McCarthy, Thompson To Address Media Today; Watch LIVE

[Zool]

The fact of the matter is they do not want Favre and think they are better off with A-Rod. That is a bad decision in my opinion

Super Bowl (Denver): 256 yards, 3 touchdowns, 2 TOs
San Francisco: 292 yards, 2 touchdowns, 2 Ints
San Francisco:269, 2 touchdowns, 1 Int
St. Louis: 281, 2 touchdowns, 6 Ints
Atlanta: 247, 1 touchdown, 2 Ints
Seattle: 319, 1 touchdown, 0 Ints
Philadelphia180 yards, 2 touchdowns, 1 Int
Minnesota216 yards, 1 touchdown, 4 Ints
Seattle172 yards, 3 touchdowns, 0 Ints
NY 236 yards, 2 touchdowns, 2 Ints

19 touchdowns, 20 TOs

3 playoff wins in last decade.

Why not give another guy a shot, see what someone else can do?

It's classy to discount all the other success' that he has had.

He played lights out in Seattle, and had a bad game like everyone else did in the cold against NY. Note that he kept his team in there and gave them a chance to win.

How many times would we have been in those games to begin with without Favre? The talent was abysmal other than Brett on most of those teams.

Who brought that talent in?

[Chevelle2]

The fact of the matter is they do not want Favre and think they are better off with A-Rod. That is a bad decision in my opinion

Super Bowl (Denver): 256 yards, 3 touchdowns, 2 TOs
San Francisco: 292 yards, 2 touchdowns, 2 Ints
San Francisco:269, 2 touchdowns, 1 Int
St. Louis: 281, 2 touchdowns, 6 Ints
Atlanta: 247, 1 touchdown, 2 Ints
Seattle: 319, 1 touchdown, 0 Ints
Philadelphia180 yards, 2 touchdowns, 1 Int
Minnesota216 yards, 1 touchdown, 4 Ints
Seattle172 yards, 3 touchdowns, 0 Ints
NY 236 yards, 2 touchdowns, 2 Ints

19 touchdowns, 20 TOs

3 playoff wins in last decade.

Why not give another guy a shot, see what someone else can do?

It's classy to discount all the other success' that he has had.

He played lights out in Seattle, and had a bad game like everyone else did in the cold against NY. Note that he kept his team in there and gave them a chance to win.

How many times would we have been in those games to begin with without Favre? The talent was abysmal other than Brett on most of those teams.

False:

1997: 13-3
2001: 12-4
2002: 12-4
2003: 10-6
2004: 10-6
2007: 13-3


Average wins per year: 11.66

Bad teams, alright.

[sharpe1027]

Oh really? 40 years of losing wouldn't have had the team go bankrupt or move shop? laughable.

This team was horrendous when Favre got here, and he turned it into a winner for 16 straight years. He made the Packers what they are today.

No. The Packers have twelve championships and only one of them involved Favre. The fans have already proven that they will stuck with the Pack through very tough times. I take your comments as a personal insult. Maybe you would have let them go bankrupt, but enough of the rest of us would have stood by our team.

[cheesner]

. . . Why does everyone take the Sidewinder's side when he is disrespecting the greatest packer ever. Without Favre, the Packers probably wouldn't be around, and the Sidewinder wouldn't have a job.

Maybe they are just defending him because of ridiculous posts like this. Calling TT names like 'Sidewinder' is immature and callous.

Saying the Packers 'probably wouldn't be around' without Favre is just plain ridiculous.

Oh really? 40 years of losing wouldn't have had the team go bankrupt or move shop? laughable.

This team was horrendous when Favre got here, and he turned it into a winner for 16 straight years. He made the Packers what they are today.

Lambeau field has been sold out what since 1960. The wait for season tickets is longer than there are seats in the stadium. How long has Brett been around? Let me guess, you are 17 yo and all you know is the Brett era.

