplined a GM as he is a player. Welcome to Siberia again Paco. Enjoy the 80's.I think TT is already driving that bus now.

I think Sherman won 3 nfc north titles didnt he?.. not to shabby, and not saying I like him either but you cant rip the guy too badly

the GM of the 4-12 team was TT wasn't it?



and I agree... this team is headed back to Siberia the moment Favre is gone from GB forever..

[LL2]

You guys should watch the best of Mike and Mike today. Not sure when it's on, but they might air the interview of former Titans GM Reese. It was a different perspective that what the former players (Golic and Wiley) will give. He basically supported TT and commended Rodgers for how he's beenn handling the situation.

[cpk1994]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....

So should we just name Brett Favre our new GM because he played for quite awhile in this league also?

That'd be fine by me... as long as TT gets the fuck outta town


My guess is he'd run this team like his buddy Mike Sherman. He'd be as undisciplined a GM as he is a player. Welcome to Siberia again Paco. Enjoy the 80's.I think TT is already driving that bus now.

cpk, unless you are going to join the chorus in that 13-3 last year was all due to Brett Favre - and I'm sure that's not how you feel - then give Thompson credit for the job he's done.No what Im saying is that gutless wonders TT and M3 folding like cheap suits to Favre's demands means all that work with Rodgers is now up in smoke and the Packers will have NO QB after Favre. Which means back to the 80's.

[ND72]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....

So should we just name Brett Favre our new GM because he played for quite awhile in this league also?

That'd be fine by me... as long as TT gets the fuck outta town


My guess is he'd run this team like his buddy Mike Sherman. He'd be as undisciplined a GM as he is a player. Welcome to Siberia again Paco. Enjoy the 80's.I think TT is already driving that bus now.

Your kidding right? Ted Thompson does things the way he should. The problem with a head coach being the GM is they only see next year. The HC deals with now, the GM deals with next year, which is exactly what Ted does. his job, for the most part, this year is done until cuts come up. he's concerned with the future. If you think Ted Thompson is doing a bad job, you TRULY do not know anything about the NFL or how it should be ran. amazing how quickly we forget that probably 98% of the team that went 13-3 last year, was picked by Thompson. DAMN, what a shit job he is doing.

[Packgator]

Where does the "ego" come from? Media speculation. Ask anyone to explain why they believe he has an ego and you get silence

I don't see it either. He only speaks to the press when he absolutely has to. When he does he says as little as possible. He rarely if ever talks about himself. These are not typical traits of a large ego. I see no signs of an over-inflated ego. In fact it is quite possible that he has a very small ego.

[cpk1994]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....

So should we just name Brett Favre our new GM because he played for quite awhile in this league also?

That'd be fine by me... as long as TT gets the fuck outta town


My guess is he'd run this team like his buddy Mike Sherman. He'd be as undisciplined a GM as he is a player. Welcome to Siberia again Paco. Enjoy the 80's.I think TT is already driving that bus now.

Your kidding right? Ted Thompson does things the way he should. The problem with a head coach being the GM is they only see next year. The HC deals with now, the GM deals with next year, which is exactly what Ted does. his job, for the most part, this year is done until cuts come up. he's concerned with the future. If you think Ted Thompson is doing a bad job, you TRULY do not know anything about the NFL or how it should be ran. amazing how quickly we forget that probably 98% of the team that went 13-3 last year, was picked by Thompson. DAMN, what a shit job he is doing.If TT was really thinking about the future, Favre should be gone.

[ND72]

Where does the "ego" come from? Media speculation. Ask anyone to explain why they believe he has an ego and you get silence

I don't see it either. He only speaks to the press when he absolutely has to. When he does he says as little as possible. He rarely if ever talks about himself. These are not typical traits of a large ego. I see no signs of an over-inflated ego. In fact it is quite possible that he has a very small ego.

ESPN doesn't like him because he doesn't give any clues or anything to them, especially draft time.

[sharpe1027]

Sharpe, I'm a firm believer that TT does not want Favre around.. he thinks he can get "his" own player to get the job done for him and win a superbowl and this was a perfect way to get favre outta here and let Arod play.. now that Favre wants back in, even though Favre is the better player, he is reluctant to do so because of his ego....

So why did he have no problems bringing Favre back both before and after he retired? What basis does MM have to supporting this position? I can't imagine that the coach wasn't on board with this decision.

You have every right to believe what you do, but I refuse to jump to conclusions about TT without facts that support it. I would not appreciate someone doing that to myself, would you?

[HarveyWallbangers]

the GM of the 4-12 team was TT wasn't it?

It's really hard to take you seriously sometimes. Favre deservedly gets his share of the credit. He's been a great QB, but he had more to do with that 4-12 record than Ted Thompson did. Thompson inherited an old team in salary cap hell and couldn't rebuild Rome in a day. That year just proved that even Favre needs a good team around him to do well. Thompson has put a good team around him, and the rebuilding process took a lot less time than a lot of people thought it would.

[Gunakor]

I think Sherman won 3 nfc north titles didnt he?.. not to shabby, and not saying I like him either but you cant rip the guy too badly

the GM of the 4-12 team was TT wasn't it?



and I agree... this team is headed back to Siberia the moment Favre is gone from GB forever..


4-12 was SHERMAN'S fault. Open your eyes Paco. 4-12 came because Thompson's first duty was to get rid of Shermans talented yet way overpaid players and get this team back into salary health. That's business, and a GM is responsible for finances as well as wins and losses. So he had to rebuild. When you have to rebuild, 4-12 is going to happen. Don't assume that Green Bay is the only team that had to go through it. However, Green Bay IS in fact one of the few teams that could go from 4-12 to 13-3 and hosting the NFC Championship game in just 2 seasons. Give credit where credit is due.

The GM who went 4-12 a few seasons ago as a rookie GM won Executive of the Year last year. Voted on by his peers. That speaks volumes to his ability to build and run a successful football team. No Siberia as long as TT is running the show.

[cpk1994]

the GM of the 4-12 team was TT wasn't it?

It's really hard to take you seriously sometimes. Favre deservedly gets his share of the credit. He's been a great QB, but he had more to do with that 4-12 record than Ted Thompson did. Thompson inherited an old team in salary cap hell and couldn't rebuild Rome in a day. That year just proved that even Favre needs a good team around him to do well. Thompson has put a good team around him, and the rebuilding process took a lot less time than a lot of people thought it would.And now TT has undone that in one swift stroke.

[ND72]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....

So should we just name Brett Favre our new GM because he played for quite awhile in this league also?

That'd be fine by me... as long as TT gets the fuck outta town


My guess is he'd run this team like his buddy Mike Sherman. He'd be as undisciplined a GM as he is a player. Welcome to Siberia again Paco. Enjoy the 80's.I think TT is already driving that bus now.

Your kidding right? Ted Thompson does things the way he should. The problem with a head coach being the GM is they only see next year. The HC deals with now, the GM deals with next year, which is exactly what Ted does. his job, for the most part, this year is done until cuts come up. he's concerned with the future. If you think Ted Thompson is doing a bad job, you TRULY do not know anything about the NFL or how it should be ran. amazing how quickly we forget that probably 98% of the team that went 13-3 last year, was picked by Thompson. DAMN, what a shit job he is doing.If TT was really thinking about the future, Favre should be gone.

now it's Thompson's fault he's back?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Can we learn how to edit our quotes?
:D

[Patler]

There isn't a single player on the team who wouldn't be sent to the second team if a better player came along. If he gets beat out on performance, Rodgers has no gripe just because in April/May/June he was "the guy".

Heck, Harrell was listed as a starter before training camp last summer. Does that mean he was entitled to keep it regardless?

[HarveyWallbangers]

And now TT has undone that in one swift stroke.

I won't go that far. Bad precedent, but he was between a rock and a hard place.

[Gunakor]

So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....

So should we just name Brett Favre our new GM because he played for quite awhile in this league also?

That'd be fine by me... as long as TT gets the fuck outta town


My guess is he'd run this team like his buddy Mike Sherman. He'd be as undisciplined a GM as he is a player. Welcome to Siberia again Paco. Enjoy the 80's.I think TT is already driving that bus now.

Your kidding right? Ted Thompson does things the way he should. The problem with a head coach being the GM is they only see next year. The HC deals with now, the GM deals with next year, which is exactly what Ted does. his job, for the most part, this year is done until cuts come up. he's concerned with the future. If you think Ted Thompson is doing a bad job, you TRULY do not know anything about the NFL or how it should be ran. amazing how quickly we forget that probably 98% of the team that went 13-3 last year, was picked by Thompson. DAMN, what a shit job he is doing.If TT was really thinking about the future, Favre should be gone.

Favre is UNDER CONTRACT. That means TT has no control over it. What is he supposed to do, just release him so he can go play for the Vikings? Cmon now. Favre does less harm to Green Bay as a Packer than he does as a Viking. Since he is UNDER CONTRACT that means TT can't just tell him no. He is legally and contractually obligated to welcome him back if he wants to. That's what a contract is. TT can't just tear it up without releasing him to play for an archrival, which Favre has made crystal clear he'd do if released. Favre as a Viking is worse for Green Bay than Favre as a Packer. Are you really going to dispute this?

[ND72]

the GM of the 4-12 team was TT wasn't it?

