Options
Can't Favre just go away?
jdip9
Posts: 1,895 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
He's been mediocre at best the last 3 years....last year he was good, but you knew he was going to throw a key pick at some point in that Giants game...I'm glad Green Bay is not rolling out the red carpet for him.
0
Comments
<< <i>He's been mediocre at best the last 3 years....last year he was good, but you knew he was going to throw a key pick at some point in that Giants game...I'm glad Green Bay is not rolling out the red carpet for him. >>
They really can't -- they will ruin Aaron Rodgers career if they do. I am sure the 49ers were glad they did not hang on to Joe Montana.
all i can is for one of the rare times in my life i was 100% right.
as long as the packers don't give in they are my new favorite NFL team.
for those who say he has the righthe does--to hold a clipboard.
for those who say roger clemens did the same thing. he did but he only pitched once every 5 days and never pitched a whole game. twenty six inning starts are not the same as taking 99% of the snaps.
brett favre is a complete tool. i knew it years ago, now the world knows.
so to all the packers fan who are left-i'm coming to join you.
<< <i>perkdog, I think realistically he's on their roster for a trade. He clearly has value on the open market and I doubt they want to pay him $10 million to be a backup. Favre wants to be released so he can pick and choose where he goes without any consideration, once again, for the Packers. >>
That's exactly it. The Jets would be a perfect fit.
retire, and then they realize that working is better then retirement. Why is Brett Favre different then millions of others ?
<< <i>What am I missing here ? Millions of people around the world say they are retiring, and then go back to work. They actually do
retire, and then they realize that working is better then retirement. Why is Brett Favre different then millions of others ? >>
I'm neither a Packer fan nor a Favre fan, but it is different in some fundamental way. I know most professional athletes are basically just mercenaries and most owners would gladly outsource their teams to Mumbai if it meant increased revenue, but the relationship between the Packers and the community is different in some Norman Rockwell kinda way. If Favre were doing this after a distinguished career with Al Davis' Raiders, nobody would care. To do it after a career with the last vestige of the small-town NFL smacks of betrayal or some other tragic character flaw.
Can't say I'm surprised, though.
<< <i>
Lastly, his behavior is years' past being tiresome. Maybe, you and others might not be but obviously their are TONS of fans who are just burned out on the whole situation and would like to see it go away. Let's remember, Favre brought ALL of this on himself. He declared his serious intent to consider retirement back when he was like 32. And EVERY year since has dangled it in the offseason so I would disagree with anyone who says that this is a media fueled situation. It's the same with anything in life. NOBODY appreciates a flip flopper. Especially one who takes it to such unprecedented realms. >>
I still don't get it. Where I work, lots of us who have been working for 30+ years talk about when we're going to retire all the time.
It's just that we don't have a microphone and a newspaper and ESPN in front of us when we have these talks.
<< <i> <<What am I missing here ? Millions of people around the world say they are retiring, and then go back to work. They actually do>>
That is not a very good analogy for several reasons. Try retiring from your company, have them fill the position, and tell them a few months later, "Oops, I change my mind, I'd like my job back." Good luck with that.
You're trying to analyze the situation of an entrepreneur who might "retire" and then go back to work but it's not at all the same situation with football players. Favre retired and now the Packers have already made tons of decisions and moved the team along without him involved and they're just suppose to unravel all of that because he changed his mind?
Then you might ask, "Why not just give him his release?" but you can't risk the guy going to a divisional rival, or really any other team without compensation. He is THEIR asset. Make no mistake about that. This is a business and the Packers have no obligation to give up their asset without just compensation. If Favre wants to pay them millions of dollars to buy out of his contract, then I'm sure they might listen. Otherwise, they'll need at least a player or two. If they get no nibbles before the season starts, they may very well consider releasing him to escape the $10 million liability, which would be their right to do so. But Favre wants to be able to make all of the decisions that suits him and damn the Packers or their fans. Typical "It's all about what I want" attitude that he perennially displays.
