He will be welcome back in our locker room - MM

[The Leaper]

Then it is a waste of time.

Favre doesn't have the help the Packers in any way. Why should he? They are the ones trying to stifle him into retirement.

Favre will laugh at him and tell him that Rodgers better play lights out...cause hell is coming.

[mmmdk]

McCarthy's point is that the players should welcome Favre back. He's trying to avoid any potential rift in the locker room that might be caused by telling players that Favre isn't welcome.

However, watch the video, when have you ever seen M3 calling him "Brett Favre" before, instead of just "Brett." Favre's on M3's shit list right now, and I'm not even sure that they'll be able to work together going forward.

Murphy's down south trying to make that dilemma a non-issue. Good luck to that. ..

The Mariucci comment didn't help either. I think McCarthy loathes this kind of behavior that Favre projects; as do I yet I don't loathe Favre one bit. Enough is enough and even then I'd let Favre back to the team if he commits to the Packers and the way of things according to McCarthy.

[BallHawk]

Favre will laugh at him and tell him that Rodgers better play lights out...cause hell is coming.

When Favre comes....

Rodgers could be 25/25 in drills.

Rodgers could be 10/25.

It doesn't matter. Nothing's gonna change.

[cpk1994]

LOL - good one!!!


You are welcome back in the locker room, but wait...Murphy is on his way down to tell you to stay home. I don't get that one!

You have no evidence that Murphy is going to say that. All you have is unsubstantiated media BS. I can't believe these people that continue to belive every word that comes out of the media's mouth.

You're right, all we have in any of this are the media reports.

When it's something negative towards the packers, it's media BS, but when it's against Favre you use it for ammo. Talk about a contradiction.

I have agreed the opinions in the articles, but otherwise the only part of the articles I have opined on are Brett's direct quotes.

[The Leaper]

Sure, they're trying to keep him retired, but he was never pushed out.

Well, that was the point I was trying to make...they are pushing him out RIGHT NOW.

Their plan in the last month or so has been to do whatever it takes to prevent Favre from seeing the field in 2008.

I would agree that they didn't push Favre out in March. That was Favre's own dumb fault.

[mmmdk]

Sure, they're trying to keep him retired, but he was never pushed out.

Well, that was the point I was trying to make...they are pushing him out RIGHT NOW.

Their plan in the last month or so has been to do whatever it takes to prevent Favre from seeing the field in 2008.

I would agree that they didn't push Favre out in March. That was Favre's own dumb fault.

You got it!

[The Leaper]

It doesn't matter. Nothing's gonna change.

I know that...but it will still be hell for McCarthy, Thompson and the team in general if Rodgers struggles. The questions pertaining to Favre if Rodgers struggles would be an overwhelming distraction.

[boiga]

Sure, they're trying to keep him retired, but he was never pushed out.

Well, that was the point I was trying to make...they are pushing him out RIGHT NOW.

Their plan in the last month or so has been to do whatever it takes to prevent Favre from seeing the field in 2008.

I would agree that they didn't push Favre out in March. That was Favre's own dumb fault.

I don't quite see it that way. To me, there's a difference between not letting a guy back in and pushing him out. For the entire summer, Favre had been Packers alumni. He stopped training, didn't even think about working with the team, and acted like every other retired player.

Then he wants back in and demands the starting job be handed to him. It isn't, because the job got filled in his absence and the team thinks it's doing fine without him. In any other corporate setting, that request to get your old job back would be scoffed at.

So, I really don't see any moral issues against the team's decision to "move forward" as they say. Strategically, there is room for debate, but they are doing right by the team.

If Brett wanted to play for any team other than the vikings, I could even understand releasing the guy... but when he decided that he only wanted to play for our teams biggest rival, he forced the hands of the Packer management to keep him off the field. He's not accepting trade talks, he's not willing to support his replacement, and he's bad mouthing the packers to the media.

Like I said, the Packers made strategic mistakes here, but morally their position is gold.

[cpk1994]

Sure, they're trying to keep him retired, but he was never pushed out.

Well, that was the point I was trying to make...they are pushing him out RIGHT NOW.

Their plan in the last month or so has been to do whatever it takes to prevent Favre from seeing the field in 2008.