It's really hard to take you seriously sometimes. Favre deservedly gets his share of the credit. He's been a great QB, but he had more to do with that 4-12 record than Ted Thompson did. Thompson inherited an old team in salary cap hell and couldn't rebuild Rome in a day. That year just proved that even Favre needs a good team around him to do well. Thompson has put a good team around him, and the rebuilding process took a lot less time than a lot of people thought it would.And now TT has undone that in one swift stroke.

This is almost comical. first off...I love how people still bring up "well ted was the GM of hte 4-12 team. If that's the case that we want to play, Brett Favre WAS the quarterback that threw 29 interceptions. I mean if we're playing the blame game, lets really play it. Truth is, 4-12 was Sherman's fault.

Now...."TT has undone that in one swift stroke."....what in the HELL are you talking about?

[cpk1994]

[quote:ae21f49664="Pacopete4"]So if Favre had not retired... Rodgers would have zero complaint of backing up Favre again? but since Favre did, he now has the right to be bitter?... doesnt make sense... rodgers hasn't done squat in this league to be entitled to anything.. IMO there already shoulda been a competition, Rodgers vs Brohm vs Flynn

No doubt....WOW...anyone check out Sportcenter around 12:30 CST today, they did a 15 min. roundtable discussion with Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic. Wow, did they toast Arod and TT. Here's a summary (don't flame me, it's their comments):

-TT has a massive ego, and they couldn't believe Murphy's comments about having to redo everything (Golic: It was 3 months, damn)
-Packers had a sub 40% winning % in 1972-1991 before Favre, then a 64% clip since 1992 when Favre took over (best in all the NFL)
-Based on talent, not politics, Favre would kill AR in a QB competition as they were saying that it is only phrased as such to appease Arod, but Favre will be the starting QB for sure.
-Both Wiley and Golic as NFL vets said it's sick that it came to this, but is totally a power trip from TT, but regardless as vets they say the players will want Favre to win as they know he's the far superior talent.
-Lots more stuff, maybe they replay it all day as normal, but hellaciously entertaining. I was laughing my ass off.


I don't give a flying fuck what players/former players have to say about this. PLAYERS ARE NOT GM'S. They should keep thier fucking mouths shut.


TT played for quite awhile in this league....

So should we just name Brett Favre our new GM because he played for quite awhile in this league also?

That'd be fine by me... as long as TT gets the fuck outta town


My guess is he'd run this team like his buddy Mike Sherman. He'd be as undisciplined a GM as he is a player. Welcome to Siberia again Paco. Enjoy the 80's.I think TT is already driving that bus now.

Your kidding right? Ted Thompson does things the way he should. The problem with a head coach being the GM is they only see next year. The HC deals with now, the GM deals with next year, which is exactly what Ted does. his job, for the most part, this year is done until cuts come up. he's concerned with the future. If you think Ted Thompson is doing a bad job, you TRULY do not know anything about the NFL or how it should be ran. amazing how quickly we forget that probably 98% of the team that went 13-3 last year, was picked by Thompson. DAMN, what a shit job he is doing.If TT was really thinking about the future, Favre should be gone.

now it's Thompson's fault he's back?[/quote:ae21f49664]No Thomspon never should have let Favre back in. They made a committment and now shown that committment to be BS. Now Rodgers will be gone and instead of having a ready Qb you will have rookies or some washed up journeyman. Thompson needs to grow a pair, stand up to the commitment he and M3 made and release Favre now.

[cpk1994]

the GM of the 4-12 team was TT wasn't it?

It's really hard to take you seriously sometimes. Favre deservedly gets his share of the credit. He's been a great QB, but he had more to do with that 4-12 record than Ted Thompson did. Thompson inherited an old team in salary cap hell and couldn't rebuild Rome in a day. That year just proved that even Favre needs a good team around him to do well. Thompson has put a good team around him, and the rebuilding process took a lot less time than a lot of people thought it would.And now TT has undone that in one swift stroke.

This is almost comical. first off...I love how people still bring up "well ted was the GM of hte 4-12 team. If that's the case that we want to play, Brett Favre WAS the quarterback that threw 29 interceptions. I mean if we're playing the blame game, lets really play it. Truth is, 4-12 was Sherman's fault.

Now...."TT has undone that in one swift stroke."....what in the HELL are you talking about?ITs called by letting Favre back in you have cost the team Rodhers which menas you have even less proven ability at QB after Favre. HE has set the team back at least 3 years with this idiotic decision.

[Ballboy]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?

[Gunakor]

No Thomspon never should have let Favre back in. They made a committment and now shown that committment to be BS. Now Rodgers will be gone and instead of having a ready Qb you will have rookies or some washed up journeyman. Thompson needs to grow a pair, stand up to the commitment he and M3 made and release Favre now.


Again, Thompson legally didn't have a choice. Brett Favre is under contract. Once Goodell reinstated him, Thompson was contractually obligated to welcome him back or let him play for the Vikings. That's it.

[ND72]

No Thomspon never should have let Favre back in. They made a committment and now shown that committment to be BS. Now Rodgers will be gone and instead of having a ready Qb you will have rookies or some washed up journeyman. Thompson needs to grow a pair, stand up to the commitment he and M3 made and release Favre now.[/quote]


Ok, I am one of the biggest Rodgers supporters maybe on this entire board, but There really was nothing Thompson can do. Favre wants back. PLUS Thompson is a smart enough man to say, well I'm not gonna be the guy who cuts Favre...and it's just dumb to trade him unless he goes somewhere like the AFC. So now you play good cop, and try to get this entire nightmare over with, and move on. I feel for Rodgers, but he has been great up to this point, this is where I will truly watch Aaron, shows the kind of person he is. If he goes the wrong way with it, well then I'm sorry. But I'm hoping he picks the good road.

[cpk1994]

No Thomspon never should have let Favre back in. They made a committment and now shown that committment to be BS. Now Rodgers will be gone and instead of having a ready Qb you will have rookies or some washed up journeyman. Thompson needs to grow a pair, stand up to the commitment he and M3 made and release Favre now.


Again, Thompson legally didn't have a choice. Brett Favre is under contract. Once Goodell reinstated him, Thompson was contractually obligated to welcome him back or let him play for the Vikings. That's it.Then he should have let him play for the VIkings. Grow a set and show that one player is not above the team and behavior like that will not be tolerated.

[ND72]

No Thomspon never should have let Favre back in. They made a committment and now shown that committment to be BS. Now Rodgers will be gone and instead of having a ready Qb you will have rookies or some washed up journeyman. Thompson needs to grow a pair, stand up to the commitment he and M3 made and release Favre now.


Again, Thompson legally didn't have a choice. Brett Favre is under contract. Once Goodell reinstated him, Thompson was contractually obligated to welcome him back or let him play for the Vikings. That's it.Then he should have let him play for the VIkings. Grow a set and show that one player is not above the team and behavior like that will not be tolerated.

I agree with all of that, except the Vikings part. You just can't let thta happen. People in Wisconsin would burn Thompson at the stake if the Vikes got him and beat us.

[cpk1994]

No Thomspon never should have let Favre back in. They made a committment and now shown that committment to be BS. Now Rodgers will be gone and instead of having a ready Qb you will have rookies or some washed up journeyman. Thompson needs to grow a pair, stand up to the commitment he and M3 made and release Favre now.


Ok, I am one of the biggest Rodgers supporters maybe on this entire board, but There really was nothing Thompson can do. Favre wants back. PLUS Thompson is a smart enough man to say, well I'm not gonna be the guy who cuts Favre...and it's just dumb to trade him unless he goes somewhere like the AFC. So now you play good cop, and try to get this entire nightmare over with, and move on. I feel for Rodgers, but he has been great up to this point, this is where I will truly watch Aaron, shows the kind of person he is. If he goes the wrong way with it, well then I'm sorry. But I'm hoping he picks the good road.[/quote] Thats the cowards way out. TT needs to grow a pair. He just set the team back years.

[Pacopete4]

I think Sherman won 3 nfc north titles didnt he?.. not to shabby, and not saying I like him either but you cant rip the guy too badly

the GM of the 4-12 team was TT wasn't it?


and I agree... this team is headed back to Siberia the moment Favre is gone from GB forever..



whoa, whoa, whoa... where in there did I say it was TT's fault? It was a question because if I remember right TT was the GM in Sherman's last season... so go fuck yourself once again Harv... such a douche

[Gunakor]

No Thomspon never should have let Favre back in. They made a committment and now shown that committment to be BS. Now Rodgers will be gone and instead of having a ready Qb you will have rookies or some washed up journeyman. Thompson needs to grow a pair, stand up to the commitment he and M3 made and release Favre now.


Again, Thompson legally didn't have a choice. Brett Favre is under contract. Once Goodell reinstated him, Thompson was contractually obligated to welcome him back or let him play for the Vikings. That's it.Then he should have let him play for the VIkings. Grow a set and show that one player is not above the team and behavior like that will not be tolerated.


Packer Nation would not have tolerated TT sending Brett Favre to an archrival. I would have joined them in the tarring and feathering of TT on the 50 yard line during halftime in front of a national audience on Monday Night Football. I would MUCH rather see Favre riding OUR pine than see Favre starting for an archrival. Period.

[cpk1994]

No Thomspon never should have let Favre back in. They made a committment and now shown that committment to be BS. Now Rodgers will be gone and instead of having a ready Qb you will have rookies or some washed up journeyman. Thompson needs to grow a pair, stand up to the commitment he and M3 made and release Favre now.


