This might cheer some of us up a little bit

[boiga]

I don't think the amount of coverage he is getting is his fault, but I do blame brett for trying to make bash Ted in the media and whining through a powderpuff interview with Greta.

I also blame him for giving one sided exposes to mortenson and PK in which he blabs about private conversations in an attempt to manipulate public opinion.

The coverage isn't his fault but how he has tried to manipulate it is.

[Gunakor]

It puzzles me more why Favre would consider retiring with the offense in place. The team moved on because 1) they thought he really retired and 2) he jerked them around waffling over coming back.

I agree with that as well...although until you've gone through 250 consecutive NFL starts, I'm not sure you can adequately assess how easy a decision that is.

If you're arguing that Favre would have a lot of ambivalence about retiring, because he had played so long (and was playing so well), I couldn't agree more. All the more reason, I should think, to err on the side of coming back.

It was an irrational decision to retire brought on by the fact that the guy ain't real bright plus the fact that media assholes messed with his mind with all their idiotic and incessant questioning.

Then, it was an almost equally irrational decision on his part to un-retire--brought on by the same things.

He know is being bombarded with pressure from a bunch of directions. I doubt Favre really feels really strongly one way or the other. Since Thompson's position and pressure seems to be the strongest, I think he will just fade back into retirement.

texan, i would like some clarity here. y are the media guys a-holes? is there 1 in particular u feel that way about or do they exist in a vacuum. the questioning is just their job and without them where would we be?

his mind aint that weak that the media has that much influence i would thnk after nearly two decades

i DEF aggree though that he prob doesnt feel that strongly either way; thus the elusiveness for so long and ease with which he's stayed out of camp/not sent in that frickn letter that has been "signed" LOL

It would help if the media stopped asking the same fucking question over and over and over again. I have no problem with media asking questions. But when they get an answer then put it in print and DON'T ASK IT AGAIN. They have seemed to have a problem accepting answers for several years now re: Brett Favre. They feel the need to ask about his retirement 100 times per offseason. THAT is what is wrong with the media.

YEA, but the media does that with EVRYTHING (not just #4), but for some reason it seems that some posters here (along with stephen a. smith) get more frustrated when it comes to #4. INFORMATION AGE so just turn channel, etc. like i posted on another thread, ther's a reason for the love fest/preoccupation with #4. dont hate congradulate (ok, thats corny)

a lil off topic but i actually i feel that people get turned off towards favre b/c of all the coverage he gets (like its his fault) and are aAT LEAST subconsciously enjoying seeing him "exposed" as some sorta villain. being a psychologist i realize that this speaks to a myriad of underlying insecurities inherent in a multitude of individuals in our society

The media does do that with everything. That's my whole point. That's why media are assholes. All of em, regardless of the situation, regardless who the story is about, regardless who the reporter is. They are ALL assholes because NONE of them can ever just ask a question, print the answer, and be done with it. There is more frustration over #4 because it's been going on for several years now. Nothing about the story changed until Favre announced his retirement this year, yet up until this year the media kept hassling him about it as if something changed every single day. FFS, I'm not saying they can't do thier jobs, just that they shouldn't OVERDO thier jobs.

[Patler]

[quote="MOBB DEEP"]

Another radio comment I heard was essentially this:

Fans should take note of the fact that none of the writers/broadcasters who cover the Packers on a regular basis are backing Favre, and all seem to agree that it is time to move on with Rodgers. The implication was that they all know the reasons why, reasons they are aware of because of the inside access they are allowed, with the understanding that news is news, but discretion is also required when dealing with individuals.



so just remain clandestine so folk just engage in more conjecture and speculation? i get the integrity aspect but some things you said in your EXCELLENT and informative posts we fans should be hearing at least on a small scale.

who's to say that this isnt the product of more spinning anyway? i mean if MM TT felt brett couldnt/cant deliver any longer, y go down to miss? their perception has WAFFLED that much since jan to march to now? hmmmm....


GET WOLF...........

Are you accusing me of being clandestine? I told you where the remark was made, Bill Michaels ("The Big Unit") on WTMJ. It was on his talk show last week (Thursday or Friday, I believe.)

Again, interesting from the standpoint that it is true, none of the primary Packer beat writers are backing Favre. Why?

Maybe the "reasons" Michaels refers to are the ones I listed in my first post. So we HAVE heard some of them, at least on the small scale you questioned.

[MOBB DEEP]

I don't think the amount of coverage he is getting is his fault, but I do blame brett for trying to make bash Ted in the media and whining through a powderpuff interview with Greta.

I also blame him for giving one sided exposes to mortenson and PK in which he blabs about private conversations in an attempt to manipulate public opinion.