NFL's main income is TV revenue which is shared equally among all teams.

Move shop? Perhaps you aren't aware, the team is owned by the fans. They aren't going anywhere.

You are discounting the first 71 years of the organization? The Packers have 12 NFL championships. Only 1 of these was with Favre. In the 88 years the Packers played they won on average a championship every 7.3 years. With one victory, the Favre era brought us 1 Championship in 16 years. The Packers have done poorer on average with Favre.


Laughable? Indeed.

[SkinBasket]

He made the Packers what they are today.

Brett's had some pretty good drafts. A little spotty of the FA front over his time here, but his contract negotiation shouldn't be underestimated. He's also devised some great defenses, and some poor ones, but his coaching has been better than average on the whole I suppose.

And as Zool's pointed out before, that time Brett Favre intercepted the pass and lateraled it to Brett Favre for the TD was priceless. The ensuing onside kick by Brett Favre and recovered by Brett Favre was even better. But not to be outdone by Brett Favre passing to Brett Favre after some fine pass protection by Brett Favre and what some detractors have deemed an illegal pick by fellow receiver Brett Favre.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Super Bowl (Denver): 256 yards, 3 touchdowns, 2 TOs
San Francisco: 292 yards, 2 touchdowns, 2 Ints
San Francisco:269, 2 touchdowns, 1 Int
St. Louis: 281, 2 touchdowns, 6 Ints
Atlanta: 247, 1 touchdown, 2 Ints
Seattle: 319, 1 touchdown, 0 Ints
Philadelphia180 yards, 2 touchdowns, 1 Int
Minnesota216 yards, 1 touchdown, 4 Ints
Seattle172 yards, 3 touchdowns, 0 Ints
NY 236 yards, 2 touchdowns, 2 Ints

19 touchdowns, 20 TOs

3 playoff wins in last decade.

Why not give another guy a shot, see what someone else can do?

I'm all for moving on, but Brett was a great player for us. I won't diminish that. You and I both know there were some circumstances surrounding the team that didn't give Brett the best shot to succeed. St. Louis outclassed us. We were down big before he started throwing most of his interceptions. He didn't have a bad game against Philadelphia, and we should have won the game long before the one pick he threw. We were missing most our receivers against Minnesota. He was okay against the Giants until the last quarter and a half. It is the first time that I doubted he could get the job done though.

[The Shadow]

Oh really? 40 years of losing wouldn't have had the team go bankrupt or move shop? laughable.

This team was horrendous when Favre got here, and he turned it into a winner for 16 straight years. He made the Packers what they are today.

No. The Packers have twelve championships and only one of them involved Favre. The fans have already proven that they will stuck with the Pack through very tough times. I take your comments as a personal insult. Maybe you would have let them go bankrupt, but enough of the rest of us would have stood by our team.

Exactly right.

[Chevelle2]

Here Partial, maybe you missed it:

The talent was abysmal other than Brett on most of those teams

False:

1997: 13-3
2001: 12-4
2002: 12-4
2003: 10-6
2004: 10-6
2007: 13-3


Average wins per year: 11.66

[motife]

Thompson Press Conference Transcript :