Again, Thompson legally didn't have a choice. Brett Favre is under contract. Once Goodell reinstated him, Thompson was contractually obligated to welcome him back or let him play for the Vikings. That's it.Then he should have let him play for the VIkings. Grow a set and show that one player is not above the team and behavior like that will not be tolerated.

I agree with all of that, except the Vikings part. You just can't let thta happen. People in Wisconsin would burn Thompson at the stake if the Vikes got him and beat us.So what? Its one or two losses. But at least he has credibility and maintains the "team commitment" and "accountablility" for EVERY player on the 53 man roster. NOw its just a pile of BS. They are both cowards.

[sharpe1027]

Then he should have let him play for the VIkings. Grow a set and show that one player is not above the team and behavior like that will not be tolerated.

So your solution is to give into Favre's demands? I fail to see how that is growing a pair. I also don't see how it shows anyone anything other than how stupid of a GM you are to get nothing in return for a player on your roster that several teams have interest in.

[Pacopete4]

cpk1994 is not a packer fan so theres no reasoning with him.. its better off to just realize that and take his anus comments with a grain of salt

[cpk1994]

Then he should have let him play for the VIkings. Grow a set and show that one player is not above the team and behavior like that will not be tolerated.

So your solution is to give into Favre's demands? I fail to see how that is growing a pair. I also don't see how it shows anyone anything other than how stupid of a GM you are to get nothing in return for a player on your roster that several teams have interest in.ITs better then telling the locker room its ok to shit all over the orginization, don't have to committ to the team, show uup whenever you want, you can still have your job. This is about committment to the TEAM, something Favre is totally lacking.

[ND72]

I think Sherman won 3 nfc north titles didnt he?.. not to shabby, and not saying I like him either but you cant rip the guy too badly

the GM of the 4-12 team was TT wasn't it?


and I agree... this team is headed back to Siberia the moment Favre is gone from GB forever..



whoa, whoa, whoa... where in there did I say it was TT's fault? It was a question because if I remember right TT was the GM in Sherman's last season... so go fuck yourself once again Harv... such a douche

my bad there, I just saw the 4-12 statement.

[Gunakor]

cpk1994 is not a packer fan so theres no reasoning with him.. its better off to just realize that and take his anus comments with a grain of salt


I think he might be a Packer fan deep down, but his hatred of Favre trumps the love of the Packers. As in, it's more important to him to see Favre fail than it is to see the Packers succeed. Shame.

[cpk1994]

cpk1994 is not a packer fan so theres no reasoning with him.. its better off to just realize that and take his anus comments with a grain of saltI am a Packer fan. I just cheer for the TEAM and not sniff jocks like you do.

[Pacopete4]

This is about committment to the TEAM, something Favre is totally lacking.


Ya, you're right... Favre's played injured, when his dad or other family members have died, given all his time and efforts in the community, and all the rest thats went along with it... aaaaaallllllll for himself, sure....

[Gunakor]

Then he should have let him play for the VIkings. Grow a set and show that one player is not above the team and behavior like that will not be tolerated.

So your solution is to give into Favre's demands? I fail to see how that is growing a pair. I also don't see how it shows anyone anything other than how stupid of a GM you are to get nothing in return for a player on your roster that several teams have interest in.ITs better then telling the locker room its ok to shit all over the orginization, don't have to committ to the team, show uup whenever you want, you can still have your job. This is about committment to the TEAM, something Favre is totally lacking.


Favre has not been named the starter yet. He's only been welcomed back into camp, something they were gonna have to do anyway once Goodell approved Favre's reinstatement. Fucking chill.

[Pacopete4]

cpk1994 is not a packer fan so theres no reasoning with him.. its better off to just realize that and take his anus comments with a grain of saltI am a Packer fan. I just cheer for the TEAM and not sniff jocks like you do.



Do I have to bring up your quotes that say you want us to lose if Brett is the QB?... come on now bud.. you're no packer fan

[Gunakor]

cpk1994 is not a packer fan so theres no reasoning with him.. its better off to just realize that and take his anus comments with a grain of saltI am a Packer fan. I just cheer for the TEAM and not sniff jocks like you do.


It is still a TEAM if Favre is the starter. You have said if Favre is the starter you will not cheer for the TEAM. If the TEAM is what you will cheer for, why does it matter who is playing for it?

[Pacopete4]

I think Sherman won 3 nfc north titles didnt he?.. not to shabby, and not saying I like him either but you cant rip the guy too badly

the GM of the 4-12 team was TT wasn't it?


and I agree... this team is headed back to Siberia the moment Favre is gone from GB forever..



whoa, whoa, whoa... where in there did I say it was TT's fault? It was a question because if I remember right TT was the GM in Sherman's last season... so go fuck yourself once again Harv... such a douche

my bad there, I just saw the 4-12 statement.


No problem, I probably shoulda made myself more clear anyways..

[cpk1994]

Then he should have let him play for the VIkings. Grow a set and show that one player is not above the team and behavior like that will not be tolerated.

So your solution is to give into Favre's demands? I fail to see how that is growing a pair. I also don't see how it shows anyone anything other than how stupid of a GM you are to get nothing in return for a player on your roster that several teams have interest in.ITs better then telling the locker room its ok to shit all over the orginization, don't have to committ to the team, show uup whenever you want, you can still have your job. This is about committment to the TEAM, something Favre is totally lacking.

Favre has not been named the starter yet. He's only been welcomed back into camp, something they were gonna have to do anyway once Goodell approved Favre's reinstatement. Fucking chill.
EDIT: putting rebuttal in proper place
Of couse he has't been. But by allowing an open competition McCarthy is already showing that his "team commitmment" mantra is complete BS.

[ND72]

cpk1994 is not a packer fan so theres no reasoning with him.. its better off to just realize that and take his anus comments with a grain of salt


I think he might be a Packer fan deep down, but his hatred of Favre trumps the love of the Packers. As in, it's more important to him to see Favre fail than it is to see the Packers succeed. Shame.

I wouldn't say he's not a packer fan, cause his "meaning" I agree with. I hate the fact that Favre has made himself bigger than the organization. Too many people are too in love with Brett Favre, and not the Packers. It drives me nuts listening ot people lately. At training camp I had 3 guys behind me trying to tell me how we will never win another game after Favre retires....EVER. I mean are you serious? That's just stupid.

[cpk1994]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?Becuase Rodgers now has no incentive to stay. Why should Aaron believe what M3 says anymore as it has proven to be a sham?

[Gunakor]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?

Untrue. Rodgers is unrestricted when his contract expires. He'll have 5 years accrued service in teh NFL. He can sign with anyone he chooses and Green Bay has no way to stop him.

[Patler]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?Becuase Rodgers now has no incentive to stay. Why should Aaron believe what M3 says anymore as it has proven to be a sham?

Every pro athlete knows that the only thing separating them from the second team or the waiver wire is their performance. Not commitments from the coach, general manger or anyone. Their performance.

[Patler]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?Becuase Rodgers now has no incentive to stay. Why should Aaron believe what M3 says anymore as it has proven to be a sham?

Like most athletes, Rodgers probably will go where the biggest contract is.

[cpk1994]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?Becuase Rodgers now has no incentive to stay. Why should Aaron believe what M3 says anymore as it has proven to be a sham?

Every pro athlete knows that the only thing separating them from the second team or the waiver wire is their performance. Not commitments from the coach, general manger or anyone. Their performance.YOu might have merit if Rodgers was actually being given a shot to keep the job he was given.

[Patler]

YOu might have merit if Rodgers was actually being given a shot to keep the job he was given.

What makes you think he won't have?

[cpk1994]

YOu might have merit if Rodgers was actually being given a shot to keep the job he was given.

What makes you think he won't have?Becuase McCarthy is a gutless coward.

[Gunakor]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?Becuase Rodgers now has no incentive to stay. Why should Aaron believe what M3 says anymore as it has proven to be a sham?

Like most athletes, Rodgers probably will go where the biggest contract is.

I'd feel more comfortable with it if TT would just extend his contract now and give him what he'd be making as a starter this year even if he's the backup. Ordinarally I would not support a move like this, but seeing that Rodgers had been told by management that he'd be starting this year I only think it's fair if they pay him as if he were the starter even if Favre wins the job. It would do alot of help in keeping Rodgers happy, and would probably make him more accepting of one more year behind Favre.

[Gunakor]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?Becuase Rodgers now has no incentive to stay. Why should Aaron believe what M3 says anymore as it has proven to be a sham?

Every pro athlete knows that the only thing separating them from the second team or the waiver wire is their performance. Not commitments from the coach, general manger or anyone. Their performance.YOu might have merit if Rodgers was actually being given a shot to keep the job he was given.

Open competition means Rodgers DOES have a shot to keep the job. Just as Favre shouldn't be just handed the job, neither should Rodgers. It can't be forgotten that Rodgers has never had to compete for his job either...

[cpk1994]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?Becuase Rodgers now has no incentive to stay. Why should Aaron believe what M3 says anymore as it has proven to be a sham?

Like most athletes, Rodgers probably will go where the biggest contract is.