Lastly, his behavior is years' past being tiresome. Maybe, you and others might not be but obviously their are TONS of fans who are just burned out on the whole situation and would like to see it go away. Let's remember, Favre brought ALL of this on himself. He declared his serious intent to consider retirement back when he was like 32. And EVERY year since has dangled it in the offseason so I would disagree with anyone who says that this is a media fueled situation. It's the same with anything in life. NOBODY appreciates a flip flopper. Especially one who takes it to such unprecedented realms. >>
Very well said, I wonder if Favre thought the Pack would release him as sort of a nice gesture for all the things he brought to Green Bay?
NOT! Bottom line I like the guy but its upsetting to see him pull this, there is no doubt it will tarnish him.
Green Bay is in a virtual no win situation.
<< <i>0Green Bay is in a virtual no win situation. >>
I think they are in a certain win win situation, they are holding all the cards right now, they have a retired Favre on their hands and have no need to worry about him playing for a another team without compensation.
Well that one poster got his wish...we're talking about Football!
<< <i>Well that one poster got his wish...we're talking about Football! >>
it would also be quite unlikely. What top contender is going to dump their starter for Favre?
quietly as I can. Brett Favre on the other hand has made this super big deal about it. I guess you all would be happier if guys
just went quietly like the way I plan on doing it. I can respect that. To me though, it's no big deal. Other players like Roger Clemens
and Michael Jordan have in a smaller way talked about retirement, retired, and then came back again. I guess Brett has done it
a little more extreme. Still doesn't bother me. It's an issue between Brett and his employer.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
MILLIONS of Americans would love to see him in a Jets uniform.
Bloomberg should step-in and try to help solve the problem. NYC
would be the major beneficiary.
yes it would especially since he has not done it ten seasons and couldn't close the deal AT HOME last year when the giants kicker kept giving him chance after chance.
Other players like Roger Clemens and Michael Jordan have in a smaller way talked about retirement, retired, and then came back again.
yes they did and as annoying as that was they still don't affect a team in the same manner that a quarterback does. jordan played half a game and clemens threw 150 innings a season.
i am just wondering where all of the favre worshipping lemmings that troll this board are right now. they are errily silent hanging out in their spider holes. i do see from espn news that some people in dairy land have finally seen the light and are figuring that he is an egomaniac. reports have seed that huckleberry has said that he was just "stirring it up." that's nice. just what a team wants right before training camp. some has been who cries like a little girl at a press conference in march coming back to disrupt things now. COME ON FAVRE LOVERS, DEFEND YOUR BOY!
go away favre once and for all. you are in the same category as ricky williams and barry bonds as far as being a team player. he makes terrell owens and randy moss look like class acts.
<< <i>overated >>
Here's what should happen.........let him come back and play. You get a winning quarterback, happy fans and a chance to go somewhere this season. Sure, Aaron Rodgers will be mad and want to be traded, but that's okay because his value will be up and you can groom Brian Brohm at the same time. Brohm is probably a better quarterback than Rodgers anyway.
If I had to bet right now.......Favre will be the starter, Rodgers will be traded to Minnesota and Brohm will be the Green Bay backup!
<< <i>The Packer organization looks like fools here. They know the fans want Favre back, but they want to show their loyalty to Aaron Rodgers. They are afraid to let him go, for fear it will come back to haunt them when Rodgers gets injured after a few games and they have nobody to go to. They also don't want Favre to go somewhere and win and make them look like idiots.
Here's what should happen.........let him come back and play. You get a winning quarterback, happy fans and a chance to go somewhere this season. Sure, Aaron Rodgers will be mad and want to be traded, but that's okay because his value will be up and you can groom Brian Brohm at the same time. Brohm is probably a better quarterback than Rodgers anyway.
If I had to bet right now.......Favre will be the starter, Rodgers will be traded to Minnesota and Brohm will be the Green Bay backup! >>
I think you're right. Except I think Favre and Rodgers should have to battle it out in training camp along with Brohm.
<< <i>"That's exactly it. The Jets would be a perfect fit."
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
MILLIONS of Americans would love to see him in a Jets uniform.
