History in the making?

[GrnBay007]

If TT wasn't right.....

[Bretsky]

I'm not convinced MM had much to do with the reasons Favre will be leaving

[GBRulz]

I'd say no to M3, yes to TT.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Favre and Father Time forced Favre out.

He didn't have to retire.

He could have officially unretired early in the offseason.

When he decided to play again, he could have shown a bit more tact in getting his old job back.

[Joemailman]

A lot will depend on what Brett says in the future, if he says anything. If he says he was forced out by TT and/or MM, a lot of people will believe him.

[gex]

tt=yes
MM=no

[Zool]

I say it was the equipment managers fault for putting icy-hot in Favres jock before the Giants game.

[Bretsky]

I believe it was Mort; honestly not sure which ESPN reporter..but references have been made that Favre feels GB did not put out accurate information on how things went down to the media.

Every time I heard that I was fairly sure he meant that genius timeline (I say that sincerely as a media team could not have put something out much better) that everybody bought in here like white on rice had inaccuracies.

Add a few things together and if you believe they could be true I can see empathizing with Favre.......while still detesting and disagreeing how he handled the whole process

[Lurker64]

Do people actually remember these things? Who was the general manager that traded away Joe Montana? Who was the coach that benched Marino? It's not like answers to these questions spring immediately to mind.

Usually the narrative for these sorts of things is "[Great Quarterback] played for [team] until [year], and then was succeeded by [Other QB]". The coach and the GM don't really appear in these sorts of stories.

[Zool]

Carmen Policy.

[swede]

Everyone remembers that Montana was traded to Kansas City.

No one automatically remembers who traded him.

(Although it does occur to me that San Fran had some really interesting and controversial leadership at the time. I'd probablt recognize the GM's name if I heard it.)

Time wounds all heels. TT's treachery will be forgotten and people will mistakenly think that Brett retired because he was 38 in a young man's game.

[Zool]

and I believe Jimmy Johnson?

[swede]

Carmen Policy! That's it!

[Pacopete4]

They might remember who he was if they hadn't won with Steve Young... if the Packers play horrible this season, you bet packer fans will remember

[Lurker64]

They might remember who he was if they hadn't won with Steve Young... if the Packers play horrible this season, you bet packer fans will remember

But if the Packers come back and win the division four straight years after being terrible, nobody's going to remember that one transition year.

Hell, if anything people are less likely to remember the transition year for being terrible since historically everyone expects these sorts of transition years to be terrible.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Agree with Lurker. Thompson is still going to get about 3 years to prove himself.

[The Gunshooter]

I think it was Favre's posse filling his head with $hit that caused all this.

[Bretsky]

Agree with Lurker. Thompson is still going to get about 3 years to prove himself.


And he should; overall he's done a good job so far rebuilding the talent around QB and now he's got his boy for the signature stamp. Should be interesting to see how it all turns out

[Zool]

I think it was Favre's posse filling his head with $hit that caused all this.

Others have speculated that its a word that sounds a lot like posse.

[Freak Out]

Blame Canada.

[boiga]

I disagree with most of you, I guess.

I really think it was more McCarthy than Ted. McCarthy was they guy in June who decided that if Brett wasn't 100% committed they couldn't let him back. He was also the guy who decided he couldn't impose Brett's "negative state of mind" on the locker room.

Even though he wasn't particularly supportive, Ted never forced Brett out. All the hard decisions to not let Brett back on the team were made by McCarthy.

[GrnBay007]

Maybe "Plan B" was not really in place.

How well did management really know Favre?


Packers never thought Favre would report

August 5, 2008 7:37 PM

Posted by ESPN.com's Kevin Seifert

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- One of the more interesting comments to come out of Green Bay on Tuesday was Packers coach Mike McCarthy's admission that he was surprised Favre followed through with his request for reinstatement.

"I never thought he truly was going to play," McCarthy said. "I thought he was emotionally driven for other reasons. But he was very convincing last night and again this morning that he wants to play. He's thought about all the other possibilities and options but that's what he wants."

McCarthy took responsibility for misjudging the situation. Indeed, for much of the summer it appeared the Packers believed -- or at least hoped -- that the issue would simply go away. McCarthy and other members of the organization figured Favre would come to his senses, decide he wasn't ready to re-commit his life to the game and remain in retirement. They never thought Favre would actually travel to Green Bay and report for training camp.

McCarthy said Favre still "has a lot going on in his head," but the coach now believes that Favre absolutely wants to play football in 2008. When the Packers examine how this situation unraveled, they will have to focus extensively on how and why they misjudged Favre's intentions.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't understand this poll. The answer is obviously YES. Can't blame Sherman for this one.

[boiga]

Maybe "Plan B" was not really in place.

How well did management really know Favre? At this point, I'm not sure how well Favre knows Favre. As of yesterday he wanted to play for GB but could not commit to playing for GB. I can understand how dealing with those kinds of mixed signals from a star player would be hellish for any management team.

I would still argue that the onus was mostly on McCarthy, though. It is his job to size up the players and he failed here.