I'd feel more comfortable with it if TT would just extend his contract now and give him what he'd be making as a starter this year even if he's the backup. Ordinarally I would not support a move like this, but seeing that Rodgers had been told by management that he'd be starting this year I only think it's fair if they pay him as if he were the starter even if Favre wins the job. It would do alot of help in keeping Rodgers happy, and would probably make him more accepting of one more year behind Favre.Rodgers isn't going to sign an extension. And he should't. He should tell TT that if "you wan't me, play me."

[Patler]

YOu might have merit if Rodgers was actually being given a shot to keep the job he was given.

What makes you think he won't have?Becuase McCarthy is a gutless coward.

....and you know this how????

[cpk1994]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?Becuase Rodgers now has no incentive to stay. Why should Aaron believe what M3 says anymore as it has proven to be a sham?

Every pro athlete knows that the only thing separating them from the second team or the waiver wire is their performance. Not commitments from the coach, general manger or anyone. Their performance.YOu might have merit if Rodgers was actually being given a shot to keep the job he was given.

Open competition means Rodgers DOES have a shot to keep the job. Just as Favre shouldn't be just handed the job, neither should Rodgers. It can't be forgotten that Rodgers has never had to compete for his job either...Favre shouldn't get the job at all as he RETIRED. If they want an open competition, it should be between Rodgers Brohm and Flynn ONLY, the guys who have been committed from the start and have put in all the work.

[Ballboy]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?

Untrue. Rodgers is unrestricted when his contract expires. He'll have 5 years accrued service in teh NFL. He can sign with anyone he chooses and Green Bay has no way to stop him.

PER PFT:
RODGERS IS SIGNED THROUGH 2009
Posted by Mike Florio on August 4, 2008, 12:20 p.m.
We’ve gotten several e-mails and seen more than a few comments regarding the contractual status of Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Though some believe that 2008 is the final year of Rodgers’ rookie deal, NFLPA records indicate that he is signed through 2009.

Absent a salary cap in 2010, Rodgers would be eligible only for restricted free agency after his current deal expires, since he’d have only five years of service.

Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


Unless I'm reading what they have written wrong!!!

[Patler]

Favre shouldn't get the job at all as he RETIRED. If they want an open competition, it should be between Rodgers Brohm and Flynn ONLY, the guys who have been committed from the start and have put in all the work.

Now I think you are just trying to be controversial.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think Florio is wrong. I believe players are eligible for UFA after 5 years of accrued service. Patler? Some rookies sign 4 year deals. Some 5 years. A few have signed 6 year deals. That 5 years of accrued service is the bone of contention between many agents and teams.

[Gunakor]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?Becuase Rodgers now has no incentive to stay. Why should Aaron believe what M3 says anymore as it has proven to be a sham?

Every pro athlete knows that the only thing separating them from the second team or the waiver wire is their performance. Not commitments from the coach, general manger or anyone. Their performance.YOu might have merit if Rodgers was actually being given a shot to keep the job he was given.

Open competition means Rodgers DOES have a shot to keep the job. Just as Favre shouldn't be just handed the job, neither should Rodgers. It can't be forgotten that Rodgers has never had to compete for his job either...Favre shouldn't get the job at all as he RETIRED. If they want an open competition, it should be between Rodgers Brohm and Flynn ONLY, the guys who have been committed from the start and have put in all the work.

Favre is NOT retired anymore. He sent in his request to be reinstated and it was approved by Rodger Goodell. He is now an active member of the NFL. I don't agree with his decision to unretire either, but there's nothing that can be done about that now. It's not about personal beef with me, it's about team success. If the team can be successful with Favre, then I have no problem with Favre starting - as long as they've talked with Rodgers and have given him assurance that he will get his shot, and have gotten an assurance from him that he will stick around to take advantage of it. We don't know what Rodgers is going to do. I don't want to lose him, but if he's agreeable to this then I have no problem with a competition.

[cpk1994]

Favre shouldn't get the job at all as he RETIRED. If they want an open competition, it should be between Rodgers Brohm and Flynn ONLY, the guys who have been committed from the start and have put in all the work.

Now I think you are just trying to be controversial.NO im not, I am serious. If McCarthy truely believes in the "team commitment" Than Favre should rot on the bench as the 4th string. Lets those that were truely committed from the start reap the rewards of their hard work. If Lord Favre doesn't like it he can go home.

[Gunakor]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?

Untrue. Rodgers is unrestricted when his contract expires. He'll have 5 years accrued service in teh NFL. He can sign with anyone he chooses and Green Bay has no way to stop him.

PER PFT:
RODGERS IS SIGNED THROUGH 2009
Posted by Mike Florio on August 4, 2008, 12:20 p.m.
We’ve gotten several e-mails and seen more than a few comments regarding the contractual status of Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Though some believe that 2008 is the final year of Rodgers’ rookie deal, NFLPA records indicate that he is signed through 2009.

Absent a salary cap in 2010, Rodgers would be eligible only for restricted free agency after his current deal expires, since he’d have only five years of service.

Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


Unless I'm reading what they have written wrong!!!


No, you are reading it right. What is written is wrong. That article is not accurate. After 5 years of service a player is eligible for unrestricted FA, whether they started or not, whether that contract is a rookie contract or not. Whoever wrote this article has not done thier homework. The current CBA is valid through 2011, so Rodgers would still fall under the current FA rules.

[cpk1994]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?Becuase Rodgers now has no incentive to stay. Why should Aaron believe what M3 says anymore as it has proven to be a sham?

Every pro athlete knows that the only thing separating them from the second team or the waiver wire is their performance. Not commitments from the coach, general manger or anyone. Their performance.YOu might have merit if Rodgers was actually being given a shot to keep the job he was given.

Open competition means Rodgers DOES have a shot to keep the job. Just as Favre shouldn't be just handed the job, neither should Rodgers. It can't be forgotten that Rodgers has never had to compete for his job either...Favre shouldn't get the job at all as he RETIRED. If they want an open competition, it should be between Rodgers Brohm and Flynn ONLY, the guys who have been committed from the start and have put in all the work.

Favre is NOT retired anymore. He sent in his request to be reinstated and it was approved by Rodger Goodell. He is now an active member of the NFL. I don't agree with his decision to unretire either, but there's nothing that can be done about that now. It's not about personal beef with me, it's about team success. If the team can be successful with Favre, then I have no problem with Favre starting - as long as they've talked with Rodgers and have given him assurance that he will get his shot, and have gotten an assurance from him that he will stick around to take advantage of it. We don't know what Rodgers is going to do. I don't want to lose him, but if he's agreeable to this then I have no problem with a competition.THe probelm is they can't give Rodgers assurances because they can't assure that Favre won't pull this same shit next year. They want to give Rodgers assurance, release Favre immediately.

[Ballboy]

Favre shouldn't get the job at all as he RETIRED. If they want an open competition, it should be between Rodgers Brohm and Flynn ONLY, the guys who have been committed from the start and have put in all the work.

Now I think you are just trying to be controversial.NO im not, I am serious. If McCarthy truely believes in the "team commitment" Than Favre should rot on the bench as the 4th string. Lets those that were truely committed from the start reap the rewards of their hard work. If Lord Favre doesn't like it he can go home.

In recent memory, Brett has just merely showed face at OTA's and Mini-Camp over the past few years. He may have been putting in the same amount of "hard work" this year as in the past.

[cpk1994]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?

Untrue. Rodgers is unrestricted when his contract expires. He'll have 5 years accrued service in teh NFL. He can sign with anyone he chooses and Green Bay has no way to stop him.

PER PFT:
RODGERS IS SIGNED THROUGH 2009
Posted by Mike Florio on August 4, 2008, 12:20 p.m.
We’ve gotten several e-mails and seen more than a few comments regarding the contractual status of Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Though some believe that 2008 is the final year of Rodgers’ rookie deal, NFLPA records indicate that he is signed through 2009.

Absent a salary cap in 2010, Rodgers would be eligible only for restricted free agency after his current deal expires, since he’d have only five years of service.

Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


Unless I'm reading what they have written wrong!!!


No, you are reading it right. What is written is wrong. That article is not accurate. After 5 years of service a player is eligible for unrestricted FA, whether they started or not, whether that contract is a rookie contract or not. Whoever wrote this article has not done thier homework.You missed the part about if there is no cap. If there is no cap the rules change.

[Patler]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?

Untrue. Rodgers is unrestricted when his contract expires. He'll have 5 years accrued service in teh NFL. He can sign with anyone he chooses and Green Bay has no way to stop him.

PER PFT:
RODGERS IS SIGNED THROUGH 2009
Posted by Mike Florio on August 4, 2008, 12:20 p.m.
We’ve gotten several e-mails and seen more than a few comments regarding the contractual status of Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Though some believe that 2008 is the final year of Rodgers’ rookie deal, NFLPA records indicate that he is signed through 2009.

Absent a salary cap in 2010, Rodgers would be eligible only for restricted free agency after his current deal expires, since he’d have only five years of service.

Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


Unless I'm reading what they have written wrong!!!

The article is correct. One of the changes that occurs by the owners "opting out" of the CBA is that 5th year players are RFAs in the uncapped years. However, I doubt it will get to that. A new CBA will probably be in place by then. Hard to guess what will happen with RFAs in a new CBA, but I would be surprised if it didn't drop down to at least 4th year, maybe even less.

[Gunakor]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?

Untrue. Rodgers is unrestricted when his contract expires. He'll have 5 years accrued service in teh NFL. He can sign with anyone he chooses and Green Bay has no way to stop him.

