LORD FAVRE comeback part deux...!!!

[cpk1994]

There's no loyality in PRO sports and Favre will be the first to attest to that. Certainly he may make a move to 'the Vikings' given the way he was taken down by whomever TT answered to. That move to bench Favre for Aaron Rodgers wasn't in TT. It came from above TT IMO. TT is to shy for such a bold step. The Paker brass knew just how to turn Favre away as a measure to move on without another Packer vet.

Congratulations. YOu just won Packerrats Most Retarded Post of the Year Award for 2009.

and. . . your a real beauty cpk1994. SARCASM intended.

Of all people on this forum that are the most classless. You win another badge from me. Your easily the poster with the redest neck and a mean spirited person to boot. Whats it like to try to live with you young man? Your so pathetic it's sad to witness.

I can always count on you and one or two others here to take a mere idea and slam it to hell. We post ideas and opinions here. We certainly speculate on much. To make a personal attack dictates as much may be deserved in return, but I prefer to try to make you think young man.

You seem to have some GOD complex cpk1994 and your actually and consistently prone to defending yourself, rather than just thinking once in awhile or maybe changing ie growing up.

Well, you at least spoke english for once.

That said, posting ideas aspeculations are fine as long as they are plausible. Yours wasn't plausbile. Not by a long shot. Crack addicts make more sense.

[SnakeLH2006]

There's no loyality in PRO sports and Favre will be the first to attest to that. Certainly he may make a move to 'the Vikings' given the way he was taken down by whomever TT answered to. That move to bench Favre for Aaron Rodgers wasn't in TT. It came from above TT IMO. TT is to shy for such a bold step. The Paker brass knew just how to turn Favre away as a measure to move on without another Packer vet.

Congratulations. YOu just won Packerrats Most Retarded Post of the Year Award for 2009.

and. . . your a real beauty cpk1994. SARCASM intended.

Of all people on this forum that are the most classless. You win another badge from me. Your easily the poster with the redest neck and a mean spirited person to boot. Whats it like to try to live with you young man? Your so pathetic it's sad to witness.

I can always count on you and one or two others here to take a mere idea and slam it to hell. We post ideas and opinions here. We certainly speculate on much. To make a personal attack dictates as much may be deserved in return, but I prefer to try to make you think young man.

You seem to have some GOD complex cpk1994 and your actually and consistently prone to defending yourself, rather than just thinking once in awhile or maybe changing ie growing up.

Well, you at least spoke english for once.

That said, posting ideas aspeculations are fine as long as they are plausible. Yours wasn't plausbile. Not by a long shot. Crack addicts make more sense.

It's a given crack addicts like Ty make more sense than your broken English anyday. Glad you can see that dude. So glad. Maybe you should heed this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUEkOVdUjHc

[cpk1994]

If Brett wants to go to Minnesota, let him. The Packers have no reason to fear him anymore and even if the Vikings were to win, Brett wouldn't be gaining anything becuase what would he be "sticking to TT"? Rodgers has already shown that the Packers offense runs just fine without Favre. ALso, Brett Favre still has the biceps tendon injury to deal with. He will need surgery unless he wants to be a detriment. Also, Wilf had to see the last 4 weeks of last season and come to the realization that a 40 year old broken down QB won't to his team any good. FWIW, Wilf is on record from Febuary saying he isn't interested in Favre even if he were available.

While I think Rodgers MAY turn into a somewhat adequate QB. How in the hell do you figure the Packer offense ran just fine last year. As with any QB,when EVERYTHING was going well Rodgers looked good. But when faced with the smallest amount of adversity,Rodgers CHOKED big time.

It was a top 10 offense. ARod threw for more than 4000 yards despite not having much of a running game and a play caller who called plays not to lose than to win. Also, the defense choked a lot more than Rodgers could ever dream of. Rodgers put the team in position to win so many times only to see the D blow the lead. But I know it is easier for TT haters such as yourself to say Rodgers choked because if fuels the hate you have for TT becuase Favre was traded.

[Gunakor]

There's no loyality in PRO sports and Favre will be the first to attest to that. Certainly he may make a move to 'the Vikings' given the way he was taken down by whomever TT answered to. That move to bench Favre for Aaron Rodgers wasn't in TT. It came from above TT IMO. TT is to shy for such a bold step. The Paker brass knew just how to turn Favre away as a measure to move on without another Packer vet.

Congratulations. YOu just won Packerrats Most Retarded Post of the Year Award for 2009.

and. . . your a real beauty cpk1994. SARCASM intended.

Of all people on this forum that are the most classless. You win another badge from me. Your easily the poster with the redest neck and a mean spirited person to boot. Whats it like to try to live with you young man? Your so pathetic it's sad to witness.

I can always count on you and one or two others here to take a mere idea and slam it to hell. We post ideas and opinions here. We certainly speculate on much. To make a personal attack dictates as much may be deserved in return, but I prefer to try to make you think young man.

You seem to have some GOD complex cpk1994 and your actually and consistently prone to defending yourself, rather than just thinking once in awhile or maybe changing ie growing up.

Well, you at least spoke english for once.

That said, posting ideas aspeculations are fine as long as they are plausible. Yours wasn't plausbile. Not by a long shot. Crack addicts make more sense.

Yes, CPK, it was plausible. And I explained in perfect english why it was plausible. You disagree, but you don't know for fact any more than we do. So yes, it is plausible, unless you have further evidence to prove it false.

[cpk1994]

There's no loyality in PRO sports and Favre will be the first to attest to that. Certainly he may make a move to 'the Vikings' given the way he was taken down by whomever TT answered to. That move to bench Favre for Aaron Rodgers wasn't in TT. It came from above TT IMO. TT is to shy for such a bold step. The Paker brass knew just how to turn Favre away as a measure to move on without another Packer vet.

Congratulations. YOu just won Packerrats Most Retarded Post of the Year Award for 2009.

and. . . your a real beauty cpk1994. SARCASM intended.

Of all people on this forum that are the most classless. You win another badge from me. Your easily the poster with the redest neck and a mean spirited person to boot. Whats it like to try to live with you young man? Your so pathetic it's sad to witness.

I can always count on you and one or two others here to take a mere idea and slam it to hell. We post ideas and opinions here. We certainly speculate on much. To make a personal attack dictates as much may be deserved in return, but I prefer to try to make you think young man.

You seem to have some GOD complex cpk1994 and your actually and consistently prone to defending yourself, rather than just thinking once in awhile or maybe changing ie growing up.

Well, you at least spoke english for once.

That said, posting ideas aspeculations are fine as long as they are plausible. Yours wasn't plausbile. Not by a long shot. Crack addicts make more sense.

Yes, CPK, it was plausible. And I explained in perfect english why it was plausible. You disagree, but you don't know for fact any more than we do. So yes, it is plausible, unless you have further evidence to prove it false.

I don't think it is plausible. IF not TT/M3 then who?

A1. Murphy? Well he was only in his first 6 months on the job when this started to go down. He stated at the start that he would stay out the football side of the business. Outside of the plane trip to Miss which was corporate business, Murphy has held to his statement.

A2. THe Board of Directors? Even more unlikely. They have never gotten involved with player decisions. The only time they were even remotely involved is when Ron Wolf and Harlan went to them and told them they were going after Reggie White and to see if the board had a problem with that.

Eliminating those two, there is only one conclusion. TT/M3 made the decison after the unretirement/re-retirement by Favre. They wanted a committment from Favre and they couldn't get one. They were no longer going to allow Favre to comeback because they preached to rest of the team "team committment". That would be sending a bad precedent for the rest of the team and they would lose control. That would make McCarthy look bad. They certainly were not willing to stab Rodgers in the back by taking his job away becuase they knew if they did, Rodgers would leave the first chance he got, leaving them with millions of dollars wasted developing a player for another team. That would make Ted Thompson look bad So they decided at that point(the re-retirement), Rodgers was their man and that while not wanting Favre back would get them negative backlash in the short term, ithat wouldn't be nearly bad if they allowed Favre to continue, most likely causing Rodgers to bolt and being left with nothing at QB.

TT/M3 made the decision. Murphy and the Board went along with it, as they usually do on player decisions.

[Scott Campbell]

TT/M3 made the decision. Murphy and the Board went along with it, as they usually do on player decisions.

I agree with this and suspect that Ted wouldn't tolerate it any other way. However, it can't be proved. And that leaves the door open just a crack - enough for the conspiracy theories.

[cpk1994]

TT/M3 made the decision. Murphy and the Board went along with it, as they usually do on player decisions.

I agree with this and suspect that Ted wouldn't tolerate it any other way. However, it can't be proved. And that leaves the door open just a crack - enough for the conspiracy theories.

If the Baord or Murphy made the decion and it was to bring back Favre, Ted would have to tolerate it or he would be out of a job.

[MOBB DEEP]

i woke up this a.m. with the revelation that i actually dislike TT more than i dislike the queens....

I think you got the start of a great blues lyric hear, I'm hearing BB King

hilarious...

[MOBB DEEP]

wtf Mobb...? no beatles?

i saw a cool documentary about beatles back stage on bbc channel recently

i had no idea those cats were drugging IMMEDIATELY, like before age 20 and band was fully formed...lol

[MOBB DEEP]

2. How blind must you be to believe that the difference between 13-3 and 6-10 was mostly the QB?

Love makes you blind

Love is a battlefield.

classic Redman line is "im givn love to your battlefied, F pat benatar..."

[MOBB DEEP]

espnews reportn that favre and childress are expected to meet tonight and thursday

the show is on the road......

[Chevelle2]

espnews reportn that favre and childress are expected to meet tonight and thursday

the show is on the road......

Im starting more and more to think this is actually going to happen.

[Gunakor]

I don't think it is plausible. IF not TT/M3 then who?

A1. Murphy? Well he was only in his first 6 months on the job when this started to go down. He stated at the start that he would stay out the football side of the business. Outside of the plane trip to Miss which was corporate business, Murphy has held to his statement.

A2. THe Board of Directors? Even more unlikely. They have never gotten involved with player decisions. The only time they were even remotely involved is when Ron Wolf and Harlan went to them and told them they were going after Reggie White and to see if the board had a problem with that.

Eliminating those two, there is only one conclusion. TT/M3 made the decison after the unretirement/re-retirement by Favre. They wanted a committment from Favre and they couldn't get one. They were no longer going to allow Favre to comeback because they preached to rest of the team "team committment". That would be sending a bad precedent for the rest of the team and they would lose control. That would make McCarthy look bad. They certainly were not willing to stab Rodgers in the back by taking his job away becuase they knew if they did, Rodgers would leave the first chance he got, leaving them with millions of dollars wasted developing a player for another team. That would make Ted Thompson look bad So they decided at that point(the re-retirement), Rodgers was their man and that while not wanting Favre back would get them negative backlash in the short term, ithat wouldn't be nearly bad if they allowed Favre to continue, most likely causing Rodgers to bolt and being left with nothing at QB.

TT/M3 made the decision. Murphy and the Board went along with it, as they usually do on player decisions.

But you can't just eliminate those two because you THINK they couldn't be possible. You don't know. Neither does everybody else. Which makes every single explaination plausible until you can prove them false. Nothing - absolutely nothing in your entire post - could be construed as proof that nobody above TT had any weight on that decision.

Remember too, that Thompson has no control over the marketing aspect of the franchise - so as hard is it is for you to believe that Murphy had something to do with moving on, it is just as hard for me to believe that Thompson had anything to do with the 20 million dollars Murphy offered Favre. It was clear that Murphy wanted just as badly for Favre to remain retired as Thompson, so why is it such a stretch to figure he had something to do with moving on in the first place? You don't know. You don't think that was the case, but you don't know. Which still means it's plausible that decison came from above Thompson. Just like Woody and I have said we believe. We don't know any more than you do, so we'll leave it at that. Plausible, not busted, and not confirmed.

[MOBB DEEP]

i wonder what his former packer teeammates think about this...

[Gunakor]

i wonder what his former packer teeammates think about this...

I don't think they are concerned about this at all. They have their own problems to worry about. Unless by former teammates you mean Frank Winters and Robert Brooks and Dorsey Levens, that is.