Boiling Point - Yahoo article on McCarthy/Favre

[sharpe1027]

According to the Yahoo article it was "one source familiar with the GM’s and coach’s thinking."

Which means, the leaker could have been Harlan or just about anyone else.

A "leak" implies an intentional "plant" of information by one of the direct parties involved in the dispute. Interviewing someone "familiar with the GM's and coach's thinking" is not a leak...it's not even a dribble. It's more like a stretch.

The "media" works in strange ways.

Someone from your organization telling the media about a private conversation sounds an awful lot like intentional "plant" of information by one of the direct parties involved in the dispute. Care to split hairs?

It's not splitting hairs. How do you get from a "source familiar with the GM’s and coach’s thinking" to "someone from your [Packer] organization?"

If you can assert that it is not a leak based upon less than definitive information, I feel that I have a right to respond in kind. A "source familiar with the GM’s and coach’s thinking," if anything, supports that it was a leak. Anyone that is familiar with their thinking is likely to have a vested interest in the dispute. Thus, it is splitting hairs to say it is not leak simply because you don't you consider the interviewee to be a "direct party."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sharpe,

You are being rediculous. Whether or not it was a leak is barely relevant. What is relevant is that BF directly contacted the media, whereas the other source isn't part of the packers and isn't quoting MM...merely giving insight into MM's thoughts.

That is a huge difference.

[Maxie the Taxi]

According to the Yahoo article it was "one source familiar with the GM’s and coach’s thinking."

Which means, the leaker could have been Harlan or just about anyone else.

A "leak" implies an intentional "plant" of information by one of the direct parties involved in the dispute. Interviewing someone "familiar with the GM's and coach's thinking" is not a leak...it's not even a dribble. It's more like a stretch.

The "media" works in strange ways.

Someone from your organization telling the media about a private conversation sounds an awful lot like intentional "plant" of information by one of the direct parties involved in the dispute. Care to split hairs?

It's not splitting hairs. How do you get from a "source familiar with the GM’s and coach’s thinking" to "someone from your [Packer] organization?"

If you can assert that it is not a leak based upon less than definitive information, I feel that I have a right to respond in kind. A "source familiar with the GM’s and coach’s thinking," if anything, supports that it was a leak. Anyone that is familiar with their thinking is likely to have a vested interest in the dispute. Thus, it is splitting hairs to say it is not leak simply because you don't you consider the interviewee to be a "direct party."

Unless the author is specific, i.e., names the source he is quoting or tells us in no uncertain terms what that source's actual position is, then the source is no more reliable than a rumor. If you want to trust that a rumor is true, it's your privilege. I do not.

[sharpe1027]

Sharpe,

You are being rediculous. Whether or not it was a leak is barely relevant. What is relevant is that BF directly contacted the media, whereas the other source isn't part of the packers and isn't quoting MM...merely giving insight into MM's thoughts.

That is a huge difference.

Maybe I am being ridiculous, but the original question was simply asking from where did this inside information come from? It wasn't likely from Favre.

The point is somebody was talking the media about a private conversation and the information appears to have come from someone pro-MM and/or anti-Favre. You can't know that the source isn't part of the Packers. Ee do know that the source knows about a private conversation between MM and Favre. Put on your detective hat, since it wasn't from Favre what are the chances that it came from the someone who works with the Packers? Pretty damn good.

[sharpe1027]

Unless the author is specific, i.e., names the source he is quoting or tells us in no uncertain terms what that source's actual position is, then the source is no more reliable than a rumor. If you want to trust that a rumor is true, it's your privilege. I do not.

I agree. I am not trusting the rumor I am just asking the question of where that information about a private conversation came from. Maybe someone made it all up, maybe not, but I doubt it came from Favre.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sharpe,

You are being rediculous. Whether or not it was a leak is barely relevant. What is relevant is that BF directly contacted the media, whereas the other source isn't part of the packers and isn't quoting MM...merely giving insight into MM's thoughts.

That is a huge difference.

Maybe I am being ridiculous, but the original question was simply asking from where did this inside information come from? It wasn't likely from Favre.

The point is somebody was talking the media about a private conversation and the information appears to have come from someone pro-MM and/or anti-Favre. You can't know that the source isn't part of the Packers. Ee do know that the source knows about a private conversation between MM and Favre. Put on your detective hat, since it wasn't from Favre what are the chances that it came from the someone who works with the Packers? Pretty damn good.

Huh? Favre texted reporters, talked with reporters, etc. What you smoking?

Pro MM: Probably, but i dont' see much of a point to that..nor does the source info rely on "viewpoint."

Detective: could be anyone..family, friends, his barber, etc.

