Teammates 'moving forward' with Favre

[Patler]

Rogers will have 5 accrued seasons after the 2009 season. If his contract expires at the end of 2009, he will be unrestricted when his contract expires (5 or more years of service in an uncapped year).

[cpk1994]

Strahan never retired.

No...but trying to say that makes the situation different is kind of dumb. Strahan was sitting on the fence until right before the season, and the Giants had to be prepared to move on without him.

No it isn't. Becuase Strahan didn't retire, they also had to be prepared in case Strahan decided to play. Favre retired with that BS presser saying how he had "nothing left to give". The Packers at that point should not have had to prepare in case Favre came back. They moved on and should still be moving on without him.

[Gunakor]

Strahan never retired.

No...but trying to say that makes the situation different is kind of dumb. Strahan was sitting on the fence until right before the season, and the Giants had to be prepared to move on without him.

But they didn't officially tell another player he was going to be the starter. Rodgers was told he was going to be the starter. Not "You will be the starter IF..." Just simply "You will be the starter."

[Gunakor]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.

ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?

I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.

[The Leaper]

Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened.

So if Brohm turned out to be Tom Brady in camp and looked 10 times better than Rodgers, Rodgers is still the starter because the Packers made a commitment?

A commitment in March or April is meaningless. Depth charts are pointless until the roster goes back down to 53.

The Packers are committed to Nick Collins...so I guess you don't want Rouse to start no matter what, right?

[Pacopete4]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.

ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?

I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.

Thats not true either... MM has said in his press conferences before when asked the question that we'll cross that path when it comes... HE HAS NEVER ONCE SAID THAT AROD WOULD BE THE STARTING QB IF FAVRE DECIDED TO COME BACK AND PLAY..... not once...


and ckp1994, thats redic that you bitched for an hour that favre had no team commitment because all the other players are here and favre wasnt but when it comes to strahan not being with his team.. its different because he never said "i retire"... stupid

[cpk1994]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.

ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?

I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.

Exactly. McCarthy claimed repeatedly that the team was committed to Rodgers. He needs to keep that committment. Favre can't handle it, tough shit. He retired and pulled all his BS, its time he reaps what he sows,

[cpk1994]

Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened.

So if Brohm turned out to be Tom Brady in camp and looked 10 times better than Rodgers, Rodgers is still the starter because the Packers made a commitment?

A commitment in March or April is meaningless. Depth charts are pointless until the roster goes back down to 53.

The Packers are committed to Nick Collins...so I guess you don't want Rouse to start no matter what, right?

That is such stretching its laughable. McCarthy isn't out there repeatedy making statements committing to Collins like he is Rodgers. Your argument is

[Gunakor]

Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened.

So if Brohm turned out to be Tom Brady in camp and looked 10 times better than Rodgers, Rodgers is still the starter because the Packers made a commitment?

A commitment in March or April is meaningless. Depth charts are pointless until the roster goes back down to 53.

The Packers are committed to Nick Collins...so I guess you don't want Rouse to start no matter what, right?

Actually, I absolutely DO want Rouse to start. But Rouse has been here throughout and has put in the work required. Favre has not. Don't forget that.

Maybe you don't value commitment like I do, so I am not going to argue that one with you. In my opinion, if you make a decision you go with it. NO WAFFLING. Did Favre have the right to change his mind, of course he did but that does not mean he SHOULD have or that the Packers SHOULD change thiers. Commitments, when made, are never meaningless.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rogers will have 5 accrued seasons after the 2009 season. If his contract expires at the end of 2009, he will be unrestricted when his contract expires (5 or more years of service in an uncapped year).

That's what I thought. In all likelihood, he'll be an UFA after the 2009 season.

[cpk1994]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.

ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?

I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.

