Has your opinion of Favre changed?

[australianpackerbacker]

Re: Has your opinion of Favre changed?

It's not blaming Favre. It's not about being angry, hateful or disappointed in him. But I think you did hit on a key point that is being demonstrated by all that is happening. Favre is NOT much different than any of the other mega-superstars, even though many had hoped or believed that he was. It is those opinions that I think might be changing.

Yes, agreed. I just wanted to show people a different perspective on the situation that they may or may not have put much focus on. It is easy to change your opinion of somebody, but a little bit more difficult to see the reasons behind why this person may be acting like this.

[oregonpackfan]

I agreee that Bub makes some strong points.

As 3M suggested, I believe Favre is gradually tarnishing his legacy as an all-time great QB and as an all-time great Green Bay Packer.

I want to remember him as the competitive, free-spirit that he is or was.

To paraphrase the Christian standard of "What would Jesus do?" I have to ask "What would Vince do?" Frankly, I think Vince would be taking the same position as 3M and TT.

[texaspackerbacker]

I wouldn't say my opinion of him has changed significantly. I've always had the impression that Favre is not too bright and fairly easily manipulated.

I wouldn't call him high strung--more like the opposite--low key and easy going. I also wouldn't accuse him of putting himself above the other players--unless maybe if he is led to do that. It seems like he just wants to be one of the boys. I also think the image that he is like a little kid is a true one--both in the good sense and the bad sense.

Unfortunately, the recent fiasco has been the perfect storm bringing together all the elements of his bad side.

Just the same, I didn't read quite as much badness and bitterness inot his interview, and I wouldn't be surprised if he snapped out of it and ended up playing in Green Bay as a content backup. I don't say "starter" because I think the best he could hope for is competition with Rodgers starting out as the incimbent--and I think Brett loses that competition.

[The Leaper]

Frankly, I think Vince would be taking the same position as 3M and TT.

Considering how much Vince liked to win (it's the only thing) I'm guessing he would've done what was needed to get Favre back this year and gun for a title.

[australianpackerbacker]

To paraphrase the Christian standard of "What would Jesus do?" I have to ask "What would Vince do?" Frankly, I think Vince would be taking the same position as 3M and TT.

With a few solid blows to favres head, nonetheless!

[The Leaper]

This I know:

Vince Lombardi would not have named a starting QB before the start of the season. Aaron Rodgers would not be "given" anything...he would have to earn it like anyone else.

[mraynrand]

Yawn. Nice all or none thinking. Of course other factors were involved. My point: Sherman's inability to put team over individual was a critical flaw and a significant reason he didn't make a good GM - and it's the most relevant point to this conversation about Favre.

You are absolutely incorrect.

Sherman did put the team first. Sherman was not a huge ego. He was trying to put pieces together so the team could win. He just had no clue how to do it.

He just sucked at being a GM, and was mostly mediocre as a coach. He coddled Favre because he thought that was best. He was wrong.

Are you now saying other factors were not involved? That's what it means when you say I'm now 'absolutely incorrect.' Also, 'coddling' a person is putting that person above the interests of the team, whether the person doing the coddling thinks it's in the best interests of the team or not. I wasn't addressing Sherman's intent, just his effect.

[Patler]

Frankly, I think Vince would be taking the same position as 3M and TT.

Considering how much Vince liked to win (it's the only thing) I'm guessing he would've done what was needed to get Favre back this year and gun for a title.

I don't know, he threw away a perfectly good, future NFL Hall of Fame center who was still in his prime. He did not try to make that situation work.

[Patler]

Sherman was not a huge ego.

From what I have read from those who worked for him, you are incorrect. Several articles have said that Sherman had a huge ego problem, and was difficult to work with because of it. It has been said that he trusted no one and could delegate no work.

[The Leaper]

It has been said that he trusted no one and could delegate no work.

I'm not so sure that was entirely because of ego. The guy was incompetant as a leader and did not understand the art of delegation. That doesn't make him a big ego.

There was no reason to take a high school teacher and make him the coach and GM of the Green Bay Packers. He didn't have the necessary experience to handle that responsibility, and it showed.

[The Leaper]

I don't know, he threw away a perfectly good, future NFL Hall of Fame center who was still in his prime. He did not try to make that situation work.

True...but a center isn't nearly as important to winning in the NFL as a QB is, especially when you have the rest of the OL Lombardi had.

Lombardi overlooked the antics of talented guys like Hornung quite often. He knew where his bread was buttered.

[LL2]

My opinion of Favre has changed a little. I still think he’s the greatest QB in Packer history and appreciate all that he has done and played through. I think he should not have retired if he had a little desire to still play. He should have reversed his retirement position much earlier. I think the Packers management are doing the right thing.

[LaFours]

His round about approach since June is absolutely baffling to me, and his gig with VanSustern to me was a childish response to what has happened.

I have to admit, his "the team comes first" proclamations in other situations now seem a bit hollow to me. Now that he has a conflict with the team, whether it be over money, playing time or his retirement, all of a sudden the team is doing wrong by him. However, he didn't see that in the situations for the others.

If Sharpe, Walker or others were supposed to trust the team to take care of their money situations why shouldn't he just trust the team with respect to his roster position? He should come out of retirement, report to camp and let the team take care of it.

.... or, maybe he should have kept his opinions to himself in the other situations. I wonder how he would respond if teammates went to the media with comments that Favre should just report and shut up? What if they said, "I hope the team doesn't give in to him. Others can take his place." After all, that is what he said about Walker.

I do see inconsistencies in his positions.

I love it that I can always count on Patler to be of the same opinion, but he's always much more articulate. I feel the same way, but now that Patler has clarified how I feel, I can tell others.

Thanks Patler!