Part II

[The Leaper]

Why doesn't he just come right out and say what he thinks the lies are that were made to him?

Maybe he has too much respect for the organization to mention details.

The point is that he feels a level of distrust from the organization...for whatever reason. I don't see the need to take this further into the gutter and list all the juicy details publically. Thankfully, Thompson and Favre don't seem to see the reason either. The situation is bad enough for all involved as it is.

[Tarlam!]

Making an "example" of Favre isn't going to change anything in the locker room, so why do it?

I think the contrary. I think they are demonstrating management loyalty and delivering on promises. They publicly commited to the new guy. just because the legend wants to come back doesn't give them a sound reason to go back on their commitment.

That's the issue at hand here and Favre, unfortunately, doesn't give a toss about management's commitments or what anybody else thinks. He says, I am Favre and I will start here or give me my release.

But, that's not in the best interest of the Packers.

[The Leaper]

Sounds like Favre isn't exactly a guy you bring to mentor a young QB.

I don't think he is.

He's not a cerebral guy. He's an instinctive guy. Those kind of guys make poor mentors...because they rely on talents and instincts that most other guys won't have.

When you look at the QBs who go on to be coaches and mentors, they are the cerebral guys...not the instinctive guys. You ain't going to see John Elway or Brett Favre out there teaching people.

That's why NFL teams have QB coaches. It isn't Favre's job to mentor a young QB. If he can do it and likes to do it, great. Added bonus. I'm not going to be upset with Favre for not doing it though. They seemed to get along OK...and I'm guessing Favre provided insight for Rodgers in ways that he might not even recognize...just in terms of how to be a pro and how to lead.

[The Leaper]

I think the contrary. I think they are demonstrating management loyalty and delivering on promises. They publicly commited to the new guy. just because the legend wants to come back doesn't give them a sound reason to go back on their commitment.

So Rodgers is the guy regardless? If he stinks in camp, oh well. We've given him the job.

This is professional football, not amateur hour. No one is guaranteed anything.

If Favre provides the team a better chance at winning in 2008, he should be the QB. There is no other truth than that. The NFL is about WINNING, not commitments to the new guy.

That's the issue at hand here and Favre, unfortunately, doesn't give a toss about management's commitments or what anybody else thinks. He says, I am Favre and I will start here or give me my release.

No, he's saying if the Packers have moved on and are going another way, that's fine. Just give Favre his freedom to continue his career elsewhere if he so chooses...give FAVRE control of his future. He wants to play, and if Green Bay doesn't want him to play there, he feels it is unfair that they can just basically shut down his career. He feels he's done enough for the organization that they owe him the ability to move on himself if they've moved on. I agree with him.

If Thompson feels it is in the best interest of the Packers to move on, then release Favre. It doesn't matter where he ends up, because the best move for the Packers was to move on without Favre.

[Tarlam!]

This is professional football, not amateur hour. No one is guaranteed anything.

Ah. Now, there's an interesting point.

[PackerTimer]

So Rodgers is the guy regardless? If he stinks in camp, oh well. We've given him the job.

This is professional football, not amateur hour. No one is guaranteed anything.

Yet Favre thinks he should come in and be handed the starting job.

[Tarlam!]

It doesn't matter where he ends up, because the best move for the Packers was to move on without Favre.

That's plain stupid. Thompson will not allow Favre in a uniform not of his choosing and NOTHING that Favre has done for the organization says he should simply be released.

BTW, while he was doing all this for the Packers, he was earning more money than he can ever spend in a few lifetimes. The Packers have paid Favre. All debts are settled.

[The Leaper]

It doesn't matter where he ends up, because the best move for the Packers was to move on without Favre.

That's plain stupid.

I know it is stupid.

That is why you KEEP Favre and make him your starter. He's one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL. If the guy wants to play for your team, WTF do you stonewall him? To make an "example" of him? That's dumbass.

[Tarlam!]

The NFL is about WINNING, not commitments to the new guy.

And you honestly believe by breaking commitments easily management can create the environment for a winning NFL Franchise? That's just such a pathetic statement.

[The Leaper]

Yet Favre thinks he should come in and be handed the starting job.

Over a guy with zero NFL starts, zero MVP awards, and 59 career pass attempts?

I can see why.

[The Leaper]

And you honestly believe by breaking commitments easily management can create the environment for a winning NFL Franchise? That's just such a pathetic statement.

You are right. It worked out HORRIBLY for the Giants with Strahan last year.

This shit happens ALL THE TIME in the NFL...usually with players who are 1/100th the player Favre is. That is why this is a joke.

[Tarlam!]

I know it is stupid.

That is why you KEEP Favre and make him your starter. He's one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL. If the guy wants to play for your team, WTF do you stonewall him? To make an "example" of him? That's dumbass.

I think you answer it best yourself why this is not the right way:

[quote="Tarlam!"]

This is professional football, not amateur hour. No one is guaranteed anything.

[Tarlam!]

It worked out HORRIBLY for the Giants with Strahan last year.

This shit happens ALL THE TIME in the NFL...usually with players who are 1/100th the player Favre is. That is why this is a joke.

I know nothing about what happened with the Giants. I do know we are talking about the QB and not the DE position and I would greatly differentiate.

I would be hesitant to think the Giants were as split as we are(Fans and Locker). I also don't know if they had been grooming a replacement for 3 years that they finally committed to.

I just don't know.

[The Leaper]

I know nothing about what happened with the Giants.

It is simple. Strahan rode the fence on retirement THROUGH TRAINING CAMP. The Giants ultimately welcomed him back and Strahan's dominance on the DL helped them win a title.

Claiming the position matters is ridiculous. I thought your position was that it was about the TEAM...that everyone had to pull their weight regardless.

[The Leaper]

I know it is stupid.

That is why you KEEP Favre and make him your starter. He's one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL. If the guy wants to play for your team, WTF do you stonewall him? To make an "example" of him? That's dumbass.

I think you answer it best yourself why this is not the right way:

This is professional football, not amateur hour. No one is guaranteed anything.

I did answer it. Rodgers is not guaranteed anything, nor should he be.