Bloomberg should step-in and try to help solve the problem. NYC
would be the major beneficiary. >>
This is way off-topic but Brett Favre was the name on the Jets draft card for their first pick in 1991. The jets didn't have a #1 and Ron Wolf had him as their pick in #2. The Falcons picked Favre with #33 and the Jets then took the consolation prize of Browning Nagle with #34.
<< <i>
<< <i>0Green Bay is in a virtual no win situation. >>
I think they are in a certain win win situation, they are holding all the cards right now, they have a retired Favre on their hands and have no need to worry about him playing for a another team without compensation. >>
If he applies to the NFL for reinstatement, the Packers have to add him to the roster or release him.
It's a shame but the Packers history has had some bad goodbyes -
Lambeau left under bad circumstances and went on to coach the cardinals and the redskins
Lombardi retired and then left to coach the redskins
In the landscape of NFL quarterbacking, he has positive value as a starter. I would be glad to see him come back, and take the job of another QB who is just simply bad...and there are a lot of bad quarterbacks starting for NFL teams. I don't want to watch bad players.
Is he hurting the Packers? No. He is still better than A. Rodgers, so the Packers have the opportunity to upgrade their QB position. If they choose not to upgrade their QB position, then they can trade him for younger players, save money on the cap, and then upgrade elsewhere.
Who cares if his desires are posted in the media...the NFL is entertainment. It is a soap opera anyway, so why is anyone surprised from this aspect of the soap opera?
Let Matt Ryan sit for a year and prepare himself. Aaron Rodgers can be the starter in Green Bay, but they'll need an experienced backup. Well, Atlanta won't need Joey Harrington anymore. He knows the NFC North. Throw in a draft pick or whatever else and you've got yourself a deal.
The Falcons play games 4 NFC North games, 6 NFC South games and then games against (3-13 St. Louis) (4-12 Oakland) (4-12 Kansas City). There could be enough wins in there to make the playoffs!
<< <i>
<< <i>
Lastly, his behavior is years' past being tiresome. Maybe, you and others might not be but obviously their are TONS of fans who are just burned out on the whole situation and would like to see it go away. Let's remember, Favre brought ALL of this on himself. He declared his serious intent to consider retirement back when he was like 32. And EVERY year since has dangled it in the offseason so I would disagree with anyone who says that this is a media fueled situation. It's the same with anything in life. NOBODY appreciates a flip flopper. Especially one who takes it to such unprecedented realms. >>
I still don't get it. Where I work, lots of us who have been working for 30+ years talk about when we're going to retire all the time.
It's just that we don't have a microphone and a newspaper and ESPN in front of us when we have these talks. >>
I completely agree. This is only an issue in a country where the world essentially stops rotating on its axis if Derek Jeter goes 0 for 5, or if Ladanian Tomlinson tweaks a muscle in the arch of his right foot. In a rational country where sports were kept in perspective (and this would be a hypothetical nation, of course, since no country that I know of is capable of this) any discussion surrounding a man wanting to spend his autumn months playing tackle football would never include the words 'classless', 'narcissistic', or 'betrayal'.
<< <i><<In a rational country where sports were kept in perspective (and this would be a hypothetical nation, of course, since no country that I know of is capable of this) any discussion surrounding a man wanting to spend his autumn months playing tackle football would never include the words 'classless', 'narcissistic', or 'betrayal'.>>
I would disagree with this wholeheartedly. This is NOT at all about how sports fans are judging Brett Favre. That is just the aftermath to be expected and as far as this country being "rational", that is a human being thing and not an American thing. I personally couldn't care less what Favre does.
What this is about, at least from my perspective, is a fundamental lack on Favre's part of considering other people's feelings, or their future planning. It was ALL right their in the comments by Ted Thompson who talked about the gut wrenching that this puts the organization through (yet AGAIN), and the sensitivities that are involved here. This is why I personally use words like 'narcissistic' because I think this we're watching a classic example of what the term means. It doesn't all that often, even in football. Kobe and Bonds are the only others that have this rampant problem as far as I can tell.
Also, I would add that the Jordan thing or the Clemens thing is not all close to being a parallel with this situation. I could replay out history as I remember in those situations but will just state that for the most part, those guys did what they said they were going to do, and didn't dangle retirement year after year and call press conferences to talk about it. As for coming out of retirement, they did it under circumstances where no feathers were being ruffled, at least for the most part. >>
What? This is 100% about how fans are judging Brett Favre. What else would it be about? And as far as Favre not considering other's feelings, or their future planning, note that the Packers can go ahead and release him at any time they so choose (which would allow them to go ahead with their future plans).
I'm not even sure what to say about Favre not being considerate of other's feelings. For one, he shouldn't give a flying fondue about the 'fan's feelings', since any fan who has a strong emotional reaction to where a player decided to ply his trade should step away from the TV and get a little perspective. And he certainly owes the Packers nothing, since that team benefited from their mutual association over the last 16-17 years as much as-- if not more than-- Favre did.
<< <i><<
What? This is 100% about how fans are judging Brett Favre. What else would it be about? And as far as Favre not considering other's feelings, or their future planning, note that the Packers can go ahead and release him at any time they so choose (which would allow them to go ahead with their future plans).
I'm not even sure what to say about Favre not being considerate of other's feelings. For one, he shouldn't give a flying fondue about the 'fan's feelings', since any fan who has a strong emotional reaction to where a player decided to ply his trade should step away from the TV and get a little perspective. And he certainly owes the Packers nothing, since that team benefited from their mutual association over the last 16-17 years as much as-- if not more than-- Favre did.>>
People get judged in all walks of life for their actions and behaviors, not just football or sports. The reason that stories like this and Joe Torre's contract last year draw so much reaction is that people can relate to those situation in their own walks of life. And as far as I'm concerned, most people that I've worked with would be WAY turned off by Favre's behavior over the past several years if that was a coworker behaving that way. In fact, such people wouldn't even have a job in most instances, even prior to the official retirement this year.
If you had a coworker you worked with closely who behaved like that, I have a strong suspicion that you would think the guy was a total putz and lose all respect for him. If not, then those are your standards, not mine. I would be offended by such behavior, and would personally do everything I could to not behave in such a manner. >>
It depends on the goal. If the co-worker was one of the five or ten best people to ever hold their respective position, and it also happened to be the most important position within the organization, then I would likely just write off their flakiness as one of those personality quirks that I have to deal with. Nobody's perfect, and Brett Favre sure isn't an exception to that. Unlike maybe someone like yourself, the guy obviously has a hard time making decisions. That's a personality glitch, to be sure, and I'm sure the 'Packer Family' would rather he didn't have this trait, but what can you do? It's the way he is. And, like I said, this is really a non issue. If the Packers don't want him they can release or trade him. If they do want him they can bring him back.
But it's silly to use language like 'holding the Packers hostage' when discussing the Favre situation (I'm not referring to you directly here, just to the discussions I have heard on this subject on TV and on the radio). If I'm dating a hot chick, and she dumps me, and then asks me to take her back after I hook up with another hot chick, I'm surely not being held hostage by the first girl. I simply have a decision to make, and it's only a tough decision if I choose to make it so. The same with the Packers; this decision is only a difficult as they want to make it.
<< <i>Boopotts, first off, on a simplistic level (and I'm not at all calling you simple), your analysis is pretty much spot on. It's obvious that its rooted in your perspective on life and it's a perspective that in many ways I envy. But human beings are very complex creatures and MOST of them don't have the laid back attitude on these types of matters that you do. Add to that the fact that organizations and cultures within organizations have a life of their own and it complicates the matter even further. Undecisiveness may be a personality glitch, but it is one that most people don't tolerate well at all, especially when we see such an extreme example of it. Most people would not appreciate this in the President, or in the president of a company.
But to respond to your hypothetical example of the two hot chicks, the problem is that someone is going to wind up hurt. And people usually don't like to be put in a situation where that has to happen. If you dump your current hot chick (Rodgers), then she is going to be hurt and why would you want to do that to her when she's done nothing wrong to deserve it. She may not be as hot as your ex right now but she's a lot younger and in 2-3 years, is probably going to be a LOT hotter than your ex. Your ex (Favre) would also be hurt, but there is a reason why you might not want to rekindle your relationship with her, because she dumped you (the Packers organization), and you've moved on. But someone's going to get hurt. And furthermore, you are going to feel bad about it one way or the other.
