RE: RE:The Packers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message


Jim Frenette -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/15/2008 11:13:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

Favre Suggests Packers Lied
Tue Jul 15, 2008

The Green Bay Press-Gazette reports Packers QB Brett Favre made his first public comments Monday since the team rejected his request for his release. He stated repeatedly that the team has told him he is no longer welcome in Green Bay. The roughly 11-minute segment, which appeared on the Fox News program "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren," did nothing to disprove the perception that there is a growing schism between the three-time NFL MVP and the team for which he starred the past 16 seasons. If anything, that gap opened wider as Favre suggested the team was lying publicly about its discussions with him, wants to prevent him from playing elsewhere — though he noted he "may not play anywhere" — and is patronizing him by suggesting publicly he could return but might not start. "I'm guilty of one thing, and that's retiring early, and I have an answer for that," said Favre, who has made few televised remarks since his tearful retirement speech on March 6. "I knew that I would have second thoughts, and I think HC Mike McCarthy has even made the comment that, 'You know, I knew Brett would go through this. I knew that he would have these second thoughts.' Well, I am. And so, I mean, you're telling me playing (in Green Bay) is not an option, but playing elsewhere, 'We just can't... we're trying to protect your legacy.' Well, thank you, I appreciate that. But apparently now, they want to protect my legacy by bringing me back and having me be a backup. Boy, that, that is really good." Favre's remarks were a direct answer to those made Saturday by McCarthy and GM Ted Thompson, who told the Green Bay Press-Gazette he was open to Favre's return but "the scenery has changed." While Favre repeatedly told Van Susteren he understood the team had to move on, he strongly suggested his decision to retire was impacted by the organization's insistence on having a decision early in the offseason. "Am I mad at them for that? No," he said. "And I think that's what needs to be cleared up, is that, hey, you wanted an answer? I gave you the honest answer at that time, as opposed to lying to you and saying, 'Yeah, oh yeah, I'll come back,' and giving you not what's expected of me, and that's 100 percent effort." Favre described in detail his recollection of a June 20 phone conversation with McCarthy, which was the impetus for the comeback talk that has made waves the past two weeks. Favre said he told McCarthy he'd gotten over the mental hurdle, begun working out at a local high school and was thinking about returning, then asked for McCarthy's thoughts. According to Favre, McCarthy said, "'We moved on. I had to tell the team something... You told me you were not 100 percent committed back, not only when you retired, but several weeks (after). We were talking about coming down there (in late March), and we've had that conversation, and you said you were not 100 percent committed.' I said, 'You're right. You're absolutely right.' And I said, 'But Mike' — and it was a good conversation, and we've always had good communication, the two of us — and I said, 'You're right. I totally agree. I was not 100 percent committed.' And I said, 'But you guys wanted an answer, in March, and I gave you the honest answer... Had I been able to wait until training camp, that would have been great.' He said, 'Well, why didn't you tell me that? We would have let you do it.'" But Favre said he did tell the team that initially and was pushed to make up his mind before the NFL draft, in which the Packers selected two quarterbacks, Brian Brohm and Matt Flynn, to back up new starting QB Aaron Rodgers.


[sm=eusa_boohoo.gif][sm=cry2.gif][sm=cry2.gif][sm=eusa_boohoo.gif]




Lynn G. -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/15/2008 11:26:13 AM)

I'm finding it fascinating to read a Packer forum to get their take on recent events.  Almost every single person there is completely and totally sick of Favre and blame him for what may very well be a huge distraction and locker room problem this season.

They're saying the things WE'VE been saying for years - that he's a prima donna, a diva, a media whore, has a massive ego, does not care about the team, etc. etc.

When many of us criticized Favre for throwing teammates like Mike McKenzie and Javon Walker under the bus for talking about their contract situations and not just getting into training camp - Packer fans were praising Favre for his attitude.  Now they're saying he's doing exactly what they hated about Walker and McKenzie.

The anger and hatred directed at Favre is amazing.   I've always known that they can turn on their players fast (Walker and McKenzie being two good examples), but I never thought they'd turn so fast against the god.

It's especially nice that non-Packer fans are being totally validated because we saw all of those qualities in him years ago.




Easy E -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/15/2008 1:16:34 PM)

Every player goes through the "when to retire" deal, and a ton of famous ones retire and then change their mind. Muhamed Ali, Michael Jordan, Gordie Howe, Bjorn Borg, Cris Carter, George Foreman, Ryan Sandberg, Roger Clemens... and tons have been pressured out early by their teams, like Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Emmitt Smith, Alan Page and Fran Tarkenton. Some go with a little fuss, some force trades, etc.