Thats not true either... MM has said in his press conferences before when asked the question that we'll cross that path when it comes... HE HAS NEVER ONCE SAID THAT AROD WOULD BE THE STARTING QB IF FAVRE DECIDED TO COME BACK AND PLAY..... not once...


and ckp1994, thats redic that you bitched for an hour that favre had no team commitment because all the other players are here and favre wasnt but when it comes to strahan not being with his team.. its different because he never said "i retire"... stupid

"Arron Rodgers is our starter" - Mike McCarthy, many times

IF that isn't committment nothing is.

[Gunakor]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.

ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?

I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.

Thats not true either... MM has said in his press conferences before when asked the question that we'll cross that path when it comes... HE HAS NEVER ONCE SAID THAT AROD WOULD BE THE STARTING QB IF FAVRE DECIDED TO COME BACK AND PLAY..... not once...


and ckp1994, thats redic that you bitched for an hour that favre had no team commitment because all the other players are here and favre wasnt but when it comes to strahan not being with his team.. its different because he never said "i retire"... stupid

Not publicly. But whenever they interview Rodgers, all he has to say is "I'm the guy, they told me that I'm the guy, so I'm going to prepare like I'm the guy." He said that last night after the Family Night scrimmage also, even after knowing that Favre was coming back to camp. That sure sounds like a commitment was made to me anyway.

[Pacopete4]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.

ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?

I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.

Thats not true either... MM has said in his press conferences before when asked the question that we'll cross that path when it comes... HE HAS NEVER ONCE SAID THAT AROD WOULD BE THE STARTING QB IF FAVRE DECIDED TO COME BACK AND PLAY..... not once...


and ckp1994, thats redic that you bitched for an hour that favre had no team commitment because all the other players are here and favre wasnt but when it comes to strahan not being with his team.. its different because he never said "i retire"... stupid

Not publicly. But whenever they interview Rodgers, all he has to say is "I'm the guy, they told me that I'm the guy, so I'm going to prepare like I'm the guy." He said that last night after the Family Night scrimmage also, even after knowing that Favre was coming back to camp. That sure sounds like a commitment was made to me anyway.

Favre wasn't on the roster.. so you're right, he was the guy... but it wont be for long

[cpk1994]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.

ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?

I'm not agruing Favre's commitment or Strahan's commitment. I am arguing about the teams commitment. Bottom line, teh Packers made the commitment to Rodgers SPECIFICALLY to be the starter, regardless what happened. The Giants extent of commitment to Strahan's replacement was that he'd be the starter IF - and that's the difference here is the IF - but IF Strahan doesn't come back, then and ONLY then would his backup become the starter.

Thats not true either... MM has said in his press conferences before when asked the question that we'll cross that path when it comes... HE HAS NEVER ONCE SAID THAT AROD WOULD BE THE STARTING QB IF FAVRE DECIDED TO COME BACK AND PLAY..... not once...


and ckp1994, thats redic that you bitched for an hour that favre had no team commitment because all the other players are here and favre wasnt but when it comes to strahan not being with his team.. its different because he never said "i retire"... stupid

Not publicly. But whenever they interview Rodgers, all he has to say is "I'm the guy, they told me that I'm the guy, so I'm going to prepare like I'm the guy." He said that last night after the Family Night scrimmage also, even after knowing that Favre was coming back to camp. That sure sounds like a commitment was made to me anyway.

Favre wasn't on the roster.. so you're right, he was the guy... but it wont be for long

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.

[The Leaper]

Did Favre have the right to change his mind, of course he did but that does not mean he SHOULD have or that the Packers SHOULD change thiers. Commitments, when made, are never meaningless.

Yet if the Packers DO change theirs, why should you care? Don't you want the Packers to put the best team on the field...and if that means Favre is the QB, so be it.

I'm fine with Rodgers being the "starting" QB right now. I also fully understand that who the "starting" QB is right now is pretty meaningless in terms of who will be the "starting" QB when the season begins.

My viewpoint is that if Favre wants to play, there isn't really a great reason for Green Bay to not want him to play...as long as he proves himself on the field in camp.