PER PFT:
RODGERS IS SIGNED THROUGH 2009
Posted by Mike Florio on August 4, 2008, 12:20 p.m.
We’ve gotten several e-mails and seen more than a few comments regarding the contractual status of Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Though some believe that 2008 is the final year of Rodgers’ rookie deal, NFLPA records indicate that he is signed through 2009.

Absent a salary cap in 2010, Rodgers would be eligible only for restricted free agency after his current deal expires, since he’d have only five years of service.

Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


Unless I'm reading what they have written wrong!!!


No, you are reading it right. What is written is wrong. That article is not accurate. After 5 years of service a player is eligible for unrestricted FA, whether they started or not, whether that contract is a rookie contract or not. Whoever wrote this article has not done thier homework.You missed the part about if there is no cap. If there is no cap the rules change.

The current CBA is valid through 2011, so he'd fall under the same FA rules as today. Sorry, I edited my last post to reflect this as well.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Okay, I read Florio's article wrong. So, if there's no CBA, Rodgers will be a RFA? What would happen under the current CBA? I think the bottom line is that we have to assume Rodgers will be a UFA after next year.

[Pacopete4]

cpk1994... if that were true in every situation I highly doubt the Giants win the super bowl last year as he came back just in time for camp as well..

[cpk1994]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?

Untrue. Rodgers is unrestricted when his contract expires. He'll have 5 years accrued service in teh NFL. He can sign with anyone he chooses and Green Bay has no way to stop him.

PER PFT:
RODGERS IS SIGNED THROUGH 2009
Posted by Mike Florio on August 4, 2008, 12:20 p.m.
We’ve gotten several e-mails and seen more than a few comments regarding the contractual status of Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Though some believe that 2008 is the final year of Rodgers’ rookie deal, NFLPA records indicate that he is signed through 2009.

Absent a salary cap in 2010, Rodgers would be eligible only for restricted free agency after his current deal expires, since he’d have only five years of service.

Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


Unless I'm reading what they have written wrong!!!


No, you are reading it right. What is written is wrong. That article is not accurate. After 5 years of service a player is eligible for unrestricted FA, whether they started or not, whether that contract is a rookie contract or not. Whoever wrote this article has not done thier homework.You missed the part about if there is no cap. If there is no cap the rules change.

The current CBA is valid through 2011, so he'd fall under the same FA rules as today. Sorry, I edited my last post to reflect this as well.Yes but the owners have opted out in 2010. If the cap is gone Rodgers is an RFA as part of the opt out changes.

[Gunakor]

Okay, I read Florio's article wrong. So, if there's no CBA, Rodgers will be a RFA? What would happen under the current CBA?


Moot issue. The current CBA and the correlating FA rules do not expire until 2011...

The current CBA - the one that Rodgers will still fall under when his contract expires - makes players ERFA's up to 3 years of service, RFA's after 4, and UFA's after 5.


EDIT: I thought I heard on NFLN that the owners were going to opt out of the current CBA when that agreement was scheduled to expire after the END of the 2010 season... Did I miss something?

[Ballboy]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?

Untrue. Rodgers is unrestricted when his contract expires. He'll have 5 years accrued service in teh NFL. He can sign with anyone he chooses and Green Bay has no way to stop him.

PER PFT:
RODGERS IS SIGNED THROUGH 2009
Posted by Mike Florio on August 4, 2008, 12:20 p.m.
We’ve gotten several e-mails and seen more than a few comments regarding the contractual status of Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Though some believe that 2008 is the final year of Rodgers’ rookie deal, NFLPA records indicate that he is signed through 2009.

Absent a salary cap in 2010, Rodgers would be eligible only for restricted free agency after his current deal expires, since he’d have only five years of service.

Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


Unless I'm reading what they have written wrong!!!


No, you are reading it right. What is written is wrong. That article is not accurate. After 5 years of service a player is eligible for unrestricted FA, whether they started or not, whether that contract is a rookie contract or not. Whoever wrote this article has not done thier homework.You missed the part about if there is no cap. If there is no cap the rules change.

The current CBA is valid through 2011, so he'd fall under the same FA rules as today. Sorry, I edited my last post to reflect this as well.Yes but the owners have opted out in 2010. If the cap is gone Rodgers is an RFA as part of the opt out changes.





So the Packers retain "first rights" and can match any offer?

[cpk1994]

cpk1994... if that were true in every situation I highly doubt the Giants win the super bowl last year as he came back just in time for camp as well..What the hell are you talking about?

[Patler]

Geez, I can't read today either!

In a capped year, players with 4 or more seasons are UFAs.
In an uncapped year, players with 5 or more seasons are UFAs.

Since the owners have opted out, 2010 would be an uncapped year.

(I think! :lol: )

[cpk1994]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?

Untrue. Rodgers is unrestricted when his contract expires. He'll have 5 years accrued service in teh NFL. He can sign with anyone he chooses and Green Bay has no way to stop him.

PER PFT:
RODGERS IS SIGNED THROUGH 2009
Posted by Mike Florio on August 4, 2008, 12:20 p.m.
We’ve gotten several e-mails and seen more than a few comments regarding the contractual status of Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Though some believe that 2008 is the final year of Rodgers’ rookie deal, NFLPA records indicate that he is signed through 2009.

Absent a salary cap in 2010, Rodgers would be eligible only for restricted free agency after his current deal expires, since he’d have only five years of service.

Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


Unless I'm reading what they have written wrong!!!


No, you are reading it right. What is written is wrong. That article is not accurate. After 5 years of service a player is eligible for unrestricted FA, whether they started or not, whether that contract is a rookie contract or not. Whoever wrote this article has not done thier homework.You missed the part about if there is no cap. If there is no cap the rules change.

The current CBA is valid through 2011, so he'd fall under the same FA rules as today. Sorry, I edited my last post to reflect this as well.Yes but the owners have opted out in 2010. If the cap is gone Rodgers is an RFA as part of the opt out changes.





So the Packers retain "first rights" and can match any offer?Yes but don't look for Rodgers to be cooperative in that case.

[Pacopete4]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

[cpk1994]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?Strahan never retired.

[Gunakor]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.

[The Leaper]

Strahan never retired.

No...but trying to say that makes the situation different is kind of dumb. Strahan was sitting on the fence until right before the season, and the Giants had to be prepared to move on without him.

[cpk1994]

Geez, I can't read today either!

In a capped year, players with 4 or more seasons are UFAs.
In an uncapped year, players with 5 or more seasons are UFAs.

Since the owners have opted out, 2010 would be an uncapped year.

(I think! :lol: )Probably should look up the CBA instead of going by Florio's report.

[Gunakor]

Geez, I can't read today either!

In a capped year, players with 4 or more seasons are UFAs.
In an uncapped year, players with 5 or more seasons are UFAs.

Since the owners have opted out, 2010 would be an uncapped year.

(I think! :lol: )


Again, I thought I read that as the owners opting out of the CBA after the 2010 season was over, making 2010 capped but 2011 uncapped. Since Rodgers contract expires after the 2009 season, he'd be renegotiating in a capped year. Wouldn't that make him unrestricted?

[Pacopete4]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.


ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?

[Patler]

Rogers will have 5 accrued seasons after the 2009 season. If his contract expires at the end of 2009, he will be unrestricted when his contract expires (5 or more years of service in an uncapped year).

[cpk1994]

Strahan never retired.

No...but trying to say that makes the situation different is kind of dumb. Strahan was sitting on the fence until right before the season, and the Giants had to be prepared to move on without him.No it isn't. Becuase Strahan didn't retire, they also had to be prepared in case Strahan decided to play. Favre retired with that BS presser saying how he had "nothing left to give". The Packers at that point should not have had to prepare in case Favre came back. They moved on and should still be moving on without him.

[Gunakor]

Strahan never retired.

No...but trying to say that makes the situation different is kind of dumb. Strahan was sitting on the fence until right before the season, and the Giants had to be prepared to move on without him.


But they didn't officially tell another player he was going to be the starter. Rodgers was told he was going to be the starter. Not "You will be the starter IF..." Just simply "You will be the starter."

[Gunakor]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.


ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?


I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.

[The Leaper]

Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened.

So if Brohm turned out to be Tom Brady in camp and looked 10 times better than Rodgers, Rodgers is still the starter because the Packers made a commitment?

A commitment in March or April is meaningless. Depth charts are pointless until the roster goes back down to 53.

The Packers are committed to Nick Collins...so I guess you don't want Rouse to start no matter what, right?

[Pacopete4]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.


ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?


I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.


Thats not true either... MM has said in his press conferences before when asked the question that we'll cross that path when it comes... HE HAS NEVER ONCE SAID THAT AROD WOULD BE THE STARTING QB IF FAVRE DECIDED TO COME BACK AND PLAY..... not once...


and ckp1994, thats redic that you bitched for an hour that favre had no team commitment because all the other players are here and favre wasnt but when it comes to strahan not being with his team.. its different because he never said "i retire"... stupid

[cpk1994]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.


ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?


I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.Exactly. McCarthy claimed repeatedly that the team was committed to Rodgers. He needs to keep that committment. Favre can't handle it, tough shit. He retired and pulled all his BS, its time he reaps what he sows,

[cpk1994]

Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened.

So if Brohm turned out to be Tom Brady in camp and looked 10 times better than Rodgers, Rodgers is still the starter because the Packers made a commitment?

