Favre: Has he lost some Respect? (He has with me).

[Irish_Flyers]

I've lost a LOT of respect for Favre these last few months. Make a decision and stick to it!!! This makes the respect I have for Barry Sanders & Robert Smith so much more solidified. Those guys made their decisions, and stuck to it.

I'm tired of hearing about Favre. I hope the Packers stick it to him and don't give him his release and stick to their plan of Aaron Rodgers as their starter.


Packers in tough spot after Favre's flip-flopping
by Alex Marvez (http://msn.foxsports.com/writer/archive?authorId=309)

Giving 100 percent commitment to football is more than player cliché for the Green Bay Packers.


It's also a pledge Packers management needed to hear from Brett Favre this offseason before embracing his return.

Instead, a source said Favre waited to make that vow until 104 days after he first indicated he had interest in retracting his retirement. By that time, Green Bay was headed down a different course, having anointed Aaron Rodgers its new starter. The franchise was reticent to backtrack, especially after Favre got cold feet about a comeback in late March.

Such waffling — and Favre's recent request to be released so he could pursue playing elsewhere — has left the Packers in a standoff with one of its most storied players.
Packers (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/team/67046) general manager Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy said they don't plan to grant Favre the release he is seeking from his contract and are committed to Aaron Rodgers (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/299897) as their starter.
"We've communicated that to Brett, that we have since moved forward," Thompson said Saturday, in his first public comments since Favre requested to be released this week. "At the same time, we've never said that there couldn't be some role that he might play here. But I would understand his point that he would want to play."


Favre first indicated to a Packers employee that he was having second thoughts about his retirement on March 26, FOXSports.com has learned. That was only 20 days after Favre proclaimed he was "not up to the challenge" during his retirement news conference.

On the night of March 27, Favre told McCarthy that he wanted to return. McCarthy then arranged for a private jet that would take him and Packers general manager Ted Thompson from the NFL owners meeting in Palm Beach, Fla., to Hattiesburg, Miss., for an April 1 meeting with Favre to finalize the deal.

"He mentioned several things where you could tell there's always indecisiveness," Thompson said. "He's wondering if he made the right decision. I think that's normal."
But less than 48 hours later, Favre called McCarthy to say he would remain retired after discussing the situation extensively with wife Deanna. "Closure" was even a term Favre used in his conversation with McCarthy, a source said.

"He said he appreciated all the planning we were going to do," McCarthy said. "But he felt that at this point, he had reached a point of closure, to use his words, and he was going to stick with his initial decision.

Shortly thereafter, a report surfaced in the Los Angeles Times that agent Bus Cook was trying to gauge NFL interest if Favre became available. Favre also left open the possibility of returning if Rodgers were injured, which spurred more communication with McCarthy about what his quarterback was thinking.

Favre initially told McCarthy on Feb. 29 — the first day of the free-agent signing period — that he had decided to retire. McCarthy told Favre to take as much time as he needed to mull the decision. He also tried pitching plans that could entice the 38-year-old quarterback to return, including a reduction in practice snaps. Favre, though, told McCarthy that he was quitting on March 3.

Favre's "itch" to play had again returned in earnest by June 14, when he spoke with Packers offensive line coach James Campen, a friend who has served as an unofficial liaison between the quarterback and the team. During a June 20 conversation, Favre again approached McCarthy with the possibility of a comeback. McCarthy, though, was once again unable to secure the "100 percent" commitment he was seeking.

McCarthy said he had a phone conversation with Favre on June 20, and the quarterback sent a clear message: "Give me my helmet or give me my release."

Even then, McCarthy said when he asked Favre if he was ready to make a 100 percent commitment to football — an issue Favre had brought up in his retirement news conference — the answer still was no.
"That always seemed to be the one thing that he had to come to grips with," McCarthy said.


Favre also made it clear that he would potentially ask for his release if he was not reinstated, the source said. That put the franchise in a difficult position. The Packers had thrown their full support behind Rodgers and didn't want to waver for two reasons: concerns that Favre could have yet another change of heart; and the unwillingness to risk anything that would undermine his former understudy. At the same time, the

Packers wanted to keep positive relations with arguably the franchise's most storied player while moving forward with the younger Rodgers.

Favre finally indicated to the Packers his full intention to return last Tuesday.

Thompson told several news outlets Saturday that there are no plans to release Favre and that he hadn't received calls from any potential trade suitors. It's unknown whether Favre would be willing to return knowing the Packers' continued support of Rodgers as their starter.

