The official Brett Favre for QB in 2008 thread

[The Leaper]

Excellent analysis right up until the last sentence. Favre ushered himself out the door while letting his family and agent try to blame the Packers organization who is still willing to take him back after all that has happened.

I'm not sure that Favre orchestrated all the comments from his family. Perhaps he has, but there is no proof of that. His brother and mother are in the press because the media goes looking for them because they are more accessible than Brett...and known within the Packer community.

Scott and Bonita did not call a press conference themselves. Some media members just came to their door and starting asking a bunch of questions. In those instances, when someone is trying to describe the feelings or opinions of another...even if they are close to the person...things get misconstrued or turned around.

Favre may feel some level of discomfort with the organization, and expressed it privately to his family...who was then too honest and not bright enough to keep it private. Considering Favre's openness with his feelings, it isn't hard to think the rest of his family might be the same way. Sometimes, it isn't a good idea to make your own feelings public...and it certainly isn't a good idea to make another person's feelings public, because you normally won't get them right or state them properly.

That is a lesson that the Favre family still hasn't seemed to learn.

[sharpe1027]

Excellent analysis right up until the last sentence. Favre ushered himself out the door while letting his family and agent try to blame the Packers organization who is still willing to take him back after all that has happened.

I'm not sure that Favre orchestrated all the comments from his family. Perhaps he has, but there is no proof of that. His brother and mother are in the press because the media goes looking for them because they are more accessible than Brett...and known within the Packer community.

Scott and Bonita did not call a press conference themselves. Some media members just came to their door and starting asking a bunch of questions. In those instances, when someone is trying to describe the feelings or opinions of another...even if they are close to the person...things get misconstrued or turned around.

Favre may feel some level of discomfort with the organization, and expressed it privately to his family...who was then too honest and not bright enough to keep it private. Considering Favre's openness with his feelings, it isn't hard to think the rest of his family might be the same way. Sometimes, it isn't a good idea to make your own feelings public...and it certainly isn't a good idea to make another person's feelings public, because you normally won't get them right or state them properly.

That is a lesson that the Favre family still hasn't seemed to learn.

No disagreement there, but his choice to remain silent amounts to a tacit agreement with their statements and puts all invovled in ackward situations. He may or may not be to blame for the statements themselves, but he choice to let them hang out there is telling.

[The Leaper]

No disagreement there, but his choice to remain silent amounts to a tacit agreement with their statements and puts all invovled in ackward situations. He may or may not be to blame for the statements themselves, but he choice to let them hang out there is telling.

I would agree with that. However, Favre seemed to retire and not really think much of making a public announcement to that end either. All kinds of stuff were flying around then too, if you recall.

Favre is not a public guy. He's not the massive ego trip that some here would like to claim he is. If he was, he'd be out in front of the camera right now soaking it all in.

[Bossman641]

Pressed to return? Are you joking?

My post was from FAVRE'S PERSPECTIVE.

I agree that the Packers have seemingly handled this fine on their end. I'm just saying that it seems Favre wants to go somewhere where he feels less pressure to commit right away. That is why I also said he wouldn't be likely to find it.

I see. Well I can agree with that perspective. If that is the case, Favre just wanting to play somewhere to play and have fun but without the pressure, then he is not the competitor I thought he was. I don't blame him, but I would think he would be more interested in winning than having fun. It's not really a surprise though, considering how often he said last year that he couldn't even really enjoy the big wins.

If that is the case though, and this is all just speculation, then I don't understand why he wouldn't just be upfront about it.

[australianpackerbacker]

I think it would be extremley negligent and foolish of someone in ted and mikes position to not accept favre back if they did not, in my opinion, think rodgers was their man. Thats just my view though, we will find out very soon.

Ted and Mike have repeatedly stated they are willing to accept Favre back and have shown it through their attempts to get him to delay his reteirement announcement and putting together a plan to bring him back in March...Even now, they say they would take him back.

Yes, they did say they would take him back, but only as a backup. The only reason they are saying that, in my opinion, is because it is too late for them to just hand over the reigns back to favre. In march, its no big deal because rodgers(like everone else) is expecting him to come back for another year. Now that they've officially handed him the job, it would be a bad move for not only the locker room, but for the confidence of our future QB to send him a message like that, that he will always play second fiddle to "the man".

But again, rodgers might not see it that way, but in no way will he take such an action in a positive manner. Some are screaming for an open QB competition, but again i think it would shatter his confidence losing to favre, because everyone would expect favre to win the job.

[The Leaper]

If that is the case, Favre just wanting to play somewhere to play and have fun but without the pressure, then he is not the competitor I thought he was.