Favre isn't "blameless" for all that has happened, but he's hardly unique and hardly evil for it.

The truth is, the insane Packer fan base and the rabid Wisconsin media bear a large part in this whole situation. It's convienent for Viking/Favre haters to think Brett went out of his way to make sure the media knew where he stood on retirement, but the sconies are so starved for any Packer news that they fuel this. Their media was literlly asking him the day after they won the Super Bowl when he would retire.

Billie Jean King has talked about this, that athletes in their 30's think psychologically they should quit because everyone is telling them they should. Then they become less motivated and follow through, only to find that once they did, they missed it. Favre is not unique at all.




Easy E -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/15/2008 1:18:22 PM)

BTW - Brian Brohm is a better QB than Aarn Rodgers. The best thing in all of this is that the Favre brouhaha will force the Pack to stick with Rodgers longer than they would have.




Guest -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/16/2008 12:08:52 PM)

I am in no way a a Bronco fan, BUT I do think John Elway retired the "right way". 

He didn't for years beforehand state he was "thinking" about retiring only to keep returning like Favre.

I believe he was 38-years old when he retired and with tears in eyes said his goodbyes.

Retiring is not easy this is for sure, especially if you were successful in a sport since you were a kid. However, it has been LONG TIME for this packer baby to stop the attention grabbing and move on with his wife (who had cancer) and his kids to a new direction.

Play credits...




Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/16/2008 12:14:14 PM)

Elway had other business ventures and other activities to occupy himself.  Plus he went out winning a title (second in a row).  Favre didn't win any title last year...and I don't think he has much else going on...he gets a little bored and, well, decides he wants to play more since he doesn't have anything else to do.




Easy E -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/16/2008 12:32:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Purpleporter

I am in no way a a Bronco fan, BUT I do think John Elway retired the "right way". 

He didn't for years beforehand state he was "thinking" about retiring only to keep returning like Favre.

I believe he was 38-years old when he retired and with tears in eyes said his goodbyes.

Retiring is not easy this is for sure, especially if you were successful in a sport since you were a kid. However, it has been LONG TIME for this packer baby to stop the attention grabbing and move on with his wife (who had cancer) and his kids to a new direction.

Play credits...


Actually, Elway's retirement was close to Favre's. He WAS asked about retiring all the time, and a lot of people pressured him to retire in those years right before they won the Super Bowl. Bronco fans weren't as needy and certifiable as Packer fans, but there was still a lot of that hand wringing over him going on.

He just got lucky in that Terrell Davis came along, and won him a couple rings. That is the reason he got the story book ending, not because he planned it out the right way.

And how ironic is it, that the guy who started his career in about the most "wrong" way possible, holding a team hostage, refusing to report to them and forcing them to trade, all before it was popular, is the poster boy for the "right" way to retire.




Duane Sampson -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/16/2008 1:24:31 PM)

Favre Reveals Widening Rift with Packers
Wed Jul 16, 2008

The Green Bay Press-Gazette reports during the second part of his interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, which aired Tuesday night, Packers QB Brett Favre more starkly revealed the widening rift between him and team management since he had become more adamant in the past three to four weeks that he wants to return for another season after announcing his retirement in March. The growing animosity will make it especially hard for Favre to return to the team. Favre strongly suggested he's lost trust in his personal relationship with GM Ted Thompson, though Favre never mentioned Thompson by name. "How am I supposed to trust that they're working on a trade after the things that have been told to me in the past?" Favre said. "Teams may have called and said, 'We're interested.' Well, you know, they may never tell us. The longer this goes on, the less likely I am to play with someone because of the time factor." If Favre petitions and receives reinstatement, the next move would be the Packers'. They'd have to add him to their 80-man roster or release him. Thompson has said in recent public statements that he's ruled out releasing Favre, so the presumption is he'd put Favre on the roster. The Packers' players are required to report for camp on July 27 and begin practicing July 28. Thompson and HC Mike McCarthy would have to decide whether to leave the door open to him attending training camp, and the potential problems that could cause, or trade him before camp begins. Favre said a flat "no" when asked if he would return as the Packers' backup quarterback and dismissed the idea of competing with QB Aaron Rodgers for the starting job with the one-word answer, "Why?. They've been preaching about, 'We want to protect Brett's legacy' — we both know what that's about," Favre said. "How does that protect my legacy if I'm a backup? 'Brett, we'll welcome you back, we'll pay you $12 million, but you have to hold a clipboard and ball cap.' That's probably better for them as opposed to letting me go somewhere and me coming back (and beating the Packers), then their legacy, the management, could be in jeopardy. Let me worry about that. You don't worry about my legacy. It's a bunch of bull, it's all it is." Favre also said he isn't inclined to report for training camp just to see what the Packers would do, or to force the team's hand by creating a disturbance because of his presence. "It's tempting, because everyone's saying call their bluff or whatever," he said. "I think (training camp) is going to be a circus in itself already, whether I go there or whatever. I like my teammates, I had a lot of fun with them. I've talked to numerous guys throughout this whole ordeal. I wish them the best, I really do. I hold nothing against those guys. We had a lot of fun together. It was an amazing year last year. I don't want to make it any worse than it is. I've always been a Packer, always will be a Packer. Will I play somewhere else? Remains to be seen. But I don't want to go back there just to stick it to 'em."