The coverage isn't his fault but how he has tried to manipulate it is.

yeah, the private convo thing is jacked up. but lets not forget both sides have tried to save face in the only way they feel they can. i guess b/c he's bn a media darling #4 felt thas the avenue he HAD to take. knda backfired but i still thnk hes been mostly honest.

dam! y didnt he just keep with the plan of announcing his comeback in march?

btw, im still confused about cell phone nonsense. was it a blatant lie to smear?

[MOBB DEEP]

[quote="Patler"]

Another radio comment I heard was essentially this:

Fans should take note of the fact that none of the writers/broadcasters who cover the Packers on a regular basis are backing Favre, and all seem to agree that it is time to move on with Rodgers. The implication was that they all know the reasons why, reasons they are aware of because of the inside access they are allowed, with the understanding that news is news, but discretion is also required when dealing with individuals.



so just remain clandestine so folk just engage in more conjecture and speculation? i get the integrity aspect but some things you said in your EXCELLENT and informative posts we fans should be hearing at least on a small scale.

who's to say that this isnt the product of more spinning anyway? i mean if MM TT felt brett couldnt/cant deliver any longer, y go down to miss? their perception has WAFFLED that much since jan to march to now? hmmmm....


GET WOLF...........

Are you accusing me of being clandestine? I told you where the remark was made, Bill Michaels ("The Big Unit") on WTMJ. It was on his talk show last week (Thursday or Friday, I believe.)

Again, interesting from the standpoint that it is true, none of the primary Packer beat writers are backing Favre. Why?

Maybe the "reasons" Michaels refers to are the ones I listed in my first post. So we HAVE heard some of them, at least on the small scale you questioned.

NO, not u Pat. im talkn bout the people in the know holding on to "the real story" like its read from a scroll in the Lost Ark of the Covenant

and i dont know y the beat writers arent backing favre. but for one they should b objective anyway and present only the facts ma'am. cant they share the info with their brethren in the national media in some "legit" manner?

[boiga]

btw, im still confused about cell phone nonsense. was it a blatant lie to smear?

Naah, it was just a rumor that Florio started spreading around because he heard that the Packers had Brett's phone records. There was a bit of an echo chamber and the story grew despite the fact that the Packers let it be known the next day that they don't give out cell phones. Florio didn't believe them when they denied it because the free cell phones would have been a salary cap violation, so the story kept growing.

Thompson never had anything to do with it, until Brett complained on sunday night that the story made him out as an idiot, and claimed it was therefore Ted's fault for not quashing the rumor more firmly.

[pack4to84]

Sometime teams find a flaw in a QB then attack it. Favre is been in the league so long teams have found that flaw and are attacking. Remember when teams figured that Drew Bledsoe had a flaw in his throwing motion when he saw the pass rush coming at him. He dropped his shoulder when he threw. The pass rusher didn't need to hit him but to be seen by him to force this. When he dropped his shoulder he threw inaccurate. His passes would flutter.

Last year teams figured out Rex Grossman he was a below average QB in the pocket on straight drop backs. He was excellent QB off play action. Over the last 2 season he has thrown 27 TD's. 23 of those came off play action plays. So when last year teams saw this watching films from there Super Bowl run, and notice this. Then they told there safeties to take first step back on any play to prevent them from getting sucked in. Rex struggles all season because he is average at best. His one trick pony has been found out.

[Patler]

Not all have withheld the information.
Some excerpts from Bob McGinn (link to full article below)

"...Favre, at one time the ultimate team guy, has become a me guy whose self-serving words and actions are no longer conducive to sustaining a winning organization."

"As effective as he was on the field in 2007, the 38-year-old Favre had become almost reclusive off it. Rodgers, 24, had become the more vibrant personality who impressed teammates by doing almost all of the right things."

"Although this standoff has been painted as Thompson vs. Favre, McCarthy's role shouldn't be underestimated. The Packers, almost from top to bottom, reached the decision that they didn't want Favre back as their starter only after McCarthy put his imprimatur on Rodgers. Thompson would be a fool not to defer to McCarthy on this one because coaching quarterbacks is McCarthy's area of expertise."

"As for Favre, the Packers' decision-makers never could get over his horrible second-half performance against the Giants with a Super Bowl berth at their fingertips. The Dallas and Chicago games also left indelible black marks against Favre, whose production down the stretch faded in each of the last three seasons. Not to mention that many in the organization know full well that he hasn't taken Green Bay to the Super Bowl in a decade."

"...the Packers seem to think that Rodgers at least has a chance to function in the brutal cold of Lambeau Field in January. Conversely, they think Favre has none."

"Strip away the emotionalism attached to all things Favre and the Packers' decision makes sense all the way."