"Quite frankly, it's a little gut-wrenching as an organization to go through it, and certainly for Mike and myself," Thompson said. "This stuff hurts a lot of people. I mean, it hurts. I'm not talking about physically hurting, but the sensitivity. We understand where the fans are coming from. This is a hot-button issue that surpasses anything I've ever gone through."

"Ted always wanted Brett back," McCarthy said. "We always wanted Brett back."

The situation is likely to reach a head by July 28, the first practice day of Packers training camp. Much of this drama and ugliness was preventable had Favre made up his mind earlier.

That window has come and gone. Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.

[Chevy Man 22]

I haven't lost respect for him YET because I know people make decisions sometimes that seem right at the time and later find out it wasn't the right one. However Favre has to realize that the Packers have moved on and it's their right to not trade him or give him his unconditional release. So as of yet I haven't lost respect for him but if he turns this into a Green Bay bash fest which is appears is going to happen that's when I'll lose any and all respect.

[avsfan21]

Its tough to lose respect when I never had any for him in the first place.

[imaginegrafix]

Its tough to lose respect when I never had any for him in the first place.

Do you really feel the need to voice your dislike of Favre in every thread about him?

[avsfan21]

Do you really feel the need to voice your dislike of Favre in every thread about him?

Go and find my post in every Brett Favre/Packers thread and come back to me with that please.

[imaginegrafix]

Go and find my post in every Brett Favre/Packers thread and come back to me with that please.

I've seen 2 of them in last few minutes...... I've seen them in the past from you, I'm not going to dig them up.

Edit: My bad, I was just in the other thread and noticed it was an anti-packer post and not anti-favre.:o

[avsfan21]

Oh man 2 of the about 50 of the past two weeks. I go out of my way to do it. Plus the other thread you are talking about I believe that pretty much all my post bring up nothing about my like or dislike of favre or the packers. It is more about how the packers shouldnt have to release him if they dont want to.

[imaginegrafix]

Like I said, my bad on that one - I went and looked at the post and it was something about how you hope it all blows up in their face or something like that.......

Anyhow, what's your issue with the Packers anyhow? Wasn't it enough the Broncos screwed them out of a superbowl by violating the salary cap?

[avsfan21]

I have hated the Packers since I lived in Wisconsin back in the early 90s.

[AstroDave]

I have hated the Packers since I lived in Wisconsin back in the early 90s.

http://i34.tinypic.com/znmwhx.jpg

[Bill]

I have lost respect for him more and more, I think starting when he took a dive to give Strehan the sack record, refusing to help Rogers learn, and openly criticising Walker for wanting to redo his contract, contacting Moss last year and telling him he would play a couple more years if he went to Green bay

[mcarey032]

I am a Favre fan, even though I am a Redskins fan. I would say it would be one thing if this was the first that he had mentioned that he wanted to come out of retirement, but when you change your mind people are not inclined to take you at your word and that is all you have. When he blew that, he lost the high ground. Now he looks like the boy who cried wolf. I don't care if he came back, but if wanted to do so, he should have given ample notice and he shouldn't have been flip flopping like this. The one thing that I hate is the fact that the NFL network and ESPN are seemingly trying to demonize the Packers for their decision. I am sorry, but in life when you make decisions, good or bad, there are consequences and now Brett Favre will have to deal with them like the rest of regular world.

[mtd20_2000]

avsfan21 I would just ignore anything imaginegrafix says. He does the same thing with players he dislikes (such as Kobe Bryant for example) he is just the cat calling the kettle black.

[deogg]

He started to lose my respect with the annual "will he stay or will he go" bit, and with taking a dive for Strahan.

His current antics just killed any respect I had left for him.

[imaginegrafix]

avsfan21 I would just ignore anything imaginegrafix says. He does the same thing with players he dislikes (such as Kobe Bryant for example) he is just the cat calling the kettle black.

You seem to have a real obsession with the fact that I don't care for Kobe Bryant...... kinda strange because I've never really engaged in any type of discussion with you.

[wibubba]

Do you really feel the need to voice your dislike of Favre in every thread about him?
I know I do. I can't have any less respect for this guy. He's a selfish, egotistical, attention seeking W h O r E. I'm glad that packer fans are starting to see him for what he really is.

[wibubba]

I have hated the Packers since I lived in Wisconsin back in the early 90s.
I have found another board brother!