Favre has put all that in motion when he had EVERY opportunity to not do so. He should have just stayed unretired and only retired like now if if he felt that way. It happens all the time and organizations seem to tolerate it reasonably well. Even if indecision is a trait that Favre can't help but possess, he has a second flaw of narcissism that keeps him from being quiet throughout his internal struggles. >>
This is all well and good, but it still doesn't represent an argument for why Brett Favre should stay retired if he's decided he still wants to play football. Again, the Packers can either release him or trade him if they don't want him. If they do want him they can tell Aaron Rodgers to ride the pine for another year. There's no law that says if Favre comes back he must start for the Green Bay Packers, so the Packers' hand is in no way forced by Favre's actions. As I insinuated earlier, the Packers simply have a personell decision to make.
In fact, you could argue that Favre's desire to come back actually helps the Packers, since they now have the choice of either a) staring a quarterback who is almost unquestionably superior to Aaron Rodgers for the 2008 season, or b) getting a player in trade that they would not have otherwise had the opportunity to acquire.
<< <i>Looks like the Packers are not fooling around this time, the dont look like they are going to grant his release but welcomed him back to the team to serve as a backup. I highly doubt Favre would even consider this, hopefully it wont get too ugly here but I respect the Packers for doing the right thing as far as Rodgers goes. >>
You mean just like the Yankees "welcomed back" Joe Torre for another year if he took a big pay cut? And now the Packers will "welcome back" Mr. Farve if he takes a demotion? Give me a break. Seriously if they're going to fire someone, don't be passive-aggressive about it.
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
<< <i><<This is all well and good, but it still doesn't represent an argument for why Brett Favre should stay retired if he's decided he still wants to play football. Again, the Packers can either release him or trade him if they don't want him. If they do want him they can tell Aaron Rodgers to ride the pine for another year. There's no law that says if Favre comes back he must start for the Green Bay Packers, so the Packers' hand is in no way forced by Favre's actions. As I insinuated earlier, the Packers simply have a personell decision to make.>>
I actually don't mind all that much that Favre wants to play again. That part I can respect. It's just the way its come about the past several months, on top of the past several years that make it, as I already stated, tiresome.
<<In fact, you could argue that Favre's desire to come back actually helps the Packers, since they now have the choice of either a) staring a quarterback who is almost unquestionably superior to Aaron Rodgers for the 2008 season, or b) getting a player in trade that they would not have otherwise had the opportunity to acquire. >>
I would have to disagree with the conclusion on this. While I do agree with your assessment, I think the negatives far outweigh the positives. First, no matter what happens, there are only two very unlikely scenarios under which this will help the Packers and their fans. And that is, (1) they pick Favre and he wins the SB, (2) they pick Rodgers and he wins the SB. Everything else has varying degrees of ongoing problems with it, which include, but are not limited, to one or more of the following:
1) If Rodgers is chosen, it just puts more unnecessary pressure on a young QB that has never started.
2) If Rodgers is chosen, unless you have the Packers win the SB, you'll have players and coaches all the way to next year question whether that was the right call, ultimately fragmenting team chemistry. Remember, Favre has A LOT of supporters on the team, including coaching staff.
3) If Favre is chosen, and he stinks or is not very good (which I would bet if I could), then its a question of the team and fans ultimately blaming the organization for setting back the progress by a full year.
4) If Favre is chosen, stinks it up, and does not retire with one year left on his contract, then what do you do. You have $20 million that you'll ultimately throw away just on him and the clubhouse and organization would become a total circus show.
5) If Rodgers is chosen, and they make it to the playoffs, and Favre plays well on another team, then amplify #2 and you have even a bigger problem on your hands even if it still would have been unlikely that Favre could have won a SB.
6) If Rodgers is chosen, and Favre wins a SB with another team, then sh!t will really hit the fan in Packer land.
I could go on and on but my point is that Favre's narcissistic behavior (yeah I said it again), likely has repercussions for a long time to come beyond just making some binary decision today. >>
Screw the fans. They aren't relevant. In sports like baseball, where fan attendance represents a large portion of team revenue, I think the GM does have to consider the fan reaction to any given move. That is, if given a choice between making move 'A' and move 'B', where 'A' probably has a slightly higher expected value for the team going forward BUT it also has a greater chance of backfiring, you may want to go with plan 'B'. But GM's in the NFL don't have to worry about this. Nobody is going to quit going to Packer games just because they're upset with the way the GM handled the Favre situation, and even if a chunk of them did boycott the games the Packers' revenue stream is still tied in large part to the league TV deal, which is going to remain constant no matter what happens with Favre.
The GM's job here is to a) determine which of these QB's gives them a better chance to win now, and b) if the answer is 'Favre', then to try and gauge how badly bringing him back will compromise the team's chances in the future. If this 'compromising effect' outweighs the 'winning now' effect then trade him (or release him). If not, bring him back. But whatever they choose, recognize that Favre's decision to return to the NFL gives the Packers brass MORE options-- not fewer options-- and takes none of the current options off of the table. In other words, his proposed return is a 100%, bona fide winning situation for the Packers. I just can't see an alternative argument to this. Consider:
1) The fans do not matter here, so we can discount whatever PR implications Favre's return (or trade) may have for the team.
2) Favre is an asset-- either as a player to be traded, or as a quarterback on the Packer's roster.
3) Favre's return to the NFL does not, in any way, compromise the Packer's ability to start Rodgers this year.
With all this said, what's the fuss? I, like you, have also grown a little tired of Favre's routine, but hey-- I'm don't know the guy, or his family, and I have no interest whatsoever in his career. In fact, it's not so much that I'm sick of Favre's waffling so much as I'm sick of watching Chris Mortensen make a career out of humping this story until it bleeds.
<< <i>
Screw the fans. They aren't relevant. . >>
Many of these fans are stockholders in the team. The Packers are not a privately owned company. Stockholders hold
shares in the Packers. Therefore, the board/stockholders should have a say as well.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Screw the fans. They aren't relevant. . >>
Many of these fans are stockholders in the team. The Packers are not a privately owned company. Stockholders hold
shares in the Packers. Therefore, the board/stockholders should have a say as well. >>
I purchased a share when they had a dilluted public offering 8 or so years ago.
Paraphrased: You have no voice, control, seats, or anything. We will spend your +/- $250 on a renovated stadium, here's a piece of paper, and thank you, please drive thru.
Wow, I may have given him too much credit in my OP calling him mediocre.
<< <i>
yes they did and as annoying as that was they still don't affect a team in the same manner that a quarterback does. jordan played half a game and clemens threw 150 innings a season.
>>
Jordan arguably played a bigger role than Favre because he played the majority of the game on offense and defense and Favre only played literally half the game.
John
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
<< <i>http://www.bringbackbrettfavre.com/ >>
+1 for a Stown sighting. Havnt seen ya around much B, good to see ya buddy
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks like the Packers are not fooling around this time, the dont look like they are going to grant his release but welcomed him back to the team to serve as a backup. I highly doubt Favre would even consider this, hopefully it wont get too ugly here but I respect the Packers for doing the right thing as far as Rodgers goes. >>
You mean just like the Yankees "welcomed back" Joe Torre for another year if he took a big pay cut? And now the Packers will "welcome back" Mr. Farve if he takes a demotion? Give me a break. Seriously if they're going to fire someone, don't be passive-aggressive about it.
Different ballgame Estil- Torre was not getting it done as far as Yankees brass was concerned and to avoid an ugly situation they let him make the decision by offering him his job back. Favre made his own decision, the Packers brass would have welcomed Favre back with open arms had he not retired and waited until the window shut on him changing his mind- that window was open for a short period of time even after he announced his retirement, well they moved on and he wants back in after the fact- they "moved on" as they should have they never once told Favre he was not welcome back at the end of last season.