Good afternoon. Welcome to our training camp. We had a great practice this morning, looking forward to the first padded practice this afternoon. A couple of things that I wanted to touch on, and then we'll just do our normal take some questions. There have been a lot of reports throughout all of this, and I understand that, but sometimes things get skewed by the time they get out. I did want to comment that Brett and I had a couple of conversations on Saturday. I think both of them lasted approximately 45 minutes or so. It was very professional. It was very cordial. We talked about a lot of things. We acknowledged, both of us, that this is a unique and at times difficult situation. I think he and I are both aware of that, as all of the parties are, and probably you are too. We talked about different options that were available. I stated my case as to why I thought certain options were better. He certainly had his opinion on his options. At the end of the day, we still have not gotten to the point where we agree on what the best option is. We have sort of agreed to disagree, and at that time he suggested he would probably delay coming to training camp for at least a couple of days to see how things worked out. He asked me to present to you guys at some point, and I think now is an appropriate time, his reasoning behind that. His reasoning behind that is he cares very much about this team, cares about these players, his former teammates, so he doesn't want to do anything to disrupt from that. He felt strongly that he wanted to get that out so I wanted to make sure that I told you guys that at the onset. We're still working through where we are. There have been no resolutions, no updates. We are trying to do the right thing and we will continue to try to do the right thing for all parties. There are not any simple answers, but that is what we are tasked to do in terms of working through this. As a leader here, I feel a responsibility to try to do this and try to do this in a proper manner and it's an ongoing thing that we're going to do the best we can. Having said that, it was very good to get out on the practice field on a beautiful Wisconsin morning and see our guys go at it. It's good to get started.

(Does the organization even want Brett back?)
There are a lot of different scenarios and Brett and I talked about that. That's one scenario, where he comes back. We've said all along, we've never changed our message in this regard, that with his retirement and subsequent affirmation of that retirement, we have made a commitment to move forward. He understands that. I'm not saying he's in total agreement, but as a football guy, he understands that, and that's where we are. What does that mean? Does that mean he comes back in a different role or something like that? That would just be determined as we go forward.

(Does him coming back represent not moving forward?)
I'm just saying, him coming back, we have to prepare our team. Come draft time, we decided we had to get this position ready, so we have three young quarterbacks that we have to prepare to play. Now how Brett factors into that group? We would just have to wait and see. We wouldn't know. Time marches on, things happen, but there are scenarios where he would be here and he would be fine.

(Why not have a competition if he comes back?)
Again, I thought it was important for me to be perfectly honest with Brett that we have started down this path and it doesn't make sense for us to turn around and go back now. We have to continue down this path. Where that leads, I don't know, but I didn't want to be dishonest or disingenuous and say OK, we can do this and then change our mind. I think Brett Favre deserves more than that, so we told him the way we felt.

(But why do you have to continue down this path? Why not let him back and say the best quarterback wins?)
We believe that this is the path that we should be on. We believe this is the best thing in the best interest of the organization, both in the short term and the long term.

(If you say he deserves better than that, why not give him what he wants?)
The club has certain rights in this too. We've told Brett that we would work with him and obviously it would have to be an in-tandem thing to work out any sort of trade or whatever. But to just offer a blanket release just relinquishing all of the club's rights to me doesn't make good business sense.

(Would you ever consider trading him to a NFC North team?)
No.

(Is it not accurate that he wanted to come in and you asked him not to do that?)
No, no. That's kind of the thing that gets skewed. Like I said, we had a great conversation. We had a 45-minute conversation and a couple of hours later we had another 45-minute conversation. During those conversations at some point I kind of wanted to say OK, let me answer this from the earlier conversation and this from the earlier conversation, so I laid out some, what I thought, were some valid reasons why delaying reinstatement would make a lot of sense. At the end of this conversation, he said something to the effect of why don't we do something like this, but I would like the team to know that I care about them.

(Did he give you a deadline where if you don't have something in place that he would report?)
No, he didn't. I think he used the term a couple of days.

(Was that an accurate quote that you said you would get fired if he came in?)
That would not be the way that I would interpret that. Again, I can't answer for how someone else interpreted it, and I'm not saying who said what, which is way bigger than that, so that's not what I am saying. I'm just saying that would not be my interpretation of that conversation.

(Is it feasible that a trade could be made by Wednesday?)
I don't know. With any trade, certainly a trade of an iconic figure like this, sometimes there are complications in there. I just think it's a matter of all of the parties coming together and saying this is a good idea. We're not there yet, so I think that would be the complication.

(Are you saying that when you made the comment that you'll get fired, that was made in jest?)
No, again, I'll just leave it at that. I don't want to want to get into he said, she said. I'm just saying that was not my interpretation of our conversation.

