Favre a GRAMPS!

[Bossman641]

Btw, the Colts could've traded Manning to a team with plenty of cap space. They didn't.

You need 2 parties to make a trade. Again it wasn't even a given he would play again.

Also, if the Colts had paid the bonus and then traded him, his cap hit would have been 38 million rather than the 10 it was

[Bossman641]

Anyways wb you never answered my question. If favre did not have a grudge as of 2009, why did he have the talk with peppers that he did at the end of the 2010 season

[Rodgers12]

You need 2 parties to make a trade. Again it wasn't even a given he would play again.

Also, if the Colts had paid the bonus and then traded him, his cap hit would have been 38 million rather than the 10 it was

The point is if Manning couldn't throw (didn't pass physical), the trade would be revoked and the new team would not be responsible for Manning's contract. NOT a big risk.

[Rodgers12]

I thought TT did OK, except for sending Favre's locker to him.

Ah, the locker thing is still funny.

To paraphrase the G.O.A.T himself, what the fuck does he need his old locker for?

[Joemailman]

I thought TT did OK, except for sending Favre's locker to him.

Really? I always thought the Colts were cheap bastards for not sending Peyton his locker.

[Bossman641]

The point is if Manning couldn't throw (didn't pass physical), the trade would be revoked and the new team would not be responsible for Manning's contract. NOT a big risk.

Passing a physical is a lot different than playing effectively. I don't think teams were lining up to fork over 28 million to manning. You obviously feel differently

[pbmax]

Sure, Manning had a big cap, and chances are, he would not have agreed to restructure it in a sign and trade deal, to say, the Washington Redtails (the Mannings don't even like being in the same conference). But rather than create a circus, a la Ted Thompson, the Colts graciously thanked Manning and sat him free.

Thompson should've done the same thing with Favre.

Well, as we have attempted to point out, the Colts WANTED to part ways. Once they secured the #1 pick and knew Luck was the QB they wanted, they likely would not have taken Manning back for half his previous salary. Favre still could have returned.

On your last sentence, we can finally agree. I think Christl, while maddeningly simplistic about the entire episode being the fault of Bob Harlan no longer being President, otherwise made a good case for that very early in the whole contretemps. It was not entirely in the team's best interest, and most importantly, it might not be in your young QB's best interest, but it would have done less damage that summer/fall.

Its hard to predict the effect it would have had on Rodgers long term, if any. I can understand not wanting to visit that upon a young player. But McCarthy has proven very adept at handling distractions so I think it would have gone better than I would have imagined.

However, better for everyone would have been for Favre and Thompson to sit down and hash this out prior to March. Favre admitting that Thompson's approach was driving him back to drinking and Thompson admitting that Favre was driving Thompson back to Matt Hasselback. But as Andrew Brandt has pointed out, its in neither man's DNA to have uncomfortable conversations before they are forced to do so. So perhaps, it was inevitable.

[pbmax]

Btw, the Colts could've traded Manning to a team with plenty of cap space. They didn't.

It doesn't work that way. All Manning has to do is make a stink. The theoretical team trading for him doesn't want to pay $28 million for an unhappy player on March 3rd, so he gets set loose again.

[pbmax]

I errored. I clearly thought that I was posting Joemailman when I made that post...that should have been obvious as it was in the body of the post (Joemailman's name and NOT and Bossman641). it wasn't until some time later that I discovered my error.

I revised the name and I even indictaed that I was editing the name.

Didn't you see that pbmax?

I am being TRUTHFUL here.

In any case I do NOT have contentions with Bossman641. He posts a lot like Joemailman. I didn't realize we are in contention.

I wouldn't often write 25 words to Joemailman.

That would be a waste of my time. I'm not like some here or a fan of Joemailman. He and I aren't particularly alike at all in our ways of seeing matters Packers or I expect in life generally. Joemailman isn't exactly a person I'd want at my back.

Joemailman is Pro TT and MM to a fault as I observe him unless he's suddenly reverted to some better sense. I'm clearly a TT critique. I observe TT and MM as carefully and discerningly as I'm able for any possible insight into what their up to.

I do not see how it is relevant which poster was addressed when evaluating the quality of the post. No mention was made of the points of contention. You simply insulted another poster, something you insist others should not do to you.

[woodbuck27]

You know, when you don't actually have an answer to the point raised you can simply not post rather than engage in personal attacks that you claim to abhor.

Do we live in entirely different worlds pbmax?

I went back and looked at this and holy cow.

I'll lay it out here:

Thread: If Rodgers really is the BEST.

