Should the Packers even allow Favre to practice?

[Patler]

The Packers are in an odd position because while I believe they would like to trade Favre, I believe that of the 28 NFL teams not in the NFC North, none of them particularly want to trade for Favre.

So I'm not sure what they could do to increase the value and probability of a trade, short of sending people to break Jeff Garcia's legs.

That does seem to be the case, and some of it may have to do with his salary. To trade for him you accept his contract and his salary. For many teams, he simply may not be worth the money.

[sheepshead]

no man, its just there are a million reasons why they can not and will not do that. Unless a trade is a done deal, he's under contract. Thus oh jeez..never mind...

Can not and will not do what? Not let him practice., or severely limit what he does in practice? Of course they can. Being under contract does not mean they have to let him take practice snaps.

Think back to Cletidus Hunt. It was widely assumed that TT would cut him, for salary and other reasons, but he brought him in to camp anyway. Sure enough, Hunt was injured very early, although it did not seem serious. When TT did cut him, Hunt filed a grievance, and the Packers were stuck with his full salary because he was a vested veteran injured in preseason. Many criticized TT for not cutting him before camp, because he was going to cut him anyway.

The situation is similar with Favre.
IF they know they will not keep him into the season, they should not let him participate fully in practice. Broken hads and fingers happen quite easily with QBs, even without "hitting" taking place. An injury like that to Favre would destroy any reasonable chance to trade him, even if he can arguably play with it.

On the other hand, if you are willing to have him on your roster for game #1 of the regular season, you go ahead an let him practice.

ok, well you said 'not practice". of course MM can dictate what takes place on Hinkle Field. Telling him to not be there is a whole different ball of snakes.

[boiga]

Boiga,
I don't know where to "put my hopes!"

Me neither honestly. All I know is that at some point this off season, McCarthy (not Ted) decided that the team doesn't need Brett anymore. He thinks that if you give Rodgers playing time, he can take us to the end. Brett, no matter how good, is old. He is a player on the decline, and it is better to cut ties a year too early than rely on him a year too long. Also, Brett simply pissed him off by dismissing the value of the offseason program, throwing Campen under the Bus, and demanding to be coddled.

So, for all these reasons, there will be no competition. Unless he is injured or seriously bombs, Aaron Rodgers is going to be our quarterback. If Brett wants the backup job, it's his. But no one thinks he'd accept that, so it's a moot point.

The only hope we can have at this point is that Rodgers is as good as McCarthy thinks.

[Patler]

ok, well you said 'not practice". of course MM can dictate what takes place on Hinkle Field. Telling him to not be there is a whole different ball of snakes.

You really should read more carefully. What I wrote in the original post was:

But they do not have to allow him to "practice" even if he is on the field.

Notice "practice" was in quotes; and
I stated "even if he is on the field".

Now, that being said, if they are working on a trade, I think they can still simply tell him not to come on the field. They probably couldn't do it for the whole preseason, but for a while I doubt it would be a problem. The latest CBA made some changes in that regard.

[Guiness]

Not letting him practice is not w/o precedent. Remember McNair when the Titans decided they were done with him?

They wouldn't even let him use the facilities for fear of him being injured, although I think they got their hands slapped for that one.

[Patler]

Not letting him practice is not w/o precedent. Remember McNair when the Titans decided they were done with him?

They wouldn't even let him use the facilities for fear of him being injured, although I think they got their hands slapped for that one.

Ya, they effectively locked him out completely; and that is not permitted under the CBA. Some of this also came out of the TO/Eagles situations, and one other WR who slips my mind that was told to stay away the last couple weeks of the season, because he would not be on the game day roster.

[hurleyfan]

Boiga,
I don't know where to "put my hopes!"

Me neither honestly. All I know is that at some point this off season, McCarthy (not Ted) decided that the team doesn't need Brett anymore. He thinks that if you give Rodgers playing time, he can take us to the end. Brett, no matter how good, is old. He is a player on the decline, and it is better to cut ties a year too early than rely on him a year too long. Also, Brett simply pissed him off by dismissing the value of the offseason program, throwing Campen under the Bus, and demanding to be coddled.

So, for all these reasons, there will be no competition. Unless he is injured or seriously bombs, Aaron Rodgers is going to be our quarterback. If Brett wants the backup job, it's his. But no one thinks he'd accept that, so it's a moot point.

The only hope we can have at this point is that Rodgers is as good as McCarthy thinks.

Totally agree..

Ron Wolf said(I think) better to get rid of a player one year too soon, than hang on to him one year too long.. or something along those lines...