(Were you relieved when he decided not to come?)
We talked about this; I just felt like it had the potential to be, it's kind of a crush here anyway, but it had the potential to be a little bit more of a distraction than normal. I'm very proud of our team. I'm very impressed with these guys on this team, and I think we can handle it whenever, if that happens. I just felt like a couple of days really doesn't take any of his options away and it allows some more conversations to go forth.

(From the conversations you have had, do you think you can get anything approaching fair value in a trade?)
I don't know. Business is business, and we have our duty as officers of the Packers to try to do what is right. But at the same time we are trying to marry that with doing what is right and what Brett would like as well. We haven't gotten there yet. I don't know if it's fair to speculate in terms of what we would expect in terms of market value. I know there have been a lot of reports out there but none of them have much substance to them because it hasn't been run by me yet.

(How would you characterize the talks you are having with teams, how many teams?)
I'm sorry, I wouldn't care to comment on that, and we never would. It wouldn't matter if it was for Brett Favre or for some other player on our 80-man roster. We would never comment on potential trades like that.

(But it is fair to say they are active and ongoing?)
There have been some kicking of tires type conversations.

(Has Brett told you teams he would or would not go to?)
No.

(If you were the general manager of another team, wouldn't you I am going to let this play out a little bit longer and see if they let him go?)
I suppose that is one way of looking at it. I'm not sure that I am that smart. I suppose some people might look at it like that.

(Would it be fair to say that the most desirable outcome for the team is a trade?)
No, the most desirable outcome is to get to a point where the Packers can say we have done our job. We have done our job in representing the Packers. We have done our job in trying to help Brett Favre get where he wants to be. If that means a trade, fine. If that means something else, fine. I'm not saying it's easy, but we're trying to do this so that everybody comes out of this and feels OK. This is the way it should be.

(When you spoke to Brett this weekend, did he still say that he wanted to play for the Packers?)
I think I'll let Brett field those questions. Most of our conversations, I know I have relayed some of them, but as you guys that cover this team, I don't talk too much about private conversations that I have, so I would prefer to kind of hang on to that.

(You did make a trade with the Vikings on draft day and you said you probably wouldn't do that with a player. Why wouldn't you do that if they would pay the highest price and seem to want him the most?)
I wouldn't comment on any specific team. I'm just saying divisional rivals, there's a special bond, I suppose we could use that word. Player-for-player within the division is rare, I would think. That was the reason I answered that. In terms of trading draft picks for another pick and then you get another pick back and all that, I don't see the harm in that. If they do good, fine, if we do good, that's even better.

(Is that why a release isn't a realistic possibility, because he could go to a team that you don't want him to?)
Again, a release just doesn't make a lot of sense from the Packers' point of view. I've not heard many people say that's a good option, even people that would like to hang me in effigy outside. They don't like that option either.

(If you are confident in Aaron Rodgers and the position the team is in, why not just release him?)
I don't think the two are intertwined there. Yes, we are very confident in our team, and when we addressed the team, we addressed them in that regard. We expect to win, just like I've told you guys. But, there's a business side of this, there's a common sense side of this that says just to relinquish all our rights doesn't make much business sense.

(Are you prepared for the possibility that he could be here on Wednesday?)
I don't think we've ... quite frankly, I talk to the team briefly and then I always leave. I don't even know what Mike talked about. Yeah, we're prepared for that. Any retired player can do this, and then you decide what you want to do after. You would go through the same processing procedure, physicals and stuff like that.

(Are you prepared for him to be the backup quarterback for the entire season?)
Well, we'll just have to see how that works out. Again, we bring him in, get him physicaled and see where it goes from there.