Post # 93

" What happened to Woody today? Hope you didn't quit, Woodrow. Rodgers12 has your back. I feel bad, (or perhaps I feel devilishly happy, as the devil incarnate) that it seems that between you and me, you've decided to quit, to throw in the towel. I - and Clive Cluster - can't allow that to happen. Let's try it your way. You win. Packerrats is yours. This White-collar, trolling/stalking, flaming, rotten/terribly bad mannered, angry/envious/jealous 'low esteemed' no decent account member is going to take a break and get some treatment. Perhaps I can go back to my therapy with Dr. John Holmes, M.D. Ph.D. In our last session, over 8 years ago, I think we were working on regression back to my childhood, where my father finished beating me for speaking at the dinner table. Oh, if only I could work out my troubles!

The creep show is over!

Last edited by mraynrand; 01-29-2014 at 06:51 PM. Reason: MD! " mraynrand

Post #94:

" Sometimes you just never know what kind of turns a thread in here will take. (Happy Face of some sort)

That was some of Woodrow's best writing though. I actually read some of it." Joemailman

Post # 97

" I respect this decision and 'only this decision'. Member mraynrand (aka Cleft Crusty) needed to take time for help. If he changes his mind at 4 PM this afternoon that doesn't change the water on the beans. Might he....I wouldn't be one bit surprized nor shocked if he did.

mraynrand has issues ...part of his symptoms ...his bad ass games.

So for me it's actually a let's see now. His dropped message and it's sincerety...after two more weeks of him and no show...then I'll begin to buy into it.

This member has been absolutely relentless in some need he's built up inside of him to "only' harm himself Vs me. " woodbuck27

Look at Joemailman's reposnse.Couldn't he have done better than thatpbmax?

I woke up that night and went to the puter and packerats and read these posts #93 or mraynrands BS dismissal of himself as if that was going to be reality...he's ALL games

Then I read Joemailman's response and I got so pissed I blasted Joemailman for his fricken insensitivity. I made a case for that BS and Mad (that this crap gets tossed in his lap)and I actualy posted compassion for member mraynrand.Then I realized I was being naïve. For a moment I forgot just how bad ass mtaynrand is.

I revised my original response to what you see above but I was totally pissed off with member Joemailman...all the same. I don't deal well with two faced people = in my view Joemailman. So my opinion of Joemailman meansd what. . . . . . . zero. That doesn't mean that thee next time joemailamna makes what I see clearly to me as a fools play. Which I'm sure to >>> Joemailman is absolutely a hoot.

Joemailman is what I deem... and Ohh Nooo ! look pbmax ..out this is just awful...Joemailman is a classic "smartass', know it all, with little needed sensitivity to his surroundings...Joemailman is for Joemailman. He's all about Joemailman and blind to what's really happening around him.

I mean..how could this forum be blind to what mraynrand is? maybe I expected too much of a Joemailman?

I'm getting slayed by mraynrand and (his little group) and Joemailman judges me woodbuck27 and

frankly here... .a real zinger...Joemailman hardly has two clues. Joemailman declares I have a meltdownand all I'm doing is appealing for something reasonable forom this forum in terms odf stoping mraynrand.

Do I need to elaborate? Do I need to give you or answer more to you pbmax??

Open your eyes man. PLEASE.

[pbmax]

What are you now pbmax?

The inquisitor here? In any case look at the words you list here:

Is it a case of the total impact of say 6-8 of those together are really very overwhelmingly awful words?

You cannot imagine the words that I'd use face to face with some members in here.

Are you very sensitive pbmax?

So let me get this straight, only awful personal attacks are out of bounds?

Does calling someone sick qualify?

[pbmax]

Do we live in entirely different worlds pbmax?

snip

Open your eyes man. PLEASE.

I was referring specifically and only to your response to Bossman. Bossman quoted Favre's words back to you about telling Peppers to beat the Packers after you claimed that Favre's grudge ended after the Viking's return games.

You have still not responded whether you think Bossman had a point or there was some other reading of Favre's message.

I am not interested in any other piece of the thread. You say you want a dialogue with no personal attacks. You respond to a perfectly valid argument with ad hominem insults instead.

Rather than apologize for engaging in the very behavior you complain about frequently, we have more posts wondering what is wrong with everyone else.

[woodbuck27]

So let me get this straight, only awful personal attacks are out of bounds?

Does calling someone sick qualify?

If a poster is behaving in a manner that is likely a symptom of some illness base on months of observation.

I get all sorts of CRAP and I'm very healthy and certainly pleased and grateful for that and I treat people in accordance with my good health.

Who are you defending pbmax? You sure as hell neglected me woodbuck27 If not that then your bias prejudice id=s overwhelming but before I decide that please names ! Do Noy ignore mraynrand's if he's one you must defend. Let's start with six members. Names please ? Are you a fair inquisitor? I trust that question is valid. I need to see some ground rules here also please.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. Fill in the blanks with members names here and above...Thanks. SIX names to begin.