I don't think he minds the pressure ON THE FIELD. It is the off the field stuff that he wants to avoid.

He may think it would be different elsewhere...but it would not. The grass always look greener...

[The Leaper]

Yes, they did say they would take him back, but only as a backup.

I haven't seen that comment from Ted Thompson or Mike McCarthy anywhere. They've only said they will address that situation if and when Favre shows up at camp.

[australianpackerbacker]

Yes, they did say they would take him back, but only as a backup.

I haven't seen that comment from Ted Thompson or Mike McCarthy anywhere. They've only said they will address that situation if and when Favre shows up at camp.

Correct, there is no direct quote from either TT or MM, although ted did state that aaron rodgers is the starter, and that if/when favre does return it would be a specified role. Theres only one starting QB job per team so id assume he means backup.

"We've communicated that to Brett, that we have since moved forward," Thompson said Saturday. "At the same time, we've never said that there couldn't be some role that he might play here. But I would understand his point that he would want to play."

[swede]

Yes, they did say they would take him back, but only as a backup.

I haven't seen that comment from Ted Thompson or Mike McCarthy anywhere. They've only said they will address that situation if and when Favre shows up at camp.

Thanks for catching that, Leaper.

TT said that Rodgers was the starter as a way of emphasizing that, for all the talk, Brett was out of the league and not on the Packers' roster.

The media consequently took the liberty of calling Favre the de facto backup, a position which was either disingenuous or obtuse.

[Lurker64]

Correct, there is no direct quote from either TT or MM, although ted did state that aaron rodgers is the starter, and that if/when favre does return it would be a specified role. Theres only one starting QB job per team so id assume he means backup.

This may be bordering on overly pedantic, but I believe when Thompson says that "Aaron Rodgers is our starter", since he's speaking in the present tense he's referring to the fact that the Quarterbacks on the active roster are Aaron Rodgers, Brian Brohm, and Matt Flynn. Brett Favre cannot be considered in the quarterback rotation right now as he is currently retired, and of those three Rodgers is clearly the starter.

Thompson has basically said "If Favre comes back, we'll figure out how to play him then" but has refused to comment on what capacity that would be in.

Nothing I've heard precludes Favre from being the starter, I believe that's still possible depending on what happens in camp.

[The Leaper]

Correct, there is no direct quote from either TT or MM, although ted did state that aaron rodgers is the starter, and that if/when favre does return it would be a specified role.

Rodgers is the starter because he's on the active roster and Favre is not. That was Thompson's direct comment on the situation.

If Favre shows up at camp, he is going to be the starter in 2008 IMO. The question is whether or not Favre will come to camp without 100% certainty that he will be GIVEN the starting job back without having to work for it.

That is how the Packers are going about trying to keep Favre in retirement...and they are wise to do so, as it allows them to gauge Favre's true desire to return. If he is willing to come back without guarantees, it probably is a good sign he's 100% committed to playing football.

[sharpe1027]

Correct, there is no direct quote from either TT or MM, although ted did state that aaron rodgers is the starter, and that if/when favre does return it would be a specified role.

Rodgers is the starter because he's on the active roster and Favre is not. That was Thompson's direct comment on the situation.

If Favre shows up at camp, he is going to be the starter in 2008 IMO. The question is whether or not Favre will come to camp without 100% certainty that he will be GIVEN the starting job back without having to work for it.

That is how the Packers are going about trying to keep Favre in retirement...and they are wise to do so, as it allows them to gauge Favre's true desire to return. If he is willing to come back without guarantees, it probably is a good sign he's 100% committed to playing football.

It is a very smart move. If Favre stays retired, they show to Rodgers that they believe in him. If Favre shows up ready to play, they can start him and it would be difficult to argue that Rodgers deserves to start over Favre.

No reason to burn your bridges with Rodgers until Favre truly shows comittment.

[Packerarcher]

I wasn't trying to do anything. I'm just saying if you wanna glorify the good, you have to look at the bad too or your vision gets fuzzy.

The game should not even have came down to O.T. and that pick. Everyone wants to blame that loss on Brett,that was a total team loss but mostly they were VERY under prepared by the coaching staff. BUT if you want to blame one player for the playoff game loss,blame Al I got burned Harris. He could not even cover a mediocre receiver with a bad ankle. Had Harris actually play as good as he runs his mouth the Packers would have won that game.

[The Shadow]

I just sent emails to Mark Murphy & Ted Thompson expressing my support for their handling of a very difficult issue.
It's pretty crummy that they are being seen as 'bad guys' by many.

[GBRulz]

Too cheap to send a Hallmark card?