[wibubba]

I have lost respect for him more and more, I think starting when he took a dive to give Strehan the sack record, refusing to help Rogers learn, and openly criticising Walker for wanting to redo his contract, contacting Moss last year and telling him he would play a couple more years if he went to Green bay
AMEN!

[rarechaselimitedvariation]

he's keeping those passing records warm for peyton manning :D

[alex99]

Actually I lost respect for the Packers. The last 3 years they have been trying to get Favre to retire ... why??? He leads a crap team in 2006 to a 8-8 record and 13-3 last year and you want the HOFer to retire because of your mistake of drafting a top prospect QB four years ago. Well Favre gave them their wish and retired but now the shoe is on the other foot ... Favre is forcing them to release him ... lol. Well done Favre ... besides he's better than 3/4 of the starting QBs in the league and I know there are afew teams that would love to have him.

[evel999]

He should stay retired. The Packers have moved on without him and his pride is getting in the way.

[Chewdeezy]

If he wants to play, let him play. You only live once.

[pensfan71]

Actually I lost respect for the Packers. The last 3 years they have been trying to get Favre to retire ... why??? He leads a crap team in 2006 to a 8-8 record and 13-3 last year and you want the HOFer to retire because of your mistake of drafting a top prospect QB four years ago. Well Favre gave them their wish and retired but now the shoe is on the other foot ... Favre is forcing them to release him ... lol. Well done Favre ... besides he's better than 3/4 of the starting QBs in the league and I know there are afew teams that would love to have him.


Well said!
I for one don't see what the big deal is. He wants to play,just not for the Packers.
Let Him Play!!!:)

[vertigo2005]

I am sorry, but in life when you make decisions, good or bad, there are consequences and now Brett Favre will have to deal with them like the rest of regular world.

Agreed.

Just seems like he's putting himself above the team.

I know one when I see one: I live in Cincinnati.

[rsoaker23]

Favre is the man..plain and simple..so what he "retired" the guys been in the league for ever and with the exception of last year the last few years in packer land has sucked. The fact is he is better than most of the QB's in the league, and if the Pack is SO committed to Rodgers..they should release him, but thats just it, there NOT sold on Rodgers..week 1 Rodgers A)gets hurt or B) looks like a JaMarcus Russell !!!! Atleast they should say the #1 job is up for grabs between the 2....

[almostimpos]

If Favre comes back he has a chance to reach an NFL Milestone. He already has the Most INTs in NFL history but if he throws 12 more he will become the first NFL quarterback to throw 300 INTs.

[ruggerx]

As a football fan, I've grown tired of his annual will he or won't he, but that's largely a media creation- it's not like he calls them up and says he's not sure what he wants to do. As a rugby player forced to stop playing this past year, I understand his mixed feelings of being tired of the grind (times 10 for him), yet knowing he'll never get that kind of competitive rush anywhere else for the rest of his life, nor the special camaraderie of a team.

I've never been a fan of his, but I enjoyed watching him last year, when he finally grew up and played within a system. The Packers need to let him go and move on. If they can get something from a good team for him, good for them, but if not, they should thank him for making GB a relevant team again after decades of nothingness and let him try for one last stab at a great year with someone else. As much as we hate to see a legend put on the wrong uni, he's earned that right.

[sobentyo]

Favre needs to just go away. Everyone thinks he is the all American guy on those stupid Levi Jeans commercials. Last year he couldn't decide until like the start of the season. Then this year he retires gets on the cover of Madden, drops little hints all spring about his return and now wants to come back right before training camp.

The packers have moved on with Rogers and even drafted another QB. If you want to be close to the game go to a broadcast booth or coach. This guy loves being in the spot light, but acts like he doesn't.

If any team did take him back and made the playoffs they would just lose on another INT he throws in the 4th or OT.

This is what Favre gets for being on the cover of Madden!! CURSED!!!

[jweber26]

You have to remember too, the media just makes the situation so much worse. The media started the retirement talk well before we started the annual Favre retirement watch. They were asking about his retirement 6 years ago! It's the media that has to run a story every time the guy farts. Favre is quite flakey, I will give you that. But he has no control over the media and how they run with any tidbit of information (accurate or not) from someone close to Favre. Yes, he could hold press conferences to quell rumors but since like I said they report every time he farts - the guy would never get to leave the podium.