(Mike said the other day this has been the most difficult experience of his coaching career. What has it been like for you?)
It's been difficult. I think it's been difficult for everybody, and to be fair, I think it's been very very difficult for Brett. It's not his fault that he retired. It's not his fault that he changed his mind, and we spoke about this the other day, but at the same time it's not the organization's fault either. It's just, it's a difficult spot, and everybody I believe in this wants to have a good outcome, and we're just not there yet. But as ultimately the guy responsible for this team and for the way it's portrayed publicly, it's important for us to get through this.

(What makes you so sure that you are doing the right thing by not bringing him back as the starting quarterback, as far as going with an inexperienced quarterback over a guy who has won a lot of games?)
We're still wanting to try to win football games, and we're going to win football games. I think you use the experience that you've had everywhere you've been. When I was here before, back when I was playing, all the coaches' experience that they've been through, the other people. We don't just make arbitrary decisions. We talk it over with all of our staff. We go through this over and over again, and yeah, we've talked through the different scenarios. And I understand why there are people out there that think, 'Holy smokes, you're crazy.' I just think it's important for people to know we believe this is the right direction for the Packers to go both now and in the future.

(In your most recent conversation with Brett, did he affirm his commitment to playing football this season?)
I think he said ... I think it's fair to say in that conversation he wants to play football, yes.

(Is it safe to say that you feel you will be a better team with Aaron Rodgers as the starting quarterback?)
Again, that's kind of splitting hairs there. We've made this decision, the direction we're going has been set. It will be up to history to determine whether we made the right decision.

(How much of a role does ego play in this?)
For me? None. You can have mine. I don't have one left, I don't think. Not after this.

(Is it realistic for Brett to come back after he basically called you a liar?)
Again, I've never had a bad conversation with Brett. I don't know about the translations in the media. But this is the National Football League. This is made for grown-ups. You can't be governed by your feelings. You can't be governed because somebody might have hurt your feelings. We're not going to do that, we're not going to be like that. We're going to take the high road, we're going to try to make the right decisions for the Packers, and if that's the right decision for the Packers, then that's what we'll do.

(Ryan Grant's agent made some critical comments about the offer he received. What can you say about the situation?)
The Ryan Grant thing, he is in a remarkably unique position year-wise. It's a negotiation. It's ongoing. We do not negotiate in the press. We don't think that serves a purpose. We aren't necessarily offended by the fact that some agents like to do that. But we're working through it. Ryan is a good man, a good player, and we're going to try to get him back in here.

(Any sense of a timetable?)
I don't. I think that's one of those things we spoke about before. It's sort of the cake is cooked when it's cooked.

(Was Brett's cell phone issued by the Packers?)
I will answer that question, I suppose, even though Jeff said I couldn't. I will answer it this way. There are no, and none that I've ever heard of certainly since I've been back, and I would think I would know, any cell phones that any of our players have that are issued by the Packers.

[motife]

Mike McCarthy transcript :

(Why was Ryan Pickett limited today?)
Ryan Pickett has a slight hamstring strain. It happened last week working out, so we're just, as I always say, being smart.

(Will either Pickett or Justin Harrell be on the PUP list?)
Oh, no. They are going to be...I think their situations are both in the, I would say Ryan is more day-to-day and Justin would be week-to week.

(Are you still offering 50 dollars for non-Brett Favre related questions?)
I'm broke.

(What have you said to the team as far as handling this situation?)
I just think, number one, they have an opinion. I tell them all of the time to be positive with the media, have a plan of the types of questions that you're probably going to be asked, and just trust your heart.

(How was the first practice?)
I thought it was good. I thought it was a good, solid practice. We had too many pre-snap penalties. We had six pre-snap penalties, but the tempo was excellent. We finished plus-10 as far as our timing of getting in and out of the drills. I thought the instruction periods were very good, as good as I have seen this early in training camp. Very pleased with the work we had this morning.

(How strange was it to have a practice with Favre not out there?)
How strange? I haven't thought about it. We practiced all spring without Brett, so I'm sure it's different more for the people that haven't been here. Once again, I thought it was a very, very good practice this morning.