A commitment in March or April is meaningless. Depth charts are pointless until the roster goes back down to 53.

The Packers are committed to Nick Collins...so I guess you don't want Rouse to start no matter what, right?That is such stretching its laughable. McCarthy isn't out there repeatedy making statements committing to Collins like he is Rodgers. Your argument is :bs2:

[Gunakor]

Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened.

So if Brohm turned out to be Tom Brady in camp and looked 10 times better than Rodgers, Rodgers is still the starter because the Packers made a commitment?

A commitment in March or April is meaningless. Depth charts are pointless until the roster goes back down to 53.

The Packers are committed to Nick Collins...so I guess you don't want Rouse to start no matter what, right?


Actually, I absolutely DO want Rouse to start. But Rouse has been here throughout and has put in the work required. Favre has not. Don't forget that.

Maybe you don't value commitment like I do, so I am not going to argue that one with you. In my opinion, if you make a decision you go with it. NO WAFFLING. Did Favre have the right to change his mind, of course he did but that does not mean he SHOULD have or that the Packers SHOULD change thiers. Commitments, when made, are never meaningless.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rogers will have 5 accrued seasons after the 2009 season. If his contract expires at the end of 2009, he will be unrestricted when his contract expires (5 or more years of service in an uncapped year).

That's what I thought. In all likelihood, he'll be an UFA after the 2009 season.

[cpk1994]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.


ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?


I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.


Thats not true either... MM has said in his press conferences before when asked the question that we'll cross that path when it comes... HE HAS NEVER ONCE SAID THAT AROD WOULD BE THE STARTING QB IF FAVRE DECIDED TO COME BACK AND PLAY..... not once...


and ckp1994, thats redic that you bitched for an hour that favre had no team commitment because all the other players are here and favre wasnt but when it comes to strahan not being with his team.. its different because he never said "i retire"... stupid

"Arron Rodgers is our starter" - Mike McCarthy, many times

IF that isn't committment nothing is.

[Gunakor]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.


ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?


I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.


Thats not true either... MM has said in his press conferences before when asked the question that we'll cross that path when it comes... HE HAS NEVER ONCE SAID THAT AROD WOULD BE THE STARTING QB IF FAVRE DECIDED TO COME BACK AND PLAY..... not once...


and ckp1994, thats redic that you bitched for an hour that favre had no team commitment because all the other players are here and favre wasnt but when it comes to strahan not being with his team.. its different because he never said "i retire"... stupid

Not publicly. But whenever they interview Rodgers, all he has to say is "I'm the guy, they told me that I'm the guy, so I'm going to prepare like I'm the guy." He said that last night after the Family Night scrimmage also, even after knowing that Favre was coming back to camp. That sure sounds like a commitment was made to me anyway.

[Pacopete4]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.


ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?


I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.


Thats not true either... MM has said in his press conferences before when asked the question that we'll cross that path when it comes... HE HAS NEVER ONCE SAID THAT AROD WOULD BE THE STARTING QB IF FAVRE DECIDED TO COME BACK AND PLAY..... not once...


and ckp1994, thats redic that you bitched for an hour that favre had no team commitment because all the other players are here and favre wasnt but when it comes to strahan not being with his team.. its different because he never said "i retire"... stupid

Not publicly. But whenever they interview Rodgers, all he has to say is "I'm the guy, they told me that I'm the guy, so I'm going to prepare like I'm the guy." He said that last night after the Family Night scrimmage also, even after knowing that Favre was coming back to camp. That sure sounds like a commitment was made to me anyway.

Favre wasn't on the roster.. so you're right, he was the guy... but it wont be for long

[cpk1994]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.


ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?


I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.


Thats not true either... MM has said in his press conferences before when asked the question that we'll cross that path when it comes... HE HAS NEVER ONCE SAID THAT AROD WOULD BE THE STARTING QB IF FAVRE DECIDED TO COME BACK AND PLAY..... not once...


and ckp1994, thats redic that you bitched for an hour that favre had no team commitment because all the other players are here and favre wasnt but when it comes to strahan not being with his team.. its different because he never said "i retire"... stupid

Not publicly. But whenever they interview Rodgers, all he has to say is "I'm the guy, they told me that I'm the guy, so I'm going to prepare like I'm the guy." He said that last night after the Family Night scrimmage also, even after knowing that Favre was coming back to camp. That sure sounds like a commitment was made to me anyway.

Favre wasn't on the roster.. so you're right, he was the guy... but it wont be for longI wouldn't bet on that if I were you.

[The Leaper]

Did Favre have the right to change his mind, of course he did but that does not mean he SHOULD have or that the Packers SHOULD change thiers. Commitments, when made, are never meaningless.

Yet if the Packers DO change theirs, why should you care? Don't you want the Packers to put the best team on the field...and if that means Favre is the QB, so be it.

I'm fine with Rodgers being the "starting" QB right now. I also fully understand that who the "starting" QB is right now is pretty meaningless in terms of who will be the "starting" QB when the season begins.

My viewpoint is that if Favre wants to play, there isn't really a great reason for Green Bay to not want him to play...as long as he proves himself on the field in camp.

[Pacopete4]

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.


I am not a betting man and I would... just reported that it will be a competition after all and the QB's (all of them) will get a schedule of what they are doing this week

[Gunakor]

Did Favre have the right to change his mind, of course he did but that does not mean he SHOULD have or that the Packers SHOULD change thiers. Commitments, when made, are never meaningless.

Yet if the Packers DO change theirs, why should you care? Don't you want the Packers to put the best team on the field...and if that means Favre is the QB, so be it.

I'm fine with Rodgers being the "starting" QB right now. I also fully understand that who the "starting" QB is right now is pretty meaningless in terms of who will be the "starting" QB when the season begins.

My viewpoint is that if Favre wants to play, there isn't really a great reason for Green Bay to not want him to play...as long as he proves himself on the field in camp.


Umm, you are going off on a tangent here Leaper. I was comparing the Favre situation to that of Strahan's. Committment was the difference between the two, regardless what Favre is going to do here. The Packers most certainly have the right to change thier minds, but they don't have to. The Giants had not made up thier minds in the first place, so they didn't make a decision they'd have to change. That's what I was trying to get at. The situations are not the same and should not be compared to each other.

I'm with you that the QB who gives the Packers the best chance to win should be on the field. I'm just hoping that guy is Rodgers.

[cpk1994]

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.


I am not a betting man and I would... just reported that it will be a competition after all and the QB's (all of them) will get a schedule of what they are doing this weekThen McCarthy turely is a gutless weasel. I have no respect for the man anymore.

[Gunakor]

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.


I am not a betting man and I would... just reported that it will be a competition after all and the QB's (all of them) will get a schedule of what they are doing this weekThen McCarthy turely is a gutless weasel. I have no respect for the man anymore.

Or maybe he's just trying to win games by putting the best player on the field?? Just maybe???

[cpk1994]

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.


I am not a betting man and I would... just reported that it will be a competition after all and the QB's (all of them) will get a schedule of what they are doing this weekThen McCarthy turely is a gutless weasel. I have no respect for the man anymore.

Or maybe he's just trying to win games by putting the best player on the field?? Just maybe???NO hes a used car salesman. He can take his team committment and cram it.

[Patler]

Rogers will have 5 accrued seasons after the 2009 season. If his contract expires at the end of 2009, he will be unrestricted when his contract expires (5 or more years of service in an uncapped year).

That's what I thought. In all likelihood, he'll be an UFA after the 2009 season.

That's the way I see it (after screwing my head back on straight! :lol: )

[Pacopete4]

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.


I am not a betting man and I would... just reported that it will be a competition after all and the QB's (all of them) will get a schedule of what they are doing this weekThen McCarthy turely is a gutless weasel. I have no respect for the man anymore.

Or maybe he's just trying to win games by putting the best player on the field?? Just maybe???NO hes a used car salesman. He can take his team committment and cram it.


Personally, I could give a rats ass about "team commitment" because no matter whos on this team and playing where.. i want a mother fuckin super bowl trophy this season, and the next, and the next, and so on.. personally I believe Brett gives us a better chance at that.. so I want him back starting.. thats all this comes down to

[cpk1994]

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.


I am not a betting man and I would... just reported that it will be a competition after all and the QB's (all of them) will get a schedule of what they are doing this weekThen McCarthy turely is a gutless weasel. I have no respect for the man anymore.

Or maybe he's just trying to win games by putting the best player on the field?? Just maybe???NO hes a used car salesman. He can take his team committment and cram it.


Personally, I could give a rats ass about "team commitment" because no matter whos on this team and playing where.. i want a mother fuckin super bowl trophy this season, and the next, and the next, and so on.. personally I believe Brett gives us a better chance at that.. so I want him back starting.. thats all this comes down toWell you won't get any in the future becuase management killed that.

[Pacopete4]

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.


I am not a betting man and I would... just reported that it will be a competition after all and the QB's (all of them) will get a schedule of what they are doing this weekThen McCarthy turely is a gutless weasel. I have no respect for the man anymore.

Or maybe he's just trying to win games by putting the best player on the field?? Just maybe???NO hes a used car salesman. He can take his team committment and cram it.


Personally, I could give a rats ass about "team commitment" because no matter whos on this team and playing where.. i want a mother fuckin super bowl trophy this season, and the next, and the next, and so on.. personally I believe Brett gives us a better chance at that.. so I want him back starting.. thats all this comes down toWell you won't get any in the future becuase management killed that.