[Poochiesdead]

Here's my problem, I think pretty much everyone was tired of Favre's waffling year after year. But this year he didn't waffle, he retired! He made a finite decision. He had a press conference and everything. Now he wants back, but he also wants the Packers to just release him to sign with whomever he chooses (including the Bears and the Vikings). He and Thompson just need to get together and work out a deal where Favre agrees to not play for certain teams if he's released or hammer out a trade.

[NotoriousVesaToskala]

Here's my problem, I think pretty much everyone was tired of Favre's waffling year after year. But this year he didn't waffle, he retired! He made a finite decision. He had a press conference and everything. Now he wants back, but he also wants the Packers to just release him to sign with whomever he chooses (including the Bears and the Vikings). He and Thompson just need to get together and work out a deal where Favre agrees to not play for certain teams if he's released or hammer out a trade.

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

This is why I don't understand why people are making Favre the victim in this situation, it's not like the Packers forced him to retire and why would they after he had one of his best seasons ever and led them to their first NFC title game in over a decade?

It was Favre who woke up one day in early March and retired under his own conditions then woke up one day in April and wanted to play again. The Packers on the other hand, picked Rodgers to be his eventual successor three years ago and after Favre's retirement announcement had everything in place to head into the 2008 season with Rodgers as the starter and now Favre staying true to his sociopathic self can't make up his mind even after making up his mind in March. I don't understand how anyone can rip the Packers for how they've handled this.

[Irish_Flyers]

You have to remember too, the media just makes the situation so much worse.

This is so true. ESPN & NFL Network seem to want to demonize the Packers for not just cow-towing to Favre here, and just let hi waltz right back into the QB1 role, meanwhile possibly destroying the psyche & development of Rodgers. (Who, BTW, I think will be a rock solid QB for the Packers this year).

The other thing is the media is also making it seem like the Packers fans are all in an uproar. The linked article below has been all over MSN and Yahoo, and it's titled:
"Packers fans rally, want Favre to start" when you see it on the homepage. Making it seem like legions of Packer fans want him to start.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AiKgd8b3zRqUxo8iDz7GIHI5nYcB?slug=ap-favrerally&prov=ap&type=lgns

But in the article it says this, "The crowd of more than 100 chanted “We want Brett,” and carried signs reading, “Favre for President” or “Favre Forever.” Many in the parking lot wore No. 4 jerseys, tossed footballs and grilled."

Oh Woooooww!!! The crowd over more than 100, you don't say. Sure hope the Green Bay SWAT team was in effect for crowd control. :rolleyes:
Well then, the Packers had better cave in to the "more than 100" and run the risk of major internal disruption within their football team, right at an important time, when the Packers are a Top 5 team in the NFC. (Yeah, that makes a lot of sense). Smart thinking there, dumb rally fans.

[sigep001]

If Favre wants to waffle, it's his prerogative. If you don't want to know about it, don't pay attention to him...change the channel/station, don't read threads on the board, etc.

I'm not a Favre fan, but I must admit that I'm intrigued by the possibility of him coming back and being the Packer fans' god, forcing ownership to once again screw over Aaron Rodgers. Packers ownership may think they have the upper hand since they can cut him, trade him, or bench him, but Packer fans will wage a jihad on Lambeau if Favre is holding Rodgers' clipboard come Week 1.

[Irish_Flyers]

And I say good for the Packers not giving him an easy out and releasing him. They've bent over backwards for him the last couple seasons (Last year, giving him months to decide if he wants to retire or not, and putting the franchise's best interest on hold while he makes up his mind).
And all the examples of them giving him chances to say he wants back in, but he needs to give 100% commitment, and even Favre himself couldn't say he would. Bring Favre back as Rodgers backup, that way Favre doesn't have to put in the 100% that he doens't want to commit to the team.

Hell, they were even going to reduce his practice snaps count, just to ease up on the ol fella.

So they do all that, and then they should just release him for nothing, so he can sign with 2 potential division rivals, and have a chance to beat them twice this year.?.?

No way!!! Stick to your guns Ted Thompson & McCarthy. Maybe by doing so, the little boy who cried wolf will learn his lesson.

[SmartassBoiler]

Actually I lost respect for the Packers. The last 3 years they have been trying to get Favre to retire ... why???

Please explain how the Packers have been trying to get Favre to retire? It's more so they're trying to get him to make a damn decision early enough so they know what direction the team will be heading for the following season.

To answer the thread's question, yes I have lost a lot of respect for him. I didn't like his retirement charade each off-season, and he's taken it to a whole other level this year.