[sharpe1027]

Detective: could be anyone..family, friends, his barber, etc.

It could be anyone, including someone from the Packers.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Detective: could be anyone..family, friends, his barber, etc.

It could be anyone, including someone from the Packers.

Right...so, the reporter wouldn't acknowledge that.

If from the packers the reporter woulda used the old unnamed source in the organization routine.

You are really reaching...occam's razor my friend, occam's razor.

[FritzDontBlitz]

How blatantly did Favre disregard the wishes of his superiors? In his hours-long meeting with McCarthy on Monday night, one of the coach’s direct complaints to the quarterback was that he was tired of having their supposedly confidential conversations leaked in the press. McCarthy told Favre, point-blank, that he didn’t want to turn on his TV or computer after the meeting ended and see quotes from Favre, anonymous or otherwise, discussing the interaction.

Yet on Tuesday morning, an article turned up on espn.com with numerous quotes from Favre. The quarterback said, among other things, the Packers had “planted” inaccurate stories about him and that “they tried to buy me off to stay retired” – a reference to the reported 10-year, $20-million marketing deal the team offered. Favre also provided specifics of his conversation with McCarthy, in direct violation of the coach’s previously stated wishes.

Woah.

So, does this mean everything Favre leaked to the press about TT and M3 was actually said to him behind closed doors? That's what it sounds like to me.

I do have to give Thompson props on the trade, though. Its not a bad deal for the Packers because the more Brett plays, the better the pick gets.

[sharpe1027]

Detective: could be anyone..family, friends, his barber, etc.

It could be anyone, including someone from the Packers.

Right...so, the reporter wouldn't acknowledge that.

If from the packers the reporter woulda used the old unnamed source in the organization routine.

You are really reaching...occam's razor my friend, occam's razor.

I'm reaching? You're the one trying to claim it wasn't someone from the Packers. At least I admit that I'm not sure who it was. I'm just trying to apply the same scrutiny I did to Favre and all the comments from his family and "sources close to Favre" to this situation. I ripped Favre for those comments. Fair is fair.

The facts are:

1.) The reporter doesn't say whether or not the person works for the Packers.
2.) The source claims to have first hand knowledge of BOTH MM's and TT's mindset.
3.) The source makes comments about a private convesation betwee MM and TT.

Draw your own conclusions, just don't be an ass and assume they are the only conclusions.

[woodbuck27]

Assuming this reporter is not another jerk making things up, this version of things rings true...at least from my point of view. I've always said that MM was the elephant in the room and was going to have things his way.

I think Favre should have kicked MM's ass before leaving that meeting. At least pinned his pork against the wall.

[Bossman641]

Assuming this reporter is not another jerk making things up, this version of things rings true...at least from my point of view. I've always said that MM was the elephant in the room and was going to have things his way.

I think Favre should have kicked MM's ass before leaving that meeting. At least pinned his pork against the wall.

Yea, that would have been smart.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Detective: could be anyone..family, friends, his barber, etc.

It could be anyone, including someone from the Packers.

Right...so, the reporter wouldn't acknowledge that.

If from the packers the reporter woulda used the old unnamed source in the organization routine.

You are really reaching...occam's razor my friend, occam's razor.

I'm reaching? You're the one trying to claim it wasn't someone from the Packers. At least I admit that I'm not sure who it was. I'm just trying to apply the same scrutiny I did to Favre and all the comments from his family and "sources close to Favre" to this situation. I ripped Favre for those comments. Fair is fair.

The facts are:

1.) The reporter doesn't say whether or not the person works for the Packers.
2.) The source claims to have first hand knowledge of BOTH MM's and TT's mindset.
3.) The source makes comments about a private convesation betwee MM and TT.

Draw your own conclusions, just don't be an ass and assume they are the only conclusions.

Fine. Make that a packer employee...so, at best you have someone that gave insight into a mindset. Surely didn't give exact quotes of what they said about favre leaking nor did they give quotes about what exactly was said.

Favre leaked confidential information...the pack did not. They went on the record each time.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Assuming this reporter is not another jerk making things up, this version of things rings true...at least from my point of view. I've always said that MM was the elephant in the room and was going to have things his way.

I think Favre should have kicked MM's ass before leaving that meeting. At least pinned his pork against the wall.

why don't you stop being a fan of the pack and just jump onboard with the jets..as your allegiance isnt' to the pack obviously.

What did we ever do to deserve an idiot like you as a pack fan? Shouldn't you be a boys fan.

[dissident94]

Its a legit case. How can MM say he is upset about their confidential talks being leaked in the media and then this story is leaked. It had to come from MM didn't it? If not him he told someone who told someone. Then he is not keeping stuff confidential as well.

I lost repsect for MM on this one