I would agree that they didn't push Favre out in March. That was Favre's own dumb fault.

I don't quite see it that way. To me, there's a difference between not letting a guy back in and pushing him out. For the entire summer, Favre had been Packers alumni. He stopped training, didn't even think about working with the team, and acted like every other retired player.

Then he wants back in and demands the starting job be handed to him. It isn't, because the job got filled in his absence and the team thinks it's doing fine without him. In any other corporate setting, that request to get your old job back would be scoffed at.

So, I really don't see any moral issues against the team's decision to "move forward" as they say. Strategically, there is room for debate, but they are doing right by the team.

If Brett wanted to play for any team other than the vikings, I could even understand releasing the guy... but when he decided that he only wanted to play for our teams biggest rival, he forced the hands of the Packer management to keep him off the field. He's not accepting trade talks, he's not willing to support his replacement, and he's bad mouthing the packers to the media.

Like I said, the Packers made strategic mistakes here, but morally their position is gold.

[packinpatland]

Sure, they're trying to keep him retired, but he was never pushed out.

Well, that was the point I was trying to make...they are pushing him out RIGHT NOW.

Their plan in the last month or so has been to do whatever it takes to prevent Favre from seeing the field in 2008.

I would agree that they didn't push Favre out in March. That was Favre's own dumb fault.

I don't quite see it that way. To me, there's a difference between not letting a guy back in and pushing him out. For the entire summer, Favre had been Packers alumni. He stopped training, didn't even think about working with the team, and acted like every other retired player.

Then he wants back in and demands the starting job be handed to him. It isn't, because the job got filled in his absence and the team thinks it's doing fine without him. In any other corporate setting, that request to get your old job back would be scoffed at.

So, I really don't see any moral issues against the team's decision to "move forward" as they say. Strategically, there is room for debate, but they are doing right by the team.

If Brett wanted to play for any team other than the vikings, I could even understand releasing the guy... but when he decided that he only wanted to play for our teams biggest rival, he forced the hands of the Packer management to keep him off the field. He's not accepting trade talks, he's not willing to support his replacement, and he's bad mouthing the packers to the media.

Like I said, the Packers made strategic mistakes here, but morally their position is gold.

"If Brett wanted to play for any team other than the vikings, I could even understand releasing the guy... but when he decided that he only wanted to play for our teams biggest rival, he forced the hands of the Packer management to keep him off the field. He's not accepting trade talks, he's not willing to support his replacement, and he's bad mouthing the packers to the media."

[boiga]

How so?

[mmmdk]

Sure, they're trying to keep him retired, but he was never pushed out.

Well, that was the point I was trying to make...they are pushing him out RIGHT NOW.

Their plan in the last month or so has been to do whatever it takes to prevent Favre from seeing the field in 2008.

I would agree that they didn't push Favre out in March. That was Favre's own dumb fault.

You got it!

Well, almost. Packers are not letting him back as starter and would prefer if he accepted that or re-retired.

[packinpatland]

"If Brett wanted to play for any team other than the vikings, I could even understand releasing the guy... but when he decided that he only wanted to play for our teams biggest rival, he forced the hands of the Packer management to keep him off the field. He's not accepting trade talks, he's not willing to support his replacement, and he's bad mouthing the packers to the media."

He never came out directly and said it was the Vikings or nothing....show me that quote.
Do you know definitively that trade talks were rejected or even discussed....show me direct quotes.
He's been very supportive of Aaron Rodgers........that you can show me.
He has not been bad mouthing the Packers......he's been telling his side of the story. Whether that needed to be shared, is another story.
If all parties would get TOGETHER instead of sending someone, and then another one down to MS, or texting, or talking thru the media, this whole issue may not have come to this point.

[Zool]

You seem very open to other opinions and ideas.

[packinpatland]

You seem very open to other opinions and ideas.

If you're referring to me...........
let me say this, as the parent of 3 daughters, I've learned over the years that there are many options to attain a goal. When there were disagreements, me acting as a go between wasn't an option. Directly talking to each other was. If the situation arose where it involved all 3, then they were made to sit down and discuss and to come up with a logical conclusion. Talking to and thru other people rarely works.