[Irish_Flyers]

If Favre wants to waffle, it's his prerogative. If you don't want to know about it, don't pay attention to him...change the channel/station, don't read threads on the board, etc.

I'm not a Favre fan, but I must admit that I'm intrigued by the possibility of him coming back and being the Packer fans' god, forcing ownership to once again screw over Aaron Rodgers. Packers ownership may think they have the upper hand since they can cut him, trade him, or bench him, but Packer fans will wage a jihad on Lambeau if Favre is holding Rodgers' clipboard come Week 1.

I agree, I can change the channel and stuff. And technically I don't really go looking for it, but I'm tired of being bombarded by it from the media too.

I log on to the internet.....it's there. I listen to sports radio.....it's there. Turn on TV to watch sports news......it's there.

I'm curious to see how this all plays out too. And the person I feel the worst for is Aaron Rodgers. (The Pack could always work on trading him, if they think Favre can give them 2 more years, that way he could groom Brohm & the other QB they drafted this year, and they may be able to get some good value for Rodgers, since he ended last year with some solid playing.

[Irish_Flyers]

Please explain how the Packers have been trying to get Favre to retire? It's more so they're trying to get him to make a damn decision early enough so they know what direction the team will be heading for the following season.
VERY true. The team told him to take time to think about it last year, and what did he do? He waited until AFTER the draft to say yeah or nay about coming back.

That really doesn't help the team do much planning for the future of the franchise if they don't know if he's staying or going. I think that was a 'richard' move by him. (One of many that I've been learning about. That and the way he treated Rodgers when they drafted him).

[sigep001]

No way!!! Stick to your guns Ted Thompson & McCarthy. Maybe by doing so, the little boy who cried wolf will learn his lesson.

It's easy to say when you're not the guy paying $13M for a backup QB.

[sigep001]

From what I understand, if Goodell grants Favre reinstatement (which he'd be a fool not to and is probably just a formality), Favre MUST be reinstated by the team or cut.

The Packers are backed into a corner here, and like it or not, Favre is more revered in Green Bay than anyone else. Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy will leave and be forgotten...Favre is a god. They will just be under immense pressure to use Favre as the starter.

[Irish_Flyers]

They should knock that down to $2 million. Call it an AARP discount. :D

[ruggerx]

For the guys crying about him holding the franchise hostage while he decides what he wants to do, what about the teams hanging onto guys until the last minute while they decide what THEY want to do, then cutting them when it's too late to catch on with another team? Players are completely disposable to teams- they get crippled and released when they're not quite as good as they used to be. A guy like Favre, who can heavily influence what a team does, is the very rare exception to life in the NFL.

He's not holding them hostage now- they have been preparing his back-up for years, and they drafted his back-up's back-up this year. And who did they pass up in previous drafts because they didn't know if he was coming back? Another QB?- they seem to think Rodgers can do the job. Let him, and let Favre do whatever he wants- who cares?

[Irish_Flyers]

rugger,
I have to disagree with you on the flip side argument. In this case it doesn't work well.

The team is the employER, so that gives them the right to hang on to guys until they decide what they want to do. That's kind of the whole point of players getting paid MILLIONS of dollars. Teams do what's best for the franchise, that's kind of what it's always been about. (Play for logo on the jersey, not the name on the back).

And as far as players getting crippled and released when they're not as goos as they used to be.....Occupational hazard, I say. And again, another reason why these guys get millions of dollars.

If it were some Joe Shmoe at his office job, and he gets injured in a way where it's a freak accident and then his company fires him, THEN that's an example of someone to feel sorry for. But not athletes. They know full well the risk that comes with their profession.

[ruggerx]

I have to disagree with your disagreement. Favre has every right to quit or not quit, and to come back if he feels like it. If someone wants to hire him, why shouldn't they be able to? Is there another job where this isn't true?

As far as playing for the logo, that's nonsense. Do you work for your company or yourself? If a better offer/opportunity comes along, can you leave? If your company isn't trying to be the leader in its industry, and that's important to you, can you go work for a company that shares your beliefs? Do you have to stay with your company until they decide they don't want you anymore? How about if they put you in a subordinate role- well below your qualifications- and some other company wants to make you the head guy? What then? Coaches, GMs, owners will all change, and the logo will have no loyalty to the players after they're done.

All of these guys do NOT make millions. Most of these guys will never come close to what Favre made. Almost all of them will pay for their cