3 Questions I don't understand

[Chevelle2]

1) Why did the Packers tell Favre no to a trade according to Favre? (Is he lying? is it not saying your player is up for trade right before a trade?)

2) As a backup, would Favre be able to compete for the job? Would he win the starting job if he plays better? Did MM or TT shed light on this at all? If so, Favre is being a bitch.

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair. Affter all he has done for us we can at least let him play" I know I disagree with this, but I can't put it into words. Can someone here help me own him?

Thanks

*for the record, Im pro Packers, not Favre*

[RashanGary]

They never told Favre no to a trade.

[Zool]

They have paid him close to $100mil. I dont really see how they owe him anything. I'd say both sides have gotten what they needed out of each other.

[RashanGary]

Yes, and if Brett didn't want to be under contract he shouldn't have signed it. Nobody forced his signature and nobody guaranteed he'd be a starter when he signed it.

[Chevelle2]

all good points, thanks. keep em coming, i wanna own this dude

[Gunakor]

Re: 3 Questions I don't understand

1) Why did the Packers tell Favre no to a trade according to Favre? (Is he lying? is it not saying your player is up for trade right before a trade?)

2) As a backup, would Favre be able to compete for the job? Would he win the starting job if he plays better? Did MM or TT shed light on this at all? If so, Favre is being a bitch.

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair. Affter all he has done for us we can at least let him play" I know I disagree with this, but I can't put it into words. Can someone here help me own him?

Thanks

*for the record, Im pro Packers, not Favre*

1) The Packers never said they wouldn't entertain a trade.

2) I would hope if he reports to camp that they at least allow him to compete for the job. And if he outplays Rodgers then he should get the starting job. But no, TT and MM have not said word one about this possible scenario.

3) Remind your buddy that it was Favre's decision to retire in March that set all of this in motion. That nobody pushed Favre out the door, he walked out on his own. Or, if that doesn't work, tell your buddy to walk a mile in Aaron Rodgers shoes.

[Chevelle2]

Re: 3 Questions I don't understand

1) Why did the Packers tell Favre no to a trade according to Favre? (Is he lying? is it not saying your player is up for trade right before a trade?)

2) As a backup, would Favre be able to compete for the job? Would he win the starting job if he plays better? Did MM or TT shed light on this at all? If so, Favre is being a bitch.

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair. Affter all he has done for us we can at least let him play" I know I disagree with this, but I can't put it into words. Can someone here help me own him?

Thanks

*for the record, Im pro Packers, not Favre*

1) The Packers never said they wouldn't entertain a trade.

2) I would hope if he reports to camp that they at least allow him to compete for the job. And if he outplays Rodgers then he should get the starting job. But no, TT and MM have not said word one about this possible scenario.

3) Remind your buddy that it was Favre's decision to retire in March that set all of this in motion. That nobody pushed Favre out the door, he walked out on his own. Or, if that doesn't work, tell your buddy to walk a mile in Aaron Rodgers shoes.

Oooh, this helps a lot. Thanks. Just wondering about #1, didn't Favre say otherwise last night?

[Gunakor]

Re: 3 Questions I don't understand

1) Why did the Packers tell Favre no to a trade according to Favre? (Is he lying? is it not saying your player is up for trade right before a trade?)

2) As a backup, would Favre be able to compete for the job? Would he win the starting job if he plays better? Did MM or TT shed light on this at all? If so, Favre is being a bitch.

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair. Affter all he has done for us we can at least let him play" I know I disagree with this, but I can't put it into words. Can someone here help me own him?

Thanks

*for the record, Im pro Packers, not Favre*

1) The Packers never said they wouldn't entertain a trade.

2) I would hope if he reports to camp that they at least allow him to compete for the job. And if he outplays Rodgers then he should get the starting job. But no, TT and MM have not said word one about this possible scenario.

3) Remind your buddy that it was Favre's decision to retire in March that set all of this in motion. That nobody pushed Favre out the door, he walked out on his own. Or, if that doesn't work, tell your buddy to walk a mile in Aaron Rodgers shoes.

Oooh, this helps a lot. Thanks. Just wondering about #1, didn't Favre say otherwise last night?

Didn't TT ask Bus Cook about a list of possible teams Favre would be willing to play for? That's what I heard anyway...

[Bretsky]

Re: 3 Questions I don't understand

1) Why did the Packers tell Favre no to a trade according to Favre? (Is he lying? is it not saying your player is up for trade right before a trade?)

I think they stated there is not room for you here, and we can't envision you going to another team. That quote was used several times and to me it's very believable tactic the Packers are using to try to get Favre to retire.
But no, I don't believe they said they will never trade him.

2) As a backup, would Favre be able to compete for the job? Would he win the starting job if he plays better? Did MM or TT shed light on this at all? If so, Favre is being a bitch.