(How many players will be one-a-day guys?)
Just the older guys. (Chad) Clifton, Kabeer (Gbaja-Biamila). Kabeer feels fine. They're just not the youngest guys anymore, so we'll just watch guys like Mark Tauscher and some of the older guys.

(Any update on Ryan Grant's contract and how important is it for him to be here?)
Number one, just like I said Saturday in here, it's important for Ryan to be here. These practices are important. I think everybody realizes that. My understanding is both sides are working diligently to make this work. I appreciate the way Ryan went about the offseason and kept on top of everything we did here. I'm just looking forward to getting Ryan back here.

(Are you concerned about him getting behind?)
I don't concern myself with business matters. I can't control it. His is a business situation. Like I have stated, he did a very good job in the offseason program of staying on top of everything that was added, just doing all of the little things, the one-on-one time with his position coach, Edgar Bennett. I think Ryan will be fine. Once again, we are looking forward to getting him back here.

(Which position has the most competitive battle going on?)
I think throughout our team, really I wouldn't say any position. I would say special teams as a whole because our depth has really improved. You could see our second- and third-year players have really stepped up, so I think the biggest competition you'll see throughout the preseason will be on the special teams units.

(You have three quarterbacks, one kicker, one punter, are you comfortable with the lack of competition there?)
Part of it is the 80-man roster. I think every team in the National Football League is experiencing that this year. The three quarterbacks, frankly, is by design. It's something that I wanted to look at and Ted thinks it is a great idea obviously to go with three quarterbacks. With the type of training camp that we have, I've talked about it in here before, we don't have as many practices that we have in the past. All three of our quarterbacks are extremely young so they need those reps, and just being smart with them. The three quarterbacks is something that we wanted to look at and I think it's going to be a benefit and probably something that we'll continue to do in the future.

(Were you taken aback by the bitter tone of some of Brett's comments?)
I'll just say this; I spoke about it some on Saturday. Brett Favre and I didn't agree on things, whether it was the game plan and this and that. I don't agree with what was in quotes. I couldn't see Ted Thompson making those statements, but I'm not going to sit here and referee articles and interviews. That's not my place, that's not my focus. It's something that has gone on. We're all in this position and we're all dealing with it the best we can and staying on the high road.

(Now that camp has started, do you still have a role in the resolution of this whole situation?) Yeah, I would definitely say I'm still involved. Conversations between Ted Thompson and I happen throughout the day, so I would say I'm definitely involved.

(Would he be doing this team a disservice by showing up at camp and creating a distraction?) I don't view it that way. It's an option. Once again, this is a very unusual situation that we're in. It really falls under the terms of a business decision. Those are one of his options. We have a very strong locker room. I have great confidence in our players. If you look at the makeup of our locker room, 25 percent, 21 players, have never even met Brett Favre. There are a lot of things that we talked about, I wouldn't say a lot of things. We talked about it as a team yesterday. I don't foresee Brett Favre coming in here as a problem. Brett Favre is a big part of the Green Bay Packers history, and he may be a part of the future as we move forward, and that's an option that he has if he reinstates.

(Have you addressed the team about how to handle the situation if Brett does report?)
I don't want to tell them how to handle it. We're all men here. I think everybody has an understanding of what's going on. I just outlined it yesterday in our team meeting. I didn't want to spend a whole lot of time on it. We'll deal with it. We're a football team, and football players play football, and they've handled it better than anybody. And it's time for the coaches to coach and the players to play, and at the end of the day, that's what our guys are excited about.

(Do you have a plan for the reps at quarterback if he does show up?)
We'll have a plan if we cross that bridge, I can promise you that.

(Was part of only keeping three quarterbacks because that you thought Brett might come back?)
I would say the three quarterbacks in camp is by design because of a number of different factors. Their youth, the 80-man roster. It's something we wanted to look at.