[Rastak]

Do you even give these posts any thought?

So is this one of your highly articulate responses that you will criticize me for not responding to, as you did in another thread?

You have to admit it was a well constructed response. I would guess even more thought went into his post than yours.

[Rastak]

Not letting him practice is not w/o precedent. Remember McNair when the Titans decided they were done with him?

They wouldn't even let him use the facilities for fear of him being injured, although I think they got their hands slapped for that one.

Ya, they effectively locked him out completely; and that is not permitted under the CBA. Some of this also came out of the TO/Eagles situations, and one other WR who slips my mind that was told to stay away the last couple weeks of the season, because he would not be on the game day roster.

Yea, McNair challenged that and won. In this case if they refuse to let him practice aren;t they inviting an even bigger response and outcry?


If you really don't want him and he's considered that worthless to the team, trade him for peanuts.


edit: I see your point Patler after re-reading what you wrote. Yes, they could severly limit him in drills but what I said above would apply I believe.

[sheepshead]

Do you even give these posts any thought?

So is this one of your highly articulate responses that you will criticize me for not responding to, as you did in another thread?

You have to admit it was a well constructed response. I would guess even more thought went into his post than yours.

thanks

[sheepshead]

ok, well you said 'not practice". of course MM can dictate what takes place on Hinkle Field. Telling him to not be there is a whole different ball of snakes.

You really should read more carefully. What I wrote in the original post was:

But they do not have to allow him to "practice" even if he is on the field.

Notice "practice" was in quotes; and
I stated "even if he is on the field".

Now, that being said, if they are working on a trade, I think they can still simply tell him not to come on the field. They probably couldn't do it for the whole preseason, but for a while I doubt it would be a problem. The latest CBA made some changes in that regard.

Are you female? This is really like arguing with a chick that needs to have the last word by back peddling and mincing words.

[Rastak]

Do you even give these posts any thought?

So is this one of your highly articulate responses that you will criticize me for not responding to, as you did in another thread?

You have to admit it was a well constructed response. I would guess even more thought went into his post than yours.

thanks

[sheepshead]

Boiga,
I don't know where to "put my hopes!"

Me neither honestly. All I know is that at some point this off season, McCarthy (not Ted) decided that the team doesn't need Brett anymore. He thinks that if you give Rodgers playing time, he can take us to the end. Brett, no matter how good, is old. He is a player on the decline, and it is better to cut ties a year too early than rely on him a year too long. Also, Brett simply pissed him off by dismissing the value of the offseason program, throwing Campen under the Bus, and demanding to be coddled.

So, for all these reasons, there will be no competition. Unless he is injured or seriously bombs, Aaron Rodgers is going to be our quarterback. If Brett wants the backup job, it's his. But no one thinks he'd accept that, so it's a moot point.

The only hope we can have at this point is that Rodgers is as good as McCarthy thinks.

Totally agree..

Ron Wolf said(I think) better to get rid of a player one year too soon, than hang on to him one year too long.. or something along those lines...

something i remember from business school, hire slowly, fire quickly.

[MJZiggy]

ok, well you said 'not practice". of course MM can dictate what takes place on Hinkle Field. Telling him to not be there is a whole different ball of snakes.

You really should read more carefully. What I wrote in the original post was:

But they do not have to allow him to "practice" even if he is on the field.

Notice "practice" was in quotes; and
I stated "even if he is on the field".

Now, that being said, if they are working on a trade, I think they can still simply tell him not to come on the field. They probably couldn't do it for the whole preseason, but for a while I doubt it would be a problem. The latest CBA made some changes in that regard.

Are you female? This is really like arguing with a chick that needs to have the last word by back peddling and mincing words.

Or perhaps by tossing gender into a discussion where it has no place? Just like a man to not read a perfectly well written post properly and then blame the writer.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

ok, well you said 'not practice". of course MM can dictate what takes place on Hinkle Field. Telling him to not be there is a whole different ball of snakes.

You really should read more carefully. What I wrote in the original post was:

But they do not have to allow him to "practice" even if he is on the field.

Notice "practice" was in quotes; and
I stated "even if he is on the field".

Now, that being said, if they are working on a trade, I think they can still simply tell him not to come on the field. They probably couldn't do it for the whole preseason, but for a while I doubt it would be a problem. The latest CBA made some changes in that regard.

Are you female? This is really like arguing with a chick that needs to have the last word by back peddling and mincing words.

what argument. You continue to look stupid, patler merely illluminates it for the slow children.

Sign of maturity is admitting when you are wrong. Try it.