Killed what? did they release someone today that made us worse?

[cpk1994]

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.


I am not a betting man and I would... just reported that it will be a competition after all and the QB's (all of them) will get a schedule of what they are doing this weekThen McCarthy turely is a gutless weasel. I have no respect for the man anymore.

Or maybe he's just trying to win games by putting the best player on the field?? Just maybe???NO hes a used car salesman. He can take his team committment and cram it.


Personally, I could give a rats ass about "team commitment" because no matter whos on this team and playing where.. i want a mother fuckin super bowl trophy this season, and the next, and the next, and so on.. personally I believe Brett gives us a better chance at that.. so I want him back starting.. thats all this comes down toWell you won't get any in the future becuase management killed that.



Killed what? did they release someone today that made us worse?Favre will be gone soon and seeing as there isn't anything behind him anymore since Rodgers won't be here either Id say yes, they killed that.

[Pacopete4]

We didnt draft Brohm for no reason.... or Flynn for that matter

[cpk1994]

We didnt draft Brohm for no reason.... or Flynn for that matterIts gonna take at least 3-4 years before you realisitcly get anything out of them so yes, they have set the team back that many years, all becuase of Favre's fucking ego.

[Pacopete4]

We didnt draft Brohm for no reason.... or Flynn for that matterIts gonna take at least 3-4 years before you realisitcly get anything out of them so yes, they have set the team back that many years, all becuase of Favre's fucking ego.

Why does it have to take 3-4 years for them to be good? I didnt know there was a book on this.. if thats the case Ben Rothlesberger didn't write it

[cpk1994]

We didnt draft Brohm for no reason.... or Flynn for that matterIts gonna take at least 3-4 years before you realisitcly get anything out of them so yes, they have set the team back that many years, all becuase of Favre's fucking ego.

Why does it have to take 3-4 years for them to be good? I didnt know there was a book on this.. if thats the case Ben Rothlesberger didn't write itAnd Brohm is nowhere near Rothlesberger.

[The Leaper]

Why does it have to take 3-4 years for them to be good? I didnt know there was a book on this.. if thats the case Ben Rothlesberger didn't write it

I agree.

There is no reason to expect nothing from Brohm for 3-4 years. That MIGHT turn out to be the case (who knows) but there are plenty of examples of guys drafted in similar positions who produced results much faster.

[Pacopete4]

We didnt draft Brohm for no reason.... or Flynn for that matterIts gonna take at least 3-4 years before you realisitcly get anything out of them so yes, they have set the team back that many years, all becuase of Favre's fucking ego.

Why does it have to take 3-4 years for them to be good? I didnt know there was a book on this.. if thats the case Ben Rothlesberger didn't write itAnd Brohm is nowhere near Rothlesberger.



You're right.. Brohm looked a ton better in college... so whats your point?

[Gunakor]

We didnt draft Brohm for no reason.... or Flynn for that matterIts gonna take at least 3-4 years before you realisitcly get anything out of them so yes, they have set the team back that many years, all becuase of Favre's fucking ego.

Why does it have to take 3-4 years for them to be good? I didnt know there was a book on this.. if thats the case Ben Rothlesberger didn't write itAnd Brohm is nowhere near Rothlesberger.


Nobody thought Rothlisberger was anywhere near Rothlisberger before Rothlisberger became the starter either. Same for Brady before Brady was a starter (6th round pick) or Romo before Romo was a starter (undrafted). You can't be 100% certain of anything in this league.

[cpk1994]

We didnt draft Brohm for no reason.... or Flynn for that matterIts gonna take at least 3-4 years before you realisitcly get anything out of them so yes, they have set the team back that many years, all becuase of Favre's fucking ego.

Why does it have to take 3-4 years for them to be good? I didnt know there was a book on this.. if thats the case Ben Rothlesberger didn't write itAnd Brohm is nowhere near Rothlesberger.



You're right.. Brohm looked a ton better in college... so whats your point?My point is I think Brhom is crap. Clear enough for you?

[Gunakor]

We didnt draft Brohm for no reason.... or Flynn for that matterIts gonna take at least 3-4 years before you realisitcly get anything out of them so yes, they have set the team back that many years, all becuase of Favre's fucking ego.

Why does it have to take 3-4 years for them to be good? I didnt know there was a book on this.. if thats the case Ben Rothlesberger didn't write itAnd Brohm is nowhere near Rothlesberger.



You're right.. Brohm looked a ton better in college... so whats your point?My point is I think Brhom is crap. Clear enough for you?

Noted. You can keep your opinion to yourself now.

[Pacopete4]

My point is I think Brhom is crap. Clear enough for you?


How do you know?

[Zool]

My point is I think Brhom is crap. Clear enough for you?

Shouldn't you be buying a lottery ticket somewhere?

[cpk1994]

My point is I think Brhom is crap. Clear enough for you?


How do you know?Based on the play Ive seen from him. Not impressed in the lesat.

[The Leaper]

My point is I think Brhom is crap. Clear enough for you?

But aren't you the one lambasting armchair GMs?

:?: :?: :?:

[Pacopete4]

My point is I think Brhom is crap. Clear enough for you?


How do you know?Based on the play Ive seen from him. Not impressed in the lesat.


Play you've seen from him? hahahahahha

[cpk1994]

My point is I think Brhom is crap. Clear enough for you?

But aren't you the one lambasting armchair GMs?

:?: :?: :?:NO Im lambasting the real GM.

[Pacopete4]

If thats the case you should be happy Rodgers might not be our QB.. cuz he's looked like pure shit in more opportunities to play and if that good game in Dallas didnt happen last year NO ONE would think he's any good...

[Zool]

If thats the case you should be happy Rodgers might not be our QB.. cuz he's looked like pure shit in more opportunities to play and if that good game in Dallas didnt happen last year NO ONE would think he's any good...

None of this is true. He's had 2 games in which he actually played. One he broke his foot and looked bad against the team with the best record in the AFC. One he led a good comeback against the team with the best record in the NFC.

Plenty of people thought he was good before that. When does your offer come in to GM a pro football team?

[Gunakor]

If thats the case you should be happy Rodgers might not be our QB.. cuz he's looked like pure shit in more opportunities to play and if that good game in Dallas didnt happen last year NO ONE would think he's any good...

He looked pretty good in preseason last year too. Better than Favre anyway. Can't forget that.

[Rastak]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?Becuase Rodgers now has no incentive to stay. Why should Aaron believe what M3 says anymore as it has proven to be a sham?

Every pro athlete knows that the only thing separating them from the second team or the waiver wire is their performance. Not commitments from the coach, general manger or anyone. Their performance.YOu might have merit if Rodgers was actually being given a shot to keep the job he was given.

Open competition means Rodgers DOES have a shot to keep the job. Just as Favre shouldn't be just handed the job, neither should Rodgers. It can't be forgotten that Rodgers has never had to compete for his job either...Favre shouldn't get the job at all as he RETIRED. If they want an open competition, it should be between Rodgers Brohm and Flynn ONLY, the guys who have been committed from the start and have put in all the work.


He's an active player.....sorry....

[cpk1994]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?Becuase Rodgers now has no incentive to stay. Why should Aaron believe what M3 says anymore as it has proven to be a sham?

Every pro athlete knows that the only thing separating them from the second team or the waiver wire is their performance. Not commitments from the coach, general manger or anyone. Their performance.YOu might have merit if Rodgers was actually being given a shot to keep the job he was given.

Open competition means Rodgers DOES have a shot to keep the job. Just as Favre shouldn't be just handed the job, neither should Rodgers. It can't be forgotten that Rodgers has never had to compete for his job either...Favre shouldn't get the job at all as he RETIRED. If they want an open competition, it should be between Rodgers Brohm and Flynn ONLY, the guys who have been committed from the start and have put in all the work.


He's an active player.....sorry....You know what I mean.

[SnakeLH2006]

We didnt draft Brohm for no reason.... or Flynn for that matterIts gonna take at least 3-4 years before you realisitcly get anything out of them so yes, they have set the team back that many years, all becuase of Favre's fucking ego.

Why does it have to take 3-4 years for them to be good? I didnt know there was a book on this.. if thats the case Ben Rothlesberger didn't write itAnd Brohm is nowhere near Rothlesberger.



You're right.. Brohm looked a ton better in college... so whats your point?My point is I think Brhom is crap. Clear enough for you?

Noted. You can keep your opinion to yourself now.

Who the hell do you like CPK?? You obviously hate Favre calling him a "piece of shit" over and over, you think McCarthy, Murphy, and TT are "gutless weasels that fold like cheap suits", and now Brohm "is crap". I hope you like yourself buddy. Your mom and I are concerned about you. :lol:

[Pacopete4]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?Becuase Rodgers now has no incentive to stay. Why should Aaron believe what M3 says anymore as it has proven to be a sham?

Every pro athlete knows that the only thing separating them from the second team or the waiver wire is their performance. Not commitments from the coach, general manger or anyone. Their performance.YOu might have merit if Rodgers was actually being given a shot to keep the job he was given.

Open competition means Rodgers DOES have a shot to keep the job. Just as Favre shouldn't be just handed the job, neither should Rodgers. It can't be forgotten that Rodgers has never had to compete for his job either...Favre shouldn't get the job at all as he RETIRED. If they want an open competition, it should be between Rodgers Brohm and Flynn ONLY, the guys who have been committed from the start and have put in all the work.