Advertisement


(How did Aaron Rodgers handle things today?)
How did he handle it? I thought Aaron had a very good day today. I thought he was very sharp in the meetings. I thought he's done a very good job of detailing the finer points of our offense, and just the communication between Tom Clements - I think Tom Clements is doing a great job with our younger quarterbacks, and also the job he's done with Aaron to this point. I thought they had a real solid day out there today. He had the one pre-snap penalty. You do not want that, obviously. But I thought he had a very solid day today.

(Has he kind of ignored all of this outside stuff?)
How can you ignore all this? I think he's dealing with it fine. These are external things that we have to deal with it, and he's doing everything he's supposed to do internally, I can promise you that.

(Has he talked to you about the whole situation?)
We spoke briefly about it yesterday.

(What did he say?)
We spoke briefly about it yesterday.

(How would you compare this offseason to past years?)
We had a great offseason, but the offseason ... the summer was different, if that's what you're referring to. Our offseason program was the best we've had here in three years. That's something that was the main focus for our football team coming out of the meetings yesterday, to pick up where we left off on June 19, and I thought we did that this morning. So I'm very pleased with that. But the summertime, ... just watch ESPN. It's well-documented. That's my summer.

(When did Shaun Bodiford get hurt and when did he have surgery?)
I would say about 10 days ago. It's something that's been bothering him.

(Did he flunk his physical?)
We're still working through that.

(Was Johnny Jolly doing some long snapping today?)
Johnny has done that before. He has that ability, and this is the time of year, training camp, you're always trying to make sure you have as many people repped in those types of skill positions.

(Is he full go with his shoulder?)
Just limited reps. I'd like to see him go through every practice. But he's limited reps right now.

(Brandon Jackson stepped into the number one spot early last year after Vernand Morency got hurt. How better prepared is he this season to step in?)
I think he looks like a different player from this time last year, and I think you could say that for a lot of rookies. But I talked about Brandon last week. I think Brandon Jackson is one of the players as we went through the offseason program that you would expect to have an impact on our season, whether it be at the running back position, also special teams. He never played special teams until almost the end of last year. I think he's definitely going to be a factor as we move forward as a core player there. He's had a great offseason.

(As tough as it was for him last year, is it paying dividends now?)
Clearly, the value. Just, number one, being a young player, but then when all the injuries happened to the running back group, and then taking all the reps, and then he gets hurt the week of the Philadelphia game, and then he didn't have a lot of success early, because of where we were with the run game, I think those are all tough lessons he can draw from.

(Any guys who were out of shape or couldn't do the run test?)
No. Of the three years, this was our lowest number of players either from a medical standpoint who did not go through the run test, so that's pleasing. That's probably something that has to do with the youth of our team. But as far as the conditioning part of it, we had an excellent turnout. We had one guy that cramped, something minor.

(How was DeShawn Wynn's offseason?)
Very good. I think he's done an exemplary job in the weight room. Very powerful, gifted young man. He's another one I look forward to step up and take advantage of the opportunity he's going to be given.

[Partial]

Here Partial, maybe you missed it:

The talent was abysmal other than Brett on most of those teams

False:

1997: 13-3
2001: 12-4
2002: 12-4
2003: 10-6
2004: 10-6
2007: 13-3


Average wins per year: 11.66

Again, a direct result of having the best quaterback ever.

The 2002 team was stacked and got broken down by injuries come playoff time. The 2003 team didn't have a defense. The 2004 team again had an awful defense. Last year we were stacked and came up short in the final seconds. In 1997, we were not nearly as good as the year before and lost in the super bowl to one of the greatest teams ever. 2001 we ran into a stacked Rams team. Don't be a fool.

[Chevelle2]

Here Partial, maybe you missed it:

The talent was abysmal other than Brett on most of those teams

False:

1997: 13-3
2001: 12-4
2002: 12-4
2003: 10-6
2004: 10-6
2007: 13-3


Average wins per year: 11.66

Again, a direct result of having the best quaterback ever.