Duane Sampson -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/18/2008 12:33:09 PM)

PACKERS SEASON TICKET HOLDERS GET A SURPRISE

Posted by Mike Florio on July 18, 2008, 10:06 a.m.

A reader who holds season tickets to the Packers games tells us that he recently received his envelope full of rectangular pieces of glossy cardboard that will allow him to enter Lambeau Field on eight meaningful occasions after September 1, and on two meaningless occasions prior thereto.

Per the reader, the ticket to the Week One home game against the Vikings bears the image of — you guessed it — the guy whose jersey is still scheduled to be retired that night.


Here it is.  Enjoy.


[image]http://www.profootballtalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/weekonetix.JPG[/image]




Tim Cady -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/22/2008 10:38:53 AM)

NFL Total Access, had a round table talk about Farve situation. Mooch, said that Brett and Ted have a relationship and it is more than people have been led to believe the last couple of weeks. Mooch also said that why brett was dissappointed about not getting Moss and he wanted Mooch instead of McCarthy, Mooch said it is was never about me(mooch)Ted Thompson knew I was done coachings, brett didn't but Ted did. So that is nothing for Brett to use. He said that there is no way that Brett will be playing for the Vikings, although the would be the perfect team for him to win a couple more Super Bowls. Mooch said that Brett will be playing for the Packers and he would like to see him win another Super Bowl with them........I am sure there was more but I was on the phone at the time. I think NFL.com NFL Network, streams these segments so it is probably available.




Duane Sampson -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/22/2008 7:41:01 PM)

    Packers Exploring Trade Possibilities for Favre
    Tue Jul 22, 2008


    NFL Network's Adam Schefter reports the Green Bay Packers have spoken to multiple NFL teams to see what they would be willing to offer for QB Brett Favre. It is unknown exactly how many teams the Packers have spoken with, but what is known is that they have not relegated their exploratory calls strictly to AFC teams. Green Bay has called at least one team in the NFC as well. One NFL executive speculated that the Packers simply are doing their dillegence and fielding any of the potential offers before deciding whether it would be worth trading Favre, who does want to play in 2008. This hardly means the Packers will wind up dealing Favre. But at least they are debating the merits of it, reaching out to teams to inquire what Favre would bring in return. By contacting other teams and fielding any potential offers, the Packers then can make a more informed decision about whether or not it is worth trading Favre. Though it could happen, it still is hard to envision -– the Packers trading Favre. Yet if Favre opted to play, and if the Packers were willing to trade him -– and those are two big ifs -- the NFC team that would make the most sense is the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.




Jim Frenette -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/27/2008 9:23:35 AM)

So ESPN is at the Packers camp reporting that Favre hasn't even sent the papers in yet. If he wants to play so bad, why not have that part taken care of already. He can't report to camp or traded until he does so. Sounds like he just wants the attention on him. I guess Maden spoiled him and now he misses it.




Lynn G. -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/27/2008 10:44:06 AM)

Bingo Jim.




Todd M -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/27/2008 11:16:43 AM)

I read that they asked for for a couple of days to "work things out".


I think what is going to happen, sorry to say it, is that the Packers are going to get better compensation, from us, than the market would dictate based on the way the situation has worked itself out. Via the tampering charge.

Instead of a 4th or 5th from say Tampa or NYJ they'll get a 2nd and say they did their best "for the team" even if it meant trading to a rival.

All because Favre wants to win another Super Bowl and feels we're the best fit.

Can't hate the man for that.




Lynn G. -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/27/2008 11:34:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd Mallett

All because Favre wants to win another Super Bowl and feels we're the best fit.

Can't hate the man for that.


No, but it's okay because there are a zillion other reasons to hate the man.  [:D]




Jim Frenette -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/29/2008 11:17:52 AM)

Ryan Grant was a practice squad player at the start of the season for the Giants and ended up in GB. Now he thinks he is worth a multi year, big pay day contract? Who is he kidding. The only reason he got the yards he did last year was because other teams were trying to keep Favre from beating them. He needs a dose of reality




Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/29/2008 11:22:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim Frenette

Ryan Grant was a practice squad player at the start of the season for the Giants and ended up in GB. Now he thinks he is worth a multi year, big pay day contract? Who is he kidding. The only reason he got the yards he did last year was because other teams were trying to keep Favre from beating them. He needs a dose of reality


He is trying to cash in on a great season...I don't blame him for that.

But he isn't being realistic.  One good season does not make you a superstar.  There have been way too many one year wonders in sports.  And Grant needs to back up last season's performance with a similar one this year to earn that money.




Jim Frenette -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/29/2008 11:39:54 AM)

I don't blame him for wanting the money, but the way he is going about it. Holding out with only 1 year of experience




Tim Cady -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/30/2008 8:43:11 AM)

I am siding with Ryan Grant on this one. Normally I would agree with you regarding the one year thing, but we are talking about running back. This position is important and has the shortest shelf life, depending on how much they are used. Look at Shaun Alexander and Preist Holmes. They got reward for years of service contract extentions and both turned out to be poor investments by their teams. I don't think teams will make this mistake again. Eddie George got a raw deal in Tennessee after they over used him for 5 years, but the Titans made the right call, he was done.

So as a running back you better get your money when you are on top of your game. Ryan Grant proved himself last year and he should be paid like the starter he is.




Easy E -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/30/2008 10:35:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim Frenette

I don't blame him for wanting the money, but the way he is going about it. Holding out with only 1 year of experience


Technically, he's not holding out. He has refused to sign a contract. The Packers wouldn't let him report to camp until he is under contract. He is doing the one and only thing that is available for him, if he doesn't want to sign a horrible contract, and that is attempt to negotiate in good faith.




Lars -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/30/2008 12:40:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim Frenette

Ryan Grant was a practice squad player at the start of the season for the Giants and ended up in GB. Now he thinks he is worth a multi year, big pay day contract? Who is he kidding. The only reason he got the yards he did last year was because other teams were trying to keep Favre from beating them. He needs a dose of reality


Yeah.  And look what Grant did in his last game.  Jack shit.




Easy E -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/30/2008 1:38:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lars

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim Frenette

Ryan Grant was a practice squad player at the start of the season for the Giants and ended up in GB. Now he thinks he is worth a multi year, big pay day contract? Who is he kidding. The only reason he got the yards he did last year was because other teams were trying to keep Favre from beating them. He needs a dose of reality


Yeah.  And look what Grant did in his last game.  Jack shit.


Having a bad "last" game means about as much for Grant as it does for AD. Jack.

I don't think the kid should get this fabulous deal. I'm just wondering, for all the people bagging on him, what advice would you guys give him?

Sign the one year tender at $350k, or the 6 year deal at about a million a season? As, you know, his agent, not a guy who hates the Packers and hope he gets injured next year.




Tim Cady -> RE: RE:The Packers (7/30/2008 2:01:57 PM)

I found this article on running backs today about an hour after I posted my reasons for Grant getting paid.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=439031





Lynn G. -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/13/2008 4:48:27 PM)

I just had this thought pop into my head.

I'll bet the reason that the Packers haven't picked up a back-up quarterback (with any NFL experience) is that they're anticipating that the Vikings will be releasing Brooks Bollinger soon.   They'll swoop him up for their back-up spot and also have him give all the inside Viking information to them.

Crud.  I hope I'm wrong.




David Levine -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/13/2008 4:51:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.
They'll swoop him up for their back-up spot and also have him give all the inside Viking information to them.


But isn't the only play Brooks knows the one where you drop back, hold the ball too long and get sacked?




Page: <<   < prev  56 57 [58] 59 60   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode