Really Good Andy Brandt Interview

[Partial]

http://wssp.radiotown.com/audio/doug/110409dmandrewbrandt.mp3

Guy is sharp as a tack. He's right on the money imo.

[Partial]

Anybody listen? This was awesome. Best interview I've heard in a long time.

[denverYooper]

I listened to it. It was a pretty good interview. He reiterated most of the things from his NFP article the other day.

The funniest part of it was that the announcers kept trying to ask him questions about what the principals involved thought. At one point, he sighed loudly before starting his answer. He seemed pretty cautious about not providing a soundbite that could be taken out of context and run with.

That said,
"OMG, BRETT DIN'T TRUST GREG JENNINGS!!! THAT'S WHY HE WANTED OUT!!!"

:)

[rbaloha1]

Nice stuff. Basic player wants to win now while management needs to be thinking about the future as well.

Also reconfirms #4 flip-flopping and #4 wanting to be coddled.

[Bretsky]

GREAT INTERVIEW and confirms many of the beliefs I have had about this whole fiasco and illustrates this was not nearly as one sided as most fanatics have convinced themself it is

A person who worked right next to TT's office....inside information for those who want to know the extras about the whole scenario

[Bretsky]

Good articles and clips from a guy with inside knowledge that's forgotten more about the saga than we know

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-difficult-parting-of-Favre-and-the-Packers.html

[Bretsky]

and part two

followed by a great interview today

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Brett-and-the-broadcast-guys.html

[KYPack]

Somewhere, I arrived at the "both sides screwed it up" theory.

I have known for quite sometime that the Favre camp (Brett, Deanna, and the BF clan) have felt the Pack treated Brett shabbily. It started immediately in the TT regime with the drafting of ARod and went downhill from there.

Where should it have been repaired or who screwed up? Probably everybody. It won't die when you think it will, so relax and hope it goes away someday is all you can do.

If this happened in the Mafia, there would be 7 or 8 people dead with all the bad blood that is swirling around in this thing.

[Bretsky]

Somewhere, I arrived at the "both sides screwed it up" theory.

I have known for quite sometime that the Favre camp (Brett, Deanna, and the BF clan) have felt the Pack treated Brett shabbily. It started immediately in the TT regime with the drafting of ARod and went downhill from there.

Where should it have been repaired or who screwed up? Probably everybody. It won't die when you think it will, so relax and hope it goes away someday is all you can do.

If this happened in the Mafia, there would be 7 or 8 people dead with all the bad blood that is swirling around in this thing.


BINGO

[pbmax]

Funny, but I found little new in Brandt's comments from his observations inside the organization. The only nugget seems to be that Brett wanted to be asked back because of his fear of being Wally Pipp'd by a backup like he did to Majikowski. Brandt has covered this several times since last year's un-retirement.

But I have maintained for quite some time that retire/play routine started long before Aaron Rodgers and Ted Thompson. Brandt confirms (without specificity) that he heard the retirement talk starting in 2000, not 2003 like many count from the Peter King article. He finishes by saying that he and Bus Cook were hoping for 2 or 3 more years after he resigned in 2001.

And the purpose it served was to be sure the Packers and Brett Favre were on the same page (Brett's page); win now. Because if Brett Favre is indecisive about coming back, then the team is under pressure to take steps to ensure he does return. Because no other choice seems logical to fans. This worked like a charm on Sherman who danced like a snake in a basket listening to a wind instrument.

But add Thompson, and then add a viable backup and the calculus changes. Really the person who should get credit here is Woodbuck, who saw this coming a mile away and no one believed him. Now I disagree 180 degrees with him about which direction was better, but he called it.

Favre might pull off a miracle this season with the Vikings. And Thompson may undervalue veteran steadiness. But I think Thomspon's approach is better in the long run. Like Aikman kept hinting at Sunday, it might simply have been time for him to go. Favre knew he was a short run guy and the team was being prepped for the long haul. He did not want to wait. And that is the reason return #1 was aborted, he got an answer he wasn't expecting.

All this hulabaloo is about control. Who got to tell Brett where to play, or when to retire. The team bought one year before the player got his way.

[Bretsky]

solid post PB; A few things apparent after reading these and especially listening to the full interview

Favre wanted his ego massaged and to be asked back
TT and MM wanted to move on without Favre before he retired and gave him the cold shoulder as he was mulling retirement
They certainly didn't want to tell him that but their actions worked
When the Packers didn't seem to give a hoot if he came back, Favre retired even though most thought he wanted to play and there was a very good chance he would come back anyways
Favre and his family felt slighted by the Packers for not recruiting him to come back
Favre didn't believe in TT's developmental strategy and was ready to move on anyways
Minnesota was the perfect fit for Favre but he was forced to play for the Jets
Now Favre is where he wanted to play in the first place

[pbmax]

Favre wanted his ego massaged and to be asked back
TT and MM wanted to move on without Favre before he retired and gave
Thanks B and same to you.

I will only take issue with the one item above. I do not necessarily believe that Favre has that kind of ego. I say this cautiously, as a man who is as good at doing his job as Favre is will have an ego. Getting paid his salary will give you an ego; and so will having to live life in a bubble because of your notoriety.

But I am not sure praise and being coveted would be high on his list. I could easily be misjudging this, as I don't know him obviously. I am sure the possibility of injury would worry him. But not competition. And it was clear that no matter how long he waited, he was not going to convince T2 to sign vets like he would want. And there is the very real possibility that he knew he had the injured shoulder and did not want to spend the offseason throwing when he could be resting it.

What fits for me is legacy. I think he wants a short term shot at another Super Bowl above all other concerns. I doubt its the career records because Manning is threatening them already. But another Super Bowl moves you from a list of some goofy one time winning QBs (Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien) to some real, NFL Films Heroes (Bart Starr, Elway, Griese, Staubach, Plunkett, etc.). That would be enough to drag your 40 year old butt out of bed.

[Fritz]

Funny, but I found little new in Brandt's comments from his observations inside the organization. The only nugget seems to be that Brett wanted to be asked back because of his fear of being Wally Pipp'd by a backup like he did to Majikowski. Brandt has covered this several times since last year's un-retirement.

But I have maintained for quite some time that retire/play routine started long before Aaron Rodgers and Ted Thompson. Brandt confirms (without specificity) that he heard the retirement talk starting in 2000, not 2003 like many count from the Peter King article. He finishes by saying that he and Bus Cook were hoping for 2 or 3 more years after he resigned in 2001.

And the purpose it served was to be sure the Packers and Brett Favre were on the same page (Brett's page); win now. Because if Brett Favre is indecisive about coming back, then the team is under pressure to take steps to ensure he does return. Because no other choice seems logical to fans. This worked like a charm on Sherman who danced like a snake in a basket listening to a wind instrument.

But add Thompson, and then add a viable backup and the calculus changes. Really the person who should get credit here is Woodbuck, who saw this coming a mile away and no one believed him. Now I disagree 180 degrees with him about which direction was better, but he called it.

Favre might pull off a miracle this season with the Vikings. And Thompson may undervalue veteran steadiness. But I think Thomspon's approach is better in the long run. Like Aikman kept hinting at Sunday, it might simply have been time for him to go. Favre knew he was a short run guy and the team was being prepped for the long haul. He did not want to wait. And that is the reason return #1 was aborted, he got an answer he wasn't expecting.

All this hulabaloo is about control. Who got to tell Brett where to play, or when to retire. The team bought one year before the player got his way.

I agree with most of this, PB. The one point I don't agree with is about what Aikman said. When I heard Aikman on Sunday, what I heard him say - and to me he said this clearly - was that what nobody was talking about was the possibility that Favre wanted to come back - but not for the Packers.

Patler has written about this, and if you listen to Brandt's couched comments he is saying essentially that yes, Brett Favre did not want to retire - but he also did not want to play for the Packers. HE wanted out. Again, several intelligent posters have given examples that suggest Favre wanted out of Green Bay for the past few years.

At the same time, the Packers also decided to move on with Rodgers. So they, too, were ready to make a change.

What's sad is that both sides wanted the same end - Brett out of town - but they couldn't make it happen in a way that satisfied both sides.

[Bretsky]

Funny, but I found little new in Brandt's comments from his observations inside the organization. The only nugget seems to be that Brett wanted to be asked back because of his fear of being Wally Pipp'd by a backup like he did to Majikowski. Brandt has covered this several times since last year's un-retirement.

But I have maintained for quite some time that retire/play routine started long before Aaron Rodgers and Ted Thompson. Brandt confirms (without specificity) that he heard the retirement talk starting in 2000, not 2003 like many count from the Peter King article. He finishes by saying that he and Bus Cook were hoping for 2 or 3 more years after he resigned in 2001.

And the purpose it served was to be sure the Packers and Brett Favre were on the same page (Brett's page); win now. Because if Brett Favre is indecisive about coming back, then the team is under pressure to take steps to ensure he does return. Because no other choice seems logical to fans. This worked like a charm on Sherman who danced like a snake in a basket listening to a wind instrument.

But add Thompson, and then add a viable backup and the calculus changes. Really the person who should get credit here is Woodbuck, who saw this coming a mile away and no one believed him. Now I disagree 180 degrees with him about which direction was better, but he called it.

Favre might pull off a miracle this season with the Vikings. And Thompson may undervalue veteran steadiness. But I think Thomspon's approach is better in the long run. Like Aikman kept hinting at Sunday, it might simply have been time for him to go. Favre knew he was a short run guy and the team was being prepped for the long haul. He did not want to wait. And that is the reason return #1 was aborted, he got an answer he wasn't expecting.