The 2002 team was stacked and got broken down by injuries come playoff time. The 2003 team didn't have a defense. The 2004 team again had an awful defense. Last year we were stacked and came up short in the final seconds. In 1997, we were not nearly as good as the year before and lost in the super bowl to one of the greatest teams ever. 2001 we ran into a stacked Rams team. Don't be a fool.

I forgot. Its NEVER Favres fault, is it? But the credit ALWAYS goes to him. I mean, Javon, Ahman, Driver, Franks, that sic oline, none of them helped. My fault.

Dude, those teams were LOADED with All Pros.

[The Shadow]

Here Partial, maybe you missed it:

The talent was abysmal other than Brett on most of those teams

False:

1997: 13-3
2001: 12-4
2002: 12-4
2003: 10-6
2004: 10-6
2007: 13-3


Average wins per year: 11.66

Again, a direct result of having the best quaterback ever.

The 2002 team was stacked and got broken down by injuries come playoff time. The 2003 team didn't have a defense. The 2004 team again had an awful defense. Last year we were stacked and came up short in the final seconds. In 1997, we were not nearly as good as the year before and lost in the super bowl to one of the greatest teams ever. 2001 we ran into a stacked Rams team. Don't be a fool.

I forgot. Its NEVER Favres fault, is it? But the credit ALWAYS goes to him. I mean, Javon, Ahman, Driver, Franks, that sic oline, none of them helped. My fault.

Dude, those teams were LOADED with All Pros.

You must remember : For The Cult, it is NEVER Favre's fault!

[prsnfoto]

. . . Why does everyone take the Sidewinder's side when he is disrespecting the greatest packer ever. Without Favre, the Packers probably wouldn't be around, and the Sidewinder wouldn't have a job.

Maybe they are just defending him because of ridiculous posts like this. Calling TT names like 'Sidewinder' is immature and callous.

Saying the Packers 'probably wouldn't be around' without Favre is just plain ridiculous.

Oh really? 40 years of losing wouldn't have had the team go bankrupt or move shop? laughable.

This team was horrendous when Favre got here, and he turned it into a winner for 16 straight years. He made the Packers what they are today.

Lambeau field has been sold out what since 1960. The wait for season tickets is longer than there are seats in the stadium. How long has Brett been around? Let me guess, you are 17 yo and all you know is the Brett era.

NFL's main income is TV revenue which is shared equally among all teams.

Move shop? Perhaps you aren't aware, the team is owned by the fans. They aren't going anywhere.

You are discounting the first 71 years of the organization? The Packers have 12 NFL championships. Only 1 of these was with Favre. In the 88 years the Packers played they won on average a championship every 7.3 years. With one victory, the Favre era brought us 1 Championship in 16 years. The Packers have done poorer on average with Favre.


Laughable? Indeed.

Half of them occurred in a a ten year span stats can be slanted any why you what to use them. I agree with you as far as the team not going anywhere but the stadium my not have happened without such a long span of success but who knows.

[BallHawk]

. . . Why does everyone take the Sidewinder's side when he is disrespecting the greatest packer ever. Without Favre, the Packers probably wouldn't be around, and the Sidewinder wouldn't have a job.

Maybe they are just defending him because of ridiculous posts like this. Calling TT names like 'Sidewinder' is immature and callous.

Saying the Packers 'probably wouldn't be around' without Favre is just plain ridiculous.

Oh really? 40 years of losing wouldn't have had the team go bankrupt or move shop? laughable.

This team was horrendous when Favre got here, and he turned it into a winner for 16 straight years. He made the Packers what they are today.

I may be wrong, but since the Packers are a public owned team, wouldn't the shareholders have to vote in favor of moving the team in order to set up shop somewhere else?

Bump for an answer.