He's an active player.....sorry....You know what I mean.


None of us know what you mean....... thats the problem

[HarveyWallbangers]

If thats the case you should be happy Rodgers might not be our QB.. cuz he's looked like pure shit in more opportunities to play and if that good game in Dallas didnt happen last year NO ONE would think he's any good...

He looked pretty good in preseason last year too. Better than Favre anyway. Can't forget that.

He's looked good the last two preseasons--after struggling his rookie year.

[cpk1994]

We didnt draft Brohm for no reason.... or Flynn for that matterIts gonna take at least 3-4 years before you realisitcly get anything out of them so yes, they have set the team back that many years, all becuase of Favre's fucking ego.

Why does it have to take 3-4 years for them to be good? I didnt know there was a book on this.. if thats the case Ben Rothlesberger didn't write itAnd Brohm is nowhere near Rothlesberger.



You're right.. Brohm looked a ton better in college... so whats your point?My point is I think Brhom is crap. Clear enough for you?

Noted. You can keep your opinion to yourself now.

Who the hell do you like CPK?? You obviously hate Favre calling him a "piece of shit" over and over, you think McCarthy, Murphy, and TT are "gutless weasels that fold like cheap suits", and now Brohm "is crap". I hope you like yourself buddy. Your mom and I are concerned about you. :lol:
Normally I don't respond to assholes like you but in this case Ill make an exception. I like guys like Donald Driver, Mark Tauscher, Greg Jennings, Aaron Rodgers and Aaron Kampman. Guys who put the team first. Guys who aren't self-absorbed whiny petulant POS like Favre. Guys who believe in total commitment, not committment when it is convienent. THose are the guys I like and will cheer for.

[SnakeLH2006]

We didnt draft Brohm for no reason.... or Flynn for that matterIts gonna take at least 3-4 years before you realisitcly get anything out of them so yes, they have set the team back that many years, all becuase of Favre's fucking ego.

Why does it have to take 3-4 years for them to be good? I didnt know there was a book on this.. if thats the case Ben Rothlesberger didn't write itAnd Brohm is nowhere near Rothlesberger.



You're right.. Brohm looked a ton better in college... so whats your point?My point is I think Brhom is crap. Clear enough for you?

Noted. You can keep your opinion to yourself now.

Who the hell do you like CPK?? You obviously hate Favre calling him a "piece of shit" over and over, you think McCarthy, Murphy, and TT are "gutless weasels that fold like cheap suits", and now Brohm "is crap". I hope you like yourself buddy. Your mom and I are concerned about you. :lol:
Normally I don't respond to assholes like you but in this case Ill make an exception. I like guys like Donald Driver, Mark Tauscher, Greg Jennings, Aaron Rodgers and Aaron Kampman. Guys who put the team first. Guys who aren't self-absorbed whiny petulant POS like Favre. Guys who believe in total commitment, not committment when it is convienent. THose are the guys I like and will cheer for.

Wow, didn't that feel good buddy? I'm honored to join your little list of people you hate and drop cuss bombs on. :wink:

Good job little guy, I just phoned your Mom and gave the OK. She's agreed to put milk and cookies on the counter for you when you get off the computer. :lol:

[gex]

We didnt draft Brohm for no reason.... or Flynn for that matterIts gonna take at least 3-4 years before you realisitcly get anything out of them so yes, they have set the team back that many years, all becuase of Favre's fucking ego.

Why does it have to take 3-4 years for them to be good? I didnt know there was a book on this.. if thats the case Ben Rothlesberger didn't write itAnd Brohm is nowhere near Rothlesberger.



You're right.. Brohm looked a ton better in college... so whats your point?My point is I think Brhom is crap. Clear enough for you?

Noted. You can keep your opinion to yourself now.

Who the hell do you like CPK?? You obviously hate Favre calling him a "piece of shit" over and over, you think McCarthy, Murphy, and TT are "gutless weasels that fold like cheap suits", and now Brohm "is crap". I hope you like yourself buddy. Your mom and I are concerned about you. :lol:
Normally I don't respond to assholes like you but in this case Ill make an exception. I like guys like Donald Driver, Mark Tauscher, Greg Jennings, Aaron Rodgers and Aaron Kampman. Guys who put the team first. Guys who aren't self-absorbed whiny petulant POS like Favre. Guys who believe in total commitment, not committment when it is convienent. THose are the guys I like and will cheer for.

Wow, didn't that feel good buddy? I'm honored to join your little list of people you hate and drop cuss bombs on. :wink:

Good job little guy, I just phoned your Mom and gave the OK. She's agreed to put milk and cookies on the counter for you when you get off the computer. :lol:

cpk is a hater, thats all he knows.
btw how is his mom? :D

[cpk1994]

AHh yes the lame Mama jokes. So are you looking forward to entering the 4th grade this year?

EDIT: I see gex has decided to regale us with his lack of wit. Bravah.

[gex]

AHh yes the lame Mama jokes. So are you looking forward to entering the 4th grade this year?

THE LEADER OF THE PACK IS BACK!!
cpk go root for the cowboys. :lol:
Your nothing but a hater,bandwagon jumping, fairweather fan anyways.

[Pacopete4]

AHh yes the lame Mama jokes. So are you looking forward to entering the 4th grade this year?


haha, I dont care how old I get.. mama jokes are damn funny.. taaaaaaaake a chill pill bud.. no one is serious about doing your mom (maybe) :five:

[SnakeLH2006]

[quote:591a4b9e53="Pacopete4"]We didnt draft Brohm for no reason.... or Flynn for that matterIts gonna take at least 3-4 years before you realisitcly get anything out of them so yes, they have set the team back that many years, all becuase of Favre's fucking ego.

Why does it have to take 3-4 years for them to be good? I didnt know there was a book on this.. if thats the case Ben Rothlesberger didn't write itAnd Brohm is nowhere near Rothlesberger.



You're right.. Brohm looked a ton better in college... so whats your point?My point is I think Brhom is crap. Clear enough for you?

Noted. You can keep your opinion to yourself now.

Who the hell do you like CPK?? You obviously hate Favre calling him a "piece of shit" over and over, you think McCarthy, Murphy, and TT are "gutless weasels that fold like cheap suits", and now Brohm "is crap". I hope you like yourself buddy. Your mom and I are concerned about you. :lol:
Normally I don't respond to assholes like you but in this case Ill make an exception. I like guys like Donald Driver, Mark Tauscher, Greg Jennings, Aaron Rodgers and Aaron Kampman. Guys who put the team first. Guys who aren't self-absorbed whiny petulant POS like Favre. Guys who believe in total commitment, not committment when it is convienent. THose are the guys I like and will cheer for.

Wow, didn't that feel good buddy? I'm honored to join your little list of people you hate and drop cuss bombs on. :wink:

Good job little guy, I just phoned your Mom and gave the OK. She's agreed to put milk and cookies on the counter for you when you get off the computer. :lol:

cpk is a hater, thats all he knows.
btw how is his mom? :D[/quote:591a4b9e53]

Pretty good all things considered. I mean she cries to sleep every night and it keeps me awake. ...And it's damn annoying to keep hearing her saying how ya gotta "wrap it to tap it" when we hang out, after learning her lesson 14 years ago. :lol: I'm sure you've heard that too.

[gex]

:lol: :lol:

[BallHawk]

Do we have to make that big of a quote box chain? :roll:

[Pacopete4]

Do we have to make that big of a quote box chain? :roll:

Yes

[SnakeLH2006]

Do we have to make that big of a quote box chain? :roll:

Sorry BallHawk, but we felt it was necessary to show the chain of stupid comments by CBK leading up to the mama jokes, thus, giving us a way out.

[cpk1994]

AHh yes the lame Mama jokes. So are you looking forward to entering the 4th grade this year?


haha, I dont care how old I get.. mama jokes are damn funny.. taaaaaaaake a chill pill bud.. no one is serious about doing your mom (maybe) :five:I nkow which is why I said they were lame. Speaking of your mom, did we wake you last night? Your mother is a screamer!

[Zool]

Do we have to make that big of a quote box chain? :roll:

Yes

Que?

[Pacopete4]

Do we have to make that big of a quote box chain? :roll:

Yes

Que?


¿Por qué no? Utilizo un inglés al traductor español en línea para hacer esta oración sucede. Mi maestro español en el instituto fumaba caliente y yo todavía quiero golpearla.

[cpk1994]

AHh yes the lame Mama jokes. So are you looking forward to entering the 4th grade this year?

THE LEADER OF THE PACK IS BACK!!
cpk go root for the cowboys. :lol:
Your nothing but a hater,bandwagon jumping, fairweather fan anyways.Ahh yes the even lamer...ah forget it. A waste of sperm like you ain't worth my time.

[Pacopete4]

AHh yes the lame Mama jokes. So are you looking forward to entering the 4th grade this year?

THE LEADER OF THE PACK IS BACK!!
cpk go root for the cowboys. :lol:
Your nothing but a hater,bandwagon jumping, fairweather fan anyways.Ahh yes the even lamer...ah forget it. A waste of sperm like you ain't worth my time.


Come on bro.. do you always have to be a dick? enoughs, enough... these boards are supposed to be fun