Part II

[Tarlam!]

No, I said commitment matters. Did the Giants commit to a 3 year trainee and say publicly "the sacks are all yours now kid, go take over our defence"?

Because that would make your comparison reasonable. Otherwise, it is just you yapping your chops like a toothless dog on a chain.

[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:

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.

By the same argument, neither should Favre.

[The Leaper]

By the same argument, neither should Favre.

Fine.

So why did the Packers tell Favre he did not have the option of returning?

[Tarlam!]

By the same argument, neither should Favre.

Fine.

So why did the Packers tell Favre he did not have the option of returning?

Totally different discussion. I think you'll find a lot of support here if you start suggesting a fair camp battle. I did say and mean FAIR.

But I, for one, simply don't think that it is healthy to renege on a commitment outright.

[The Leaper]

But I, for one, simply don't think that it is healthy to renege on a commitment outright.

I don't think it is healthy to make outright commitments on starting QBs in March. The time to make that decision is the week before the first game of the season...and not before.

Who the fuck cares who the "starting QB" is in the summer?

[Tarlam!]

I don't think it is healthy to make outright commitments on starting QBs in March. The time to make that decision is the week before the first game of the season...and not before.

Who the fuck cares who the "starting QB" is in the summer?

Well, until Favre retired, we pretty much knew 365 days a year who the starter was. In retrospect, maybe TT/M3 shouldn't have opened their mouthes.

My guess is they wanted the fans and players to get accustomed to the new guy over the course of the off season. My further guess is they were interviewing vets and wanted to reassure the kid it was his job. Not wanting his confidence gnawed at.

So, I guess a lot of people might feel differently than you about who the starter is in Summer, Leap.

[The Leaper]

My guess is they wanted the fans and players to get accustomed to the new guy over the course of the off season. My further guess is they were interviewing vets and wanted to reassure the kid it was his job. Not wanting his confidence gnawed at.

It isn't "his" job until he earns it. That's the point. That's life in the NFL.

Thompson and McCarthy made a huge blunder on this one.

[Tarlam!]

My guess is they wanted to get rid of Favre. It makes more sense.

I would have agreed with that until I learned they were prepared to take him back as late as April and Favre cancelled again.

[Tarlam!]

My guess is they wanted the fans and players to get accustomed to the new guy over the course of the off season. My further guess is they were interviewing vets and wanted to reassure the kid it was his job. Not wanting his confidence gnawed at.

It isn't "his" job until he earns it. That's the point. That's life in the NFL.

Thompson and McCarthy made a huge blunder on this one.

You edited this post, didn't you!?! No matter.

It is "his" job if that's what the coach says. That's also life in the NFL. Whether they blundered, time will tell.

[sharpe1027]

I don't understand the logic behind people saying that Favre shouldn't have to compete for the starting QB spot because he is so much better than Rodgers. If that is the case, what harm can come from having a competition that he can't lose?

Personally, I think that Favre wins any competition, but at least it forces him to commit early and shows that the Packers believe in Rodgers. Nobody would fault Rodgers for getting beat out by a HoF QB.

[twoseven]

I don't understand the logic behind people saying that Favre shouldn't have to compete for the starting QB spot because he is so much better than Rodgers. If that is the case, what harm can come from having a competition that he can't lose?

Personally, I think that Favre wins any competition, but at least it forces him to commit early and shows that the Packers believe in Rodgers. Nobody would fault Rodgers for getting beat out by a HoF QB.

To me this is all looking more and more like pissing off the fans and the organization IS THE PLAN to get him sent elsewhere. Asking for a release is the big bonus, they know they won't get it, but hell, why not ask, you never know. He said as much last night (about what Bus told him). Why would he whine about not getting back in only to have his convenient 'reasons' (they don't want me, i don't want to add to the circus) for not showing up in camp if they offered to let him compete for the job?

I am thinking more every day that this fiasco is too much of a hack job to kill it for Brett in GB to be just be a coincidence, getting him traded elsewhere by publically burning bridges being the ultimate goal maybe? If so, what a fucked up way of handling things. Brett's apparent loathing for TT (as evident with his unhappiness with TT's non-moves concerning Moss, Whale/Rivera, Marriuchi) appears to be at the heart of this matter..and if the timeline suggests anything it's that Brett has had some issues with how TT has done his job from day one.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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.

We don't know if we will see the 2007 version of Favre or the 2005-2006 version. He's 39, it's not at all certain where he's at. If he were 30 years old, you would be justified in saying he is in top 5.

I don't believe you are suggesting that MM & TT are poor football guys, they certainly have proven otherwise. So that leaves the explanation that they are being petty, putting their egos ahead of good judgement.

I don't buy this. They've shown themselves to be supremely flexible in accomodating Prince Favre. There are other factors besides Favre's 2007 stats to consider: team chemistry, their perception of where Rodgers is at, risk factors associated with Favre, longterm plans. (BTW, we don't hear of teams around the NFL drooling over Favre, maybe other evaluators see risk factors too.)

I do think you make a good argument, I'm not dismissing it. But there is another valid perspective. And I give MM & TT the slack to pursue their judgement on this one.

[The Leaper]

We don't know if we will see the 2007 version of Favre or the 2005-2006 version.

I disagree. When has Favre not been highly productive when surrounded with talent? If you can point out an instance, I'll concede your point.

2005? Do you really expect Favre to light up the league throwing to guys like Taco Wallace? That year was a complete disaster due to injuries. Is it Favre's fault he was the only guy that didn't get hurt?

2006? Favre wasn't his best, but again he didn't have much to work with. The OL was a complete mess in 2006, and Favre had little time to stand in the pocket and make decisions.

[The Leaper]

BTW, we don't hear of teams around the NFL drooling over Favre, maybe other evaluators see risk factors too.

Perhaps. I think the biggest reason why Favre isn't wanted elsewhere is that there always is a period of adjustment when switching teams. It is impossible to just plug a QB into a new team and system and get instant results.

The only place where it truly makes sense for Favre to play is Green Bay. He knows the players and system. He can make the greatest impact there by far.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sounds like Favre ought to draw a cool #1 pick in a trade. Ought to be a cinch to find an AFC trading partner.