All this hulabaloo is about control. Who got to tell Brett where to play, or when to retire. The team bought one year before the player got his way.

I agree with most of this, PB. The one point I don't agree with is about what Aikman said. When I heard Aikman on Sunday, what I heard him say - and to me he said this clearly - was that what nobody was talking about was the possibility that Favre wanted to come back - but not for the Packers.

Patler has written about this, and if you listen to Brandt's couched comments he is saying essentially that yes, Brett Favre did not want to retire - but he also did not want to play for the Packers. HE wanted out. Again, several intelligent posters have given examples that suggest Favre wanted out of Green Bay for the past few years.
At the same time, the Packers also decided to move on with Rodgers. So they, too, were ready to make a change.

What's sad is that both sides wanted the same end - Brett out of town - but they couldn't make it happen in a way that satisfied both sides.


I don't buy this part at all. In retrospect it was obvious he ddn't like TT's ways. I think he wanted out of GB because he felt like they wanted to move on without him......which is fine. I thought that was what Brandt portrayed well in the interview. He felt a bit scored by the management IMO and he wanted to go to the Vikes because of that....and also because he thought he had a shot to win a title there.

[MichiganPackerFan]

DARTH FAVRE

[sharpe1027]

I don't buy this part at all. In retrospect it was obvious he ddn't like TT's ways. I think he wanted out of GB because he felt like they wanted to move on without him......which is fine. I thought that was what Brandt portrayed well in the interview. He felt a bit scored by the management IMO and he wanted to go to the Vikes because of that....and also because he thought he had a shot to win a title there.

Whatever the reason, I too have come to the conclusion that Favre wanted out. I just believe he wanted to make someone else responsible so he could come out looking good. IMO, he should have just manned up from the start and asked to get out. Hell, even Cutler was enough of a man to do that much and to take the heat the went with it.

[mmmdk]

Brett: Hey TT, I'm retired ! Where are the free agents, TT? What have you done for ME lately, TT?
TT: You wanna run the team, Brett? Sure, I'm the Packers starting QB then.

[Fritz]

Funny, but I found little new in Brandt's comments from his observations inside the organization. The only nugget seems to be that Brett wanted to be asked back because of his fear of being Wally Pipp'd by a backup like he did to Majikowski. Brandt has covered this several times since last year's un-retirement.

But I have maintained for quite some time that retire/play routine started long before Aaron Rodgers and Ted Thompson. Brandt confirms (without specificity) that he heard the retirement talk starting in 2000, not 2003 like many count from the Peter King article. He finishes by saying that he and Bus Cook were hoping for 2 or 3 more years after he resigned in 2001.

And the purpose it served was to be sure the Packers and Brett Favre were on the same page (Brett's page); win now. Because if Brett Favre is indecisive about coming back, then the team is under pressure to take steps to ensure he does return. Because no other choice seems logical to fans. This worked like a charm on Sherman who danced like a snake in a basket listening to a wind instrument.

But add Thompson, and then add a viable backup and the calculus changes. Really the person who should get credit here is Woodbuck, who saw this coming a mile away and no one believed him. Now I disagree 180 degrees with him about which direction was better, but he called it.

Favre might pull off a miracle this season with the Vikings. And Thompson may undervalue veteran steadiness. But I think Thomspon's approach is better in the long run. Like Aikman kept hinting at Sunday, it might simply have been time for him to go. Favre knew he was a short run guy and the team was being prepped for the long haul. He did not want to wait. And that is the reason return #1 was aborted, he got an answer he wasn't expecting.

All this hulabaloo is about control. Who got to tell Brett where to play, or when to retire. The team bought one year before the player got his way.

I agree with most of this, PB. The one point I don't agree with is about what Aikman said. When I heard Aikman on Sunday, what I heard him say - and to me he said this clearly - was that what nobody was talking about was the possibility that Favre wanted to come back - but not for the Packers.

Patler has written about this, and if you listen to Brandt's couched comments he is saying essentially that yes, Brett Favre did not want to retire - but he also did not want to play for the Packers. HE wanted out. Again, several intelligent posters have given examples that suggest Favre wanted out of Green Bay for the past few years.
At the same time, the Packers also decided to move on with Rodgers. So they, too, were ready to make a change.

What's sad is that both sides wanted the same end - Brett out of town - but they couldn't make it happen in a way that satisfied both sides.


I don't buy this part at all. In retrospect it was obvious he ddn't like TT's ways. I think he wanted out of GB because he felt like they wanted to move on without him......which is fine. I thought that was what Brandt portrayed well in the interview. He felt a bit scored by the management IMO and he wanted to go to the Vikes because of that....and also because he thought he had a shot to win a title there.

Let's say you're right. Favre doesn't want to come back because he doesn't feel loved enough. Not enough phone calls were made, not enough fealty shown.

Favre is a classic passive/aggressive character. Thompson is a confrontation avoider. Or so I believe. This is a bad combination.