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=774773

[MOBB DEEP]

Some excerpts from Bob McGinn (link to full article below)

"...Favre, at one time the ultimate team guy, has become a me guy whose self-serving words and actions are no longer conducive to sustaining a winning organization."

"As effective as he was on the field in 2007, the 38-year-old Favre had become almost reclusive off it. Rodgers, 24, had become the more vibrant personality who impressed teammates by doing almost all of the right things."

"Although this standoff has been painted as Thompson vs. Favre, McCarthy's role shouldn't be underestimated. The Packers, almost from top to bottom, reached the decision that they didn't want Favre back as their starter only after McCarthy put his imprimatur on Rodgers. Thompson would be a fool not to defer to McCarthy on this one because coaching quarterbacks is McCarthy's area of expertise."

"As for Favre, the Packers' decision-makers never could get over his horrible second-half performance against the Giants with a Super Bowl berth at their fingertips. The Dallas and Chicago games also left indelible black marks against Favre, whose production down the stretch faded in each of the last three seasons. Not to mention that many in the organization know full well that he hasn't taken Green Bay to the Super Bowl in a decade."

"...the Packers seem to think that Rodgers at least has a chance to function in the brutal cold of Lambeau Field in January. Conversely, they think Favre has none."

"Strip away the emotionalism attached to all things Favre and the Packers' decision makes sense all the way."

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=774773

WOW!!! that excerpt is extremely loaded....i gota decipher and digest this b4 commenting

in the meanwhile Patler what's your OPINION as to why they were welcoming him back in march in spite of these "alleged" thoughts ans feelings?

[Patler]

in the meanwhile Patler what's your OPINION as to why they were welcoming him back in march in spite of these "alleged" thoughts ans feelings?

First, I don't think it was an automatic or easy decision for them. It seems like it took them a couple days to agree to it after Favre asked. I suspect some factors in their thinking included:

His retirement was still very "fresh".
He is, after all, Brett Favre. How do you turn him away when 3 weeks earlier you would have accepted him?
They would use 2008 as a transition year, looking for reasons to get Rodgers into games.
They may have been less sure about Rodgers then than they were after all the off season work was done.
Psychologically, the team had not yet made the transition to Rodgers.

Also, some of their concerns about Favre may have increased as a result of him not participating in anything, then coming in and expecting to play.

[mraynrand]

This thread has not cheered me up.


Patler, did you notice that the McGinn column had no specific quotes from coaches or players (at least the part you posted).

I guess I was looking for specific coaches and players to confirm your theory that Favre's demeanor in the cold against the NYG and in playoff games in general had weakened confidence in Favre's ability to lead the team to a superbowl. Perhaps Brady's struggles in the Superbowl against the same NYG defense should be a mitigating factor?

[Patler]

I guess I was looking for specific coaches and players to confirm your theory that Favre's demeanor in the cold against the NYG and in playoff games in general had weakened confidence in Favre's ability to lead the team to a superbowl. Perhaps Brady's struggles in the Superbowl against the same NYG defense should be a mitigating factor?

I agree.

This was not really my theory. As I said, I just posted information I found that supports the situation that we know exists. We know they don't want him back. The question was, Why? I have no explanation, because I have no first hand information. This is the only information I found that might explain it, but it is certainly not corroborated at all.

As I said in my original post, its not something I will argue for, because I don't know how much is fact and how much is conjecture. Just something to discuss.

If you accept it as true, it explains the current situation quite well.
If you don't accept it, you have to find other things that explain the current situation, and quite frankly, I have none that make any sense.

[Rastak]

It did sound like a "Patler theory". You posted the information as has been released and came to a conclusion. I think you are most likely right. If they really wanted to they could have delcared an open competition but stated Rogers starts on top of the depth chart but it would be re-evaluated based on preseason play like all positions.

They definately don't want his ass back and there has to be more of a reason than our feelings are hurt. It's a business or they have simply released him.

[channtheman]

I got news for you. Rodgers doesn't even keep us in the game against the Giants...because he couldn't make that pass to Driver for a TD and he couldn't carry our offense without a run game.

So what if Favre threw a pick there? If it wasn't for him in that game, we'd be lucky to have 6 points on the board. That is what too many "but Favre makes too many bonehead throws" people fail to account for...that Favre typically makes up for those throws with all the great ones that you don't remember after a tough loss.

Show me a "manager" QB that wins titles, and I'll show you a team with a dominant defense and running game. We don't have either a dominant defense or a dominant run game right now...so Rodgers the "manager" ain't going to win dick.

Oh yes he can and yes he did! Rodgers carried this team like no tomorrow. If it weren't for our crappy receivers, we look even better all year.