He will be welcome back in our locker room - MM

[The Leaper]

I would agree that it is nothing but conjecture to assume it is "Vikings or bust" with Favre. Perhaps that is his viewpoint right now, but there is nothing public that can confirm this.

At this point, my best guess is that Favre wants to have the ability to figure out for himself what the best fit is. Maybe it would be Minnesota...but maybe it would be somewhere else. He doesn't want Green Bay making the determination for him by giving them a list before he is allowed to talk to teams and gauge the situation.

I can understand that...as well as Green Bay's viewpoint that they shouldn't give him that freedom.

Both have valid viewpoints...who is right depends on which side of the situation you are sitting on.

[Zool]

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.

I was, and you're not dealing with children although we do act it sometimes.

[boiga]

He never came out directly and said it was the Vikings or nothing....show me that quote.

-Favre could be traded to any team in the league if he told the Packers who he wanted, except the Bears and Vikings. The only reason to ask to be released is to fulfill his desire to play with one of those two teams. Considering that he was in talks with the childress before he began asking to be reinstated, that is the only reasonable explanation.

Do you know definitively that trade talks were rejected or even discussed....show me direct quotes.

It's not direct, but this has been reported in a couple of other news sources as well: From the JSO article last night:

www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=777838 According to a source with knowledge of the trade talks, Favre has refused to speak to any of the teams the Packers have identified as possible trade partners, making it unlikely one of those teams would risk giving away a draft pick or a player for someone who might retire again if he doesn’t like the trade.

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.

He hasn't bad mouthed Rodgers, but he has scoffed at sitting behind him. Aaron Rodgers is the leader of this team, whether Brett comes back or not. If he is not willing to take a secondary role, then he is directly insulting that leadership. That's not supportive.

In regards to bad mouthing the packers, well he has call Ted an untrustworthy lying "shattered" individual desperate to keep his job. He complained about the hiring of Coach McCarthy to Greta. And he not once thanked his CURRENT team mates for their part in getting him the ESPY award or anything else this off season.

Favre's not exactly been taking the high road through all of this.

[cpk1994]

"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.

Greta: "Would you want to play for the Vikings?"

Brett: "I could envision that."

Greta: "Do you want to be traded."

Brett: "I can't see that."

[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.

Greta: "Would you want to play for the Vikings?"

Brett: "I could envision that."

Greta: "Do you want to be traded."

Brett: "I can't see that."

This I can accept.
Boiga's 'quoted from a close source' stuff.........no.

[sharpe1027]

I would agree that it is nothing but conjecture to assume it is "Vikings or bust" with Favre. Perhaps that is his viewpoint right now, but there is nothing public that can confirm this.

At this point, my best guess is that Favre wants to have the ability to figure out for himself what the best fit is. Maybe it would be Minnesota...but maybe it would be somewhere else. He doesn't want Green Bay making the determination for him by giving them a list before he is allowed to talk to teams and gauge the situation.

I can understand that...as well as Green Bay's viewpoint that they shouldn't give him that freedom.

Both have valid viewpoints...who is right depends on which side of the situation you are sitting on.

Favre has not acted like a man that wants to play for the Packers from the start.

[The Leaper]

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.

You are wrong on numerous counts.

A. You have no evidence that Favre ONLY wants to play for our team's biggest rival.

B. Favre has certainly been supportive of Rodgers...he has had nothing but praise for Rodgers publically.

C. He hasn't badmouthed the team in general. He has been critical of Thompson, but he hasn't been critical of players, fans or "the team" in general...as you suggest.

The Packers have been speaking out both sides of their mouth the last week or so. They are trying to soothe the fans and keep Favre at bay. It won't work.

The Packers may be fine on a "moral" standing...but stupidity or lack of foresight isn't a morality issue.

[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.

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

You are wrong on numerous counts.

A. You have no evidence that Favre ONLY wants to play for our team's biggest rival.

B. Favre has certainly been supportive of Rodgers...he has had nothing but praise for Rodgers publically.

C. He hasn't badmouthed the team in general. He has been critical of Thompson, but he hasn't been critical of players, fans or "the team" in general...as you suggest.

The Packers have been speaking out both sides of their mouth the last week or so. They are trying to soothe the fans and keep Favre at bay. It won't work.

The Packers may be fine on a "moral" standing...but stupidity or lack of foresight isn't a morality issue.

Thank you............well stated.

[BallHawk]

A. You have no evidence that Favre ONLY wants to play for our team's biggest rival.

There is no evidence that the Vikes are the ONLY one, but they are without a doubt his preferred destination. The chances of him signing with the Vikes, if somehow released, would be in the 85% area.

[boiga]

You are wrong on numerous counts.