[woodbuck27]

I was referring specifically and only to your response to Bossman. Bossman quoted Favre's words back to you about telling Peppers to beat the Packers after you claimed that Favre's grudge ended after the Viking's return games.

You have still not responded whether you think Bossman had a point or there was some other reading of Favre's message.

I am not interested in any other piece of the thread. You say you want a dialogue with no personal attacks. You respond to a perfectly valid argument with ad hominem insults instead.

Rather than apologize for engaging in the very behavior you complain about frequently, we have more posts wondering what is wrong with everyone else.

OK Lets go over this:

Post #55 ... this thread

" I don't even know why I bother cause your mind was made up on this long ago....

but why the fuck did Favre tell Julius Peppers to beat the Packers during the 2010 season? To recap, Favre got concussed and knocked out of the game in week 15 vs the Bears. After the game, he told Peppers to beat the Packers 2 weeks later in week 17. Knocked out of game, walking off the field for the last time, and his mind is on seeing the Packers struggle.

No grudge there right? Just like when he called Matt Millen out of the blue during the 2008 season and helped the Lions game plan against the Packers" . Bossman641

" I don't even know why I bother cause your mind was made up on this long ago...." Bossman641

That's correct

" but why the fuck."

Whatever as right thee bossman641 loses me

but I still hung in there and read the post and there's that same Ole same ole Julius Peppers plug.

The "out of the blue (supposed) Favre to matt Millen call?? I know ZERO about that....

Bossman641 isn't getting Dick all from me anyway as in the beginning I thought it was more of Joemailman.

Joemailman as I posted before, I don't want much of anything to do with. I don't care for Joemailman...the feelings "I'm sure are mutual" which makes our experience here in terms of one another just peachey. I also thought I had an agreement with Bossman641.

Bossman641 and I came to an understanding it seemed to me over a year ago.


I'm going in circles...but OK:

Your post is angry. ( I'm referring to the What the Fuck comment ...woodbuck27)

Please calm down.

The 'only silly grudge' associate with Brett Favre comes in the form of the likes of you Bossman641 ( I get you mixed up like Joemailman your so much alike) That is so so TRUE.

Bossman641 and Joemailman and holding a grudge VS Brett Favre are like clones. Many more in here at Packerats are also in your Brett Favre dislike to hate . . . grudge club.

Isn't that the TRUTH boys?

Is that clear !?

It's Packer fans like you that should make some more concerted efforts to get over your pettiness.

Grow up as a sports fan. Your attitude is simply foolish. Laughable.

See .....watch me laugh at you.

See me laughing ?? No you can't ! Imagine me laughing then .

For the sake of all reason grow up Bossman641 (Edit).

pbmax tha's in my very BEST analysis 100% accurate..or TRUTH. Bothof these members are up with Brett Favre or at least not so until Aaron Rodgers di the most noble act likely in opacker nation and stood in for Brett Favre against TT and MM who STILL DRAG THEIR ASS's ans respect for FAVRE.

Pretty soon Favre is going to be a 1st ballot NFL HOFER and Favre's Number NOT retired and Favre NOT in the Packers HALL and The Green and the Green Bay Packers will be the laughing stock of all NFL Teams.

I'm like I said very familiar with Pro Sports and some members on Packers foolishly believe that honor and respect and loyalty has to be all for the Green Bay Packers and screw the player.

I am simply a Packer fan. I see things as I do. I believe my club or the one I chose and fare is the best for me. You fellas formed your club. Don't chew on me because I disrespect your club. because I see into the poster in your club. Because especially seeing a man today that I admire so very much maligned by people that post here that are NOT as good as Brett Favre in terms of his status as an NFL player.

All of you that still have that sour Brett Favre taste in your mouths. Best I can do is advise you to try another piece of gum. I don't make you chew that one,

My gum is real sweet.

[Patler]

According to wiki, Favre formally retired from the Packers on March 4. That's not waiting til May/June.

Releasing Favre would not have cost the Packers' much, if anything at all, cap-wise. Otherwise, Vandermause would've reported something about the Packers absorbing $20 M or so in dead money.

Teddy didn't want Favre yet he refused to release him. Arrogance and cowardice.

Favre was a corporate asset, in this case a very tradeable corporate asset. An executive's duty is to preserve and enhance corporate assets. When TT could acquire something of value for Favre, why should he just through it away?

I find it funny that at the end of most training camps, many fans think TT can and should trade players who are about to be cut for draft choices. In reality, only very infrequently can that happen for any team. A huge contingent thought he should have been able to franchise Flynn and then trade him for a high draft pick. In reality, the QB franchise salary made that a huge risk that almost certainly would have backfired. When TT has a player who was very, very tradeable, he was supposed to just give it away? Doesn't make good business sense.