Tweet
I hate when perfectly good Clayton bashing gets ignored. 
-
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings -
Ignoring the SPECULATION on your part, the date is actually somewhat irrelevant because it is accrued on the initial date, but he has to be on a roster in December for it to be paid. Thus, if he retires, it is never paid. One article implied that the only difference the date makes is it would have to be paid if accurued even if he is traded and not playing for the Packers.Originally posted by gureski
It is more appropriate for Favre to offer moving it because it is potentially taking money away from him. His agent may (speculation!!!) have been unwilling to agree to the big move initially as not being in Favre's best interest.Comment
-
April 8:Originally posted by gureski
"So what’s going on up there?" Favre asked. "What are they doing? Have they signed anybody?"
"Thompson has stuck to his guns in building the team in a more traditional way - through the college draft - and hasn’t brought in anyone of significance on offense through free agency and trades. Given that the free agent market has pretty much gone dry, there isn’t much Favre can hope for in regard to outside help.
"Reminded of that fact, Favre said, "It may be over then, huh? I’m sort of thinking that right now. I don’t know."
"But he (Favre) made it clear that he doesn’t want to come back to a hopeless situation."
March 31:
"Favre told reporters Thursday at a charity event in Mississippi that if he didn't like the direction the team is headed, he will not return."
" Favre said. "If I don't tell them by Saturday, what will they do, cut me? We have talked the last month and there are some things that I have to sort out. If they don't come together, I guess I won't play. I don't know if my decision will be made by Saturday."
"But there are some things I have to sort out. There are some things I'm looking for in the team and what they're trying to do. I guess if those don't come together, I guess I won't play. It's just kind of wait and see.â€ÂÂComment
-
I believe the word is "grammar".....Originally posted by shamrockfan
But, in all, I do appreciate the debate guys. From a dyed in the wool Sherman supporter, I see points on both sides of the aisle. Sherman was a much better political animal than Thompson will ever be. It is just not his make-up. If Thompson is a better evaluator of talent then perhaps this has been a good switch at the top. I agree wholeheartedly with guerski's point, Sherman had no problem taking the criticism and focus of the questions last season and the season before. Remember last year when Favre basically said that Sherm talked him out of retiring in 03?
Shamrock, I cannot disagree with you when you say that Favre is damaging his own "legacy". He appears to be a spoiled BRAT at the moment. Most of the things he accused JW of last season, he is now guilty of, if we have a clear picture of what the current situation actually is.
As I've stated before, I think the decision has already been made. I think that the NFL has shown us, via the schedule, that Favre is playing. If Favre doesn't play, the NFL has cost itself a TON of money by showcasing the Packers last regular season game on NFL network. If Favre is NOT going to play, then who the hell is going to watch that game? Besides us true packer fans, no one else will care less. They'll want to see the looming playoff matchups, and even with Brett, that is not likely us this season. Think about it.
Ziggy - Clayton is a PUTZ. Not even worth responding to.
Comment
-
I completely agree that Clayton is, as you put it, a PUTZ, but in the context of a media-based argument in this situation, it is worth noting his role in fueling the frenzy and speculation. He has zero credibility with me, but he sure did take advantage of Favre this offseason didn't he (thus causing a lot of these arguments)? I don't blame Favre or Thompson. I blame Clayton."Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg JenningsComment
-
Shamrock....
Do you realize that I don't consider anything you wrote (that Favre said) to be diragatory towards the team or negative? I don't. You want to see negative or diragatory then go see J.Walker's latest comments on how he will never play here again or Owens comments about his last two teams. That's negative...that's diragatory... Owens rips teammates.
Everything Favre said was true and none of it was directed at individuals. He didn't call anyone out and he didn't flame anyone the way you said he did. He made some observations that happen to be true and he didn't single out anyone on the team in the form of players. He talked about generic positions and the desire for the team to improve. Why is that anti-team? Furthermore, it's all true so why is it wrong to say it so long as he doesn't attack anyone or call people out in the media? He hasnt' called out any linemen or teammates. He hasn't even mentioned Thompson by name when talking about whether the team signed anyone. He says...did 'THEY' sign anyone yet 'UP THERE'.
I'm not going to continue the point by point because you're off in your own little world on some of those. Half the crap you wrote has nothing to do with what I was talking with. You were responding to my points when we started this. Now you're seemingly staking claim to your right to state your opinion on things I didn't comment on. Go nuts in those areas. I don't care. If I see something and have time...I'll chime in but my fight right now concerns whether or not Thompson and McCarthy have done anything to shield Favre from the situation that has turned into a circus today. I don't think they have in the same way Sherman did in the past. You obviously not only feel that they shouldnt' have to, you feel Favre is the cause of it. I'm completely on the other end of the spectrum. It could've been managed better and that would've turned out better for the organization, the fans, Favre, and the entire NFL.Life is a puzzle. Every day you get up and pick up the pieces from the day before.
and
You can't keep idiots from being idiots. You can only hope to contain them.
and
Idiots DO exist. I've seen them.Comment
-
No, I was not responding to your posts. Don't flatter yourself. My initial post was in response to Harvey. My entire post was:Originally posted by gureski
"HarveyWallbangers wrote:
Thompson was the GM last year.