A. You have no evidence that Favre ONLY wants to play for our team's biggest rival.

B. Favre has certainly been supportive of Rodgers...he has had nothing but praise for Rodgers publically.

A. True, it may not be his only choice, but it does seem like his first choice, does it not? B. Like I said, he hasn't dissed Rodgers, but he has been dismissive of the idea of accepting Rodgers as the starter. If Brett comes in thinking that he should be the team leader that will cause more than a little friction. Encouraging a QB controversy is NOT supportive of the starting QB.

C. He hasn't badmouthed the team in general. He has been critical of Thompson, but he hasn't been critical of players, fans or "the team" in general...as you suggest.

You're right, I should have phrased that as bad mouthing the team's management. I still think he's in ingrate though for not thanking his receivers/OL for the ESPY.

The Packers have been speaking out both sides of their mouth the last week or so. They are trying to soothe the fans and keep Favre at bay. It won't work.

The Packers may be fine on a "moral" standing...but stupidity or lack of foresight isn't a morality issue.

You certainly have a point there.

[sharpe1027]

You are wrong on numerous counts.

A. You have no evidence that Favre ONLY wants to play for our team's biggest rival.

B. Favre has certainly been supportive of Rodgers...he has had nothing but praise for Rodgers publically.

C. He hasn't badmouthed the team in general. He has been critical of Thompson, but he hasn't been critical of players, fans or "the team" in general...as you suggest.

The Packers have been speaking out both sides of their mouth the last week or so. They are trying to soothe the fans and keep Favre at bay. It won't work.

The Packers may be fine on a "moral" standing...but stupidity or lack of foresight isn't a morality issue.

He has a single conversation about coming back and immediately asks for an unconditional release. Prior to asking for the release, mud has been slung by his family and his agent about the Packers, conviently setting the stage for his request while he does not have to say anything. If what they said was not planned by him, it takes a few minutes out of his day to send a text message to one of the starving media outlets.

Since then, he has thrown his budy Campen under the bus, implied that he would rather have Marriucci than MM and complained about not being able to control GM moves. He takes selective quotes from a private conversation and releases them to the media, quotes which apparently the other side does not agree with, but refuses to get into a pissing match about (way to got TT and MM). He as much as admitted that he would be "sticking it to the Packers" by showing up for training camp and said he didn't want to do that, yet here he comes.

Who is speaking out of both sides of their mouths?

[The Leaper]

Who is speaking out of both sides of their mouths?

I never said Favre was innocent of that.

[sharpe1027]

Who is speaking out of both sides of their mouths?

I never said Favre was innocent of that.

Fair enough. My mistake for reading into what you said too much.

[Carolina_Packer]

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.

I think it blindsided Brett to think that he couldn't just make a phone call and have his old job back, even after some hemming and hawing about unretirement, but up to some point never being 100% committed to returning. Once he did re-commit, at least verbally, he was told thanks but no thanks. Using your corporate environment example I think works to a point. Guys who work for corporations do not have millions of fans, but future hall of fame NFL QB's do, and I think that Favre thought that he was so well branded, so well regarded by fans, players, management, and media that all he had to do was make up his mind and he was right back into his starting gig and the emotional capital and goodwill that Brett had built up could be cashed in again and he'd be right back under center because of all the fan-base/marketing/playing ability/living legend stuff. I'm sure that was one of the biggest surprises of his life. He could have had it back if he had made up his mind sooner. Some wanted the team to leave the door cracked for Brett's return. The organization saw Brett's retirement/indecision as a way to become fully committed to Rodgers (finally) and see what chance he had of becoming a winning NFL QB. They certainly knew what Brett can do. I respect their decsion, but of course wish that Brett was going to be back under center, but then I'm sentimental and never want certain stars/celebrities to age and stop performing, but everyone has to exit the stage somehow/someway. I'm sure this is not the end in GB that Brett or anyone would have imagined.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think it blindsided Brett to think that he couldn't just make a phone call and have his old job back, even after some hemming and hawing about unretirement, but up to some point never being 100% committed to returning. Once he did re-commit, at least verbally, he was told thanks but no thanks. Using your corporate environment example I think works to a point. Guys who work for corporations do not have millions of fans, but future hall of fame NFL QB's do, and I think that Favre thought that he was so well branded, so well regarded by fans, players, management, and media that all he had to do was make up his mind and he was right back into his starting gig and the emotional capital and goodwill that Brett had built up could be cashed in again and he'd be right back under center because of all the fan-base/marketing/playing ability/living legend stuff. I'm sure that was one of the biggest surprises of his life. He could have had it back if he had made up his mind sooner. Some wanted the team to leave the door cracked for Brett's return. The organization saw Brett's retirement/indecision as a way to become fully committed to Rodgers (finally) and see what chance he had of becoming a winning NFL QB. They certainly knew what Brett can do. I respect their decsion, but of course wish that Brett was going to be back under center, but then I'm sentimental and never want certain stars/celebrities to age and stop performing, but everyone has to exit the stage somehow/someway. I'm sure this is not the end in GB that Brett or anyone would have imagined.

Hey, a reasonable assessment of the situation.


Well done, sir (or ma'am).