To me all evidence points to Favre being the better QB for 2008. That being said, everything the Packer Brass is doing IMO is strategical to get him to stay retired so they can flush this thing away. MM and TT are too smart to be too specific here. It's smart of them to stay general. They just keep saying Favre is retired, we have no papers, AROD is our starter, and we're moving forward with that. Again, reading into that it's resonable for Favre to figure they don't want him back and AROD is their starter. As Favre noted, if he wants to play, he NEEDS to call their bluff. Come back, and arrive at training camp. That either forces their hand to trade him or let him play. He won't backup AROD if he's in camp the whole time.

The stupidity of Bus Cook noting they may not file papers soon amazes me and plays exactly into what TT is trying to accomplish; justification for going with his boy.

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair. Affter all he has done for us we can at least let him play" I know I disagree with this, but I can't put it into words. Can someone here help me own him?

I agree that he does just want to play. But if that's the case they he has to submit the papers. Simple concept; until he does that GB does absolutely nothing. They'd be idiotic to do something. right now. By submitting the papers he makes them start playing their cards. Until he applies for reinstatement then the he just wants to play argument is bunkThanks

*for the record, Im pro Packers, not Favre*

[Bretsky]

Re: 3 Questions I don't understand

1) Why did the Packers tell Favre no to a trade according to Favre? (Is he lying? is it not saying your player is up for trade right before a trade?)

2) As a backup, would Favre be able to compete for the job? Would he win the starting job if he plays better? Did MM or TT shed light on this at all? If so, Favre is being a bitch.

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair. Affter all he has done for us we can at least let him play" I know I disagree with this, but I can't put it into words. Can someone here help me own him?

Thanks

*for the record, Im pro Packers, not Favre*

1) The Packers never said they wouldn't entertain a trade.

2) I would hope if he reports to camp that they at least allow him to compete for the job. And if he outplays Rodgers then he should get the starting job. But no, TT and MM have not said word one about this possible scenario.

3) Remind your buddy that it was Favre's decision to retire in March that set all of this in motion. That nobody pushed Favre out the door, he walked out on his own. Or, if that doesn't work, tell your buddy to walk a mile in Aaron Rodgers shoes.

Oooh, this helps a lot. Thanks. Just wondering about #1, didn't Favre say otherwise last night?

Didn't TT ask Bus Cook about a list of possible teams Favre would be willing to play for? That's what I heard anyway...

That was one of the leaks that was never really confirmed; getting hard to separate the two

[pbmax]

Re: 3 Questions I don't understand

Didn't TT ask Bus Cook about a list of possible teams Favre would be willing to play for? That's what I heard anyway...

That was one of the leaks that was never really confirmed; getting hard to separate the two

That was Van Susteren summarizing some of her interview with Favre for the AP before it aired. It might be in the full transcript, but I haven't seen the link.

Van Susteren -- who is from Appleton, Wis., is a Packers shareholder and previously had interviewed Favre and his wife, Deanna -- said Favre made it clear he would not return to the Packers if he wasn't the starter. And while Favre said the Packers asked him for a list of teams to which he would accept a trade, he wants to be released to make sure he ends up on a competitive club.

[Iron Mike]

Re: 3 Questions I don't understand

3) My buddy is saying "he just wants to play, and management isn't being fair."

If he "just wants to play," then why retire??

If he "just wants to play," then why cancel out on coming back a few weeks later?

If he "just wants to play," then why not the CFL?? Why not the Dolphins?

Methinks he "just wants to play drama queen."

[the_idle_threat]

Funny how when Brett was asked in the interview about coming out of the tunnel in week one as a Viking, he said he can't envision it, and yet it's pretty plain that he's interested in playing there.

If the team told Brett they can't envision him in another uniform, that does not commit them to a position of not trading him any more than his comment commits him to not signing with the Vikings.

[Partial]

Yes, and if Brett didn't want to be under contract he shouldn't have signed it. Nobody forced his signature and nobody guaranteed he'd be a starter when he signed it.

Is it not unfair to keep the greater player on the bench?

[Gunakor]

Yes, and if Brett didn't want to be under contract he shouldn't have signed it. Nobody forced his signature and nobody guaranteed he'd be a starter when he signed it.

Is it not unfair to keep the greater player on the bench?

It is unfair. But don't confuse the greater player for the highest paid one. They are not exactly always one in the same. Suppose 25 year old A-Rod is better in 2008 than 39 year old Favre. It doesn't seem all that big a stretch considering that Rodgers played at least as well as Favre did last season in very limited opportunity. I won't discount the possibility that Rodgers wins a fair competition between the two. This isn't 1996 anymore. The question isn't who's been the better QB over the last 16 years, it's who's the best quarterback in 2008. So to fairly answer your question, it most certainly is unfair to keep the better QB on the bench. So I say let's have a competition to see who the better QB is come August, with no bias twoard past accomplishments. The only thing they should be judged on is thier play in 2008. The winner takes the field and the loser holds the clipboard and ballcap. Sound fair?