I don't think McCarthy is asking any more from Favre than Sherman--other than wanting him at mini-camp. I think that's the right course of action. It sets a good example for the rest of the team (I thought it was a dumb move by Sherman), and he's installing his offense. McCarthy is in a tough situation. This has drug out a lot longer than last year, so it's different. Last year, Favre made a decision at the start of FA, and that gave the team enough time to find a replacement if he didn't come back. That being said, if Favre wants to take his time, then so be it. I just don't think this says anything about McCarthy or Thompson."
"I agree Harvey, and perhaps TT realized because of things we are not privy to that hands-off treatment of Favre was not a good thing for the team as a whole. Maybe it isn't good for Favre either, as evidenced by his growing undisciplined play under Sherman."
Notice, I did not mention you, did no refer to your arguments at all. I was referring to Harvey.
Favre's backhanded criticism of the team and it's GM are certainly not team-building. Publicly criticising your employer, even if there is truth in what you say, is not a good thing to do, especially in a very public, fan-fanatic business like pro-sports. What positive thing for the team can come out of Favre's comments.
Sherman really didn't have to do much to protect Favre. Favre decided within a reasonable time, and other than a few comments about thinking about retiring, Favre really did not say much before making his announcement. Contrast that with his comments this year in which he gave some very clear indications that retirement was more likely than not (His infamous comment about not being sure if he wants the ball) In the interview that was supposed to be about Hasselbeack before the Super Bowl he really sounded like a guy who was retiring. Then, essentially saying things that sound like it's up to GB to make enough changes for it to be worth his time to come back got everything going before anyone had a chance to even think about the situation.
If Favre had simply kept a lower profile, this would not be what it is. He has mostly brought it on himself.
It really isn't hard to interpret Favre's quotes about who "they" have signed to realize "they" means TT. Who else would it be?? He once referenced the departures of Wahle and Rivera and referred to the replacements. Can you really argue that this was not a comment about specific players, namely Whittaker, Klemm and Wells? Again, who else would it be?
I'm not arguing my right to state an opinion. You started this whole thing with your opinion/interpretation of the situation, but then tried to discredit me for having given an opinion. You are the one out in left field.
BTW, why no response from you on the TT and MM quotes in which they have tried to take the pressure off Favre?Comment
-
By the way, my "point by points" were in specific response to remarks you made in preceding postings. I did it that way because you suggested that I was avoiding responding to you statements. I did it that way to make it clear I was avoiding nothing.Comment
-
"No, I was not responding to your posts. Don't flatter yourself. My initial post was in response to Harvey"
end quote
Who is pompous and arrogant now? I didn't realize you had a private party going there on this open forum. If you didn't notice, the topic was started by me expressing some thoughts about this topic. I was kind of part of things....I guess next time I should try to remember that some of you have your own private club going. I keep forgetting that and then I start thinking this is an open forum.
"BTW, why no response from you on the TT and MM quotes in which they have tried to take the pressure off Favre?"
end quote
I said I don't agree with you. Your quotes are meaningless. They show nothing. Through your view, I can see why you'd think a generic statement means something. To me, it's pushing the ball back into Favre's court. Also, your quotes are from the past few weeks. Show me quotes from them in January and February and March (not the last day in March) where they squash the story. You can't squash the story the last week in March and first week in April when it's at a fire pace. When you make statements to squash the story after you've let it become a beast then that's called damage control. You'd have to cut it off in Jan or Feb to make a difference, wouldnt' you? So, go back to the drawing board and show me how McCarthy and Thompson were squashing this story back in Jan and Feb. What I heard and saw from them were constant comments that pushed the ball back into Favre's court. At no time did I see them take it on their shoulders the way Sherman did for Favre in the past.
I can't figure out what's more intriguing to me about you...
It's either:
1. That you think we're in a pissing match of some sorts as opposed to some friendly debate
or
2. That everything you've accused me of doing to you on a personal basis (being rude...arrogant...pompous...a jerk) are things that you've proceeded to engage in yourself. You've even one-up'd it by referring to yourself in the third person at one point.
I know you say you're just proving a point to me or something but that in itself is a pompous stance, isnt' it? The idea that you're the designated person to put me in my place and you're going to try and utilize my format and language to show me how it feels? But I'm self bloated in my view of myself? If you want to put me in my place via the facts on an issue then by all means....you should. We all share that responsibility. When it comes to personality and such....nobody designated you the board personality police. If you don't like my writing and tone then don't read me. To decide that you're just the man to put me in my place is arrogant and pompous on your part. It appears that's part of your goal in our conversations.
I was just jawing with you about football. You became offended. I'm still not really fired up right now. If you've ever read me before you know this isn't fired up. I'm more perplexed by you. I don't get it. If you just want to have a knock-down, drag out debate/fight then I can do that. Right now, I'm just talking football with you. So...I guess what I'm trying to say is that this fight isn't a two-way fight right now. Calm down and have some fun with me. If it's not fun for you then maybe you should stop.Life is a puzzle. Every day you get up and pick up the pieces from the day before.
and
You can't keep idiots from being idiots. You can only hope to contain them.
and
Idiots DO exist. I've seen them.Comment
-
Gentlemen,
This was a good heated discussion. Up until the point that eyes start getting gouged out a good fight is always fun to watch.
Gureski, as I have told you in the past, I think you are above average in the information and argumentation department. I have had two disagreements with you--one was on Nall and the other regarding whether or not forum posters were trying to be stylish in believing that TT would trade down. In both cases I had begun to regret arguing with you because my mother taught me that it is more important to be kind than right and tempers seemed to be flaring.
It seems clearer to me now that you like a good posting brawl and nothing personal is meant in the exchange.
Unless, of course, I am wrong and you really do think I am a dick rather than simply posting like a dick. Apologies if that is the case.[QUOTE=George Cumby] ...every draft (Ted) would pick a solid, dependable, smart, athletically limited linebacker...the guy who isn't doing drugs, going to strip bars, knocking around his girlfriend or making any plays of game changing significance.Comment
-
Originally posted by gureski
I never said you weren't a part of things, couldn't repond. You said about me, and I quote, "You were responding to my points when we started this." I simply respondd that no, I did not start this by esponding to you. I responded to Harvey. If anything was "started" between us, it was started by you when you summarized my statement and called it "ridiculous". Thereafter I simply responded to your other comments about my statements.
You keep changing your requirements of me for supporting my position. First you asked:
"I ask you whether Thompson and McCarthy have done ANYTHING to squash the circus that has become the Favre retirement story? Can you bring up anything that they've done to quiet this story and downplay it and take the feet out from under the story?"
You asked for "ANYTHING", so I referenced the recent article. You changed your request to:
"I disagree with you and I'm calling on you to Stop going generic and talk about the specific comments in which Favre blames his decision on Thompson's actions and the specific comments or statements that you say McCarthy and Thompson have made time and time again... I missed that. Enlighten me. You name one article to support the statement of 'time and time and time again'. If there are so many, as you say, you should have an easy time finding them to quote."
In response to your request for more than one, I searched backward to March 31, identified 4 for you. Of course you again change your request, now demanding:
"So, go back to the drawing board and show me how McCarthy and Thompson were squashing this story back in Jan and Feb."
You can twist words all you want; however, I have given you what you asked for each time, so you simply changed what you consider a proper reply to your argument. After all, you intially asked for "ANYTHING". Can you actual say that I did not give that to you?
I do not think we are in "a pissing match". I thought we were now simply responding to each others.
How does one time referring to myself as Shamrockfan one-up anything? In that statement I also referred to you as "Gureski" It is simply a literary approach that is used quite often. It was a relatively short post (for us!), referring to "you" and "your" or "I" and "mine" throughout the entire post until the last sentence in which I referred to "Gureski" and "Shamrock" by stating,"I guess it is proper for Gureski to call Shamrockfans comment "ridiculous" but not for Shamrockfan to return the favor." I do not understand how that "one-up'd" anything.
Where do you get the idea that I think I am "designated" for anything. What I have done has nothing to do with arrogance or pomposity. I have simply used a common debate technique. Respond to the other with their approach, but in support of your own arguments. It seems to be working, because you do come across to me as frustrated with it. You have ceased making points, have provided little if anything in support of your own arguments and have twisted in the wind in your own defense.
By the way, I'm thoroughly enjoying myself. All I have done is responded to your exact statements time and time again, regardless of how you have changed your position.Comment
-
Oh, almost forgot! For your requst, Gureski, for earlier evidence of GB trying to dillute the Favre firestorm:
A writers opinion, Jan. 25, 2006:
"Thompson's low-key approach and McCarthy's coyness are understandable.
They don't want a media circus. They don't want to create an expectation among fans that a summit meeting is going to take place in Hattiesburg, where some huge announcement is going to be issued from a podium next to Favre's sit-down mower."
More efforts by GB to water-down the controversy, Jan. 30, 2006:
"The latest act in this ongoing production came when Favre, Green Bay's legendary quarterback, told ESPN on Sunday, "Right now if I had to pick, if someone said make a damn decision and live with it, I would say I'm not coming back."
Monday, Packers officials weren't planning for life after Favre. Instead, they reiterated that Favre didn't have to make a decision now. And most thought there was still at least a 50-50 chance the 36-year-old Favre would return.
"Let's not read too much into it," Green Bay President Bob Harlan said. "We'll just wait and see what happens."
'Said new coach Mike McCarthy: "I'm not into soap operas, daytime or nighttime. He's a Hall of Fame quarterback. He deserves the time to sit down with his family and make a decision. And that's where we are. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that."
Remember too that Favre actually started the controversy all the way back in November, long before the season ended, with his comment about not wanting to learn a new offense and seemingly putting his support behind Sherman. Supporting Sherman was a good thing in my opinion, but even hinting that his return to GB was somehow connected to Sherman guaranteed the start of an off-season media circus. It was not a smart interview by Favre. His off-season comments (which I referred to above) continually revive the controversy.Comment
Comment