Peter King writes about Favre playing in 08

[retailguy]

I don't think TT cares one way or the other if Favre plays or not...

He's looking at the long term, and the long term isn't Favre. Does that mean he wants him gone??? I don't think so, but again, I don't think he cares either way.

My preference would be for Favre to play another couple of years, and set records that will be next to impossible to catch.

Favre, or no Favre, the Packers aren't going anywhere anyway.

Agree.

In Ted's world, ANYONE, is replaceable, even a HOF QB. Anyone, except Ted, that is. :P

[RashanGary]

He's looking at the long term, and the long term isn't Favre. Does that mean he wants him gone??? I don't think so, but again, I don't think he cares either way.

He says he takes each decision and considers the whole term of the players projected impact. That includes now and in the future.

If long term as you use it means "he doens't ignore the long term" than I agree. If long term means "he only thinks long term" than I disagree. I think guys like Woodson, Pickett, Kampman, Barnett, et al are guys who help more now than in 5 years. Thompson said he considers the players whole projected stay, so yeah, the long term is considered in that. I don't know why including long term ramifications into deicision making is such a hard thing for people to latch on to. It seems like the common sense approach if you ask me. It's not like the NFL shuts down after Brett retires. It didn't when Montana retired, it surely won't when Brett does.

[packers11]

It's not like the NFL shuts down after Brett retires.

Its not?!?! ... We are talking about "LORD FAVRE" of course its going to shut down! ...

[Cheesehead4]

Favre could run over 100 newborn chicks in his John Deere and Peter King would still spin it positively. Must take with a grain of salt.

[Scott Campbell]

If long term as you use it means "he doens't ignore the long term" than I agree. If long term means "he only thinks long term" than I disagree.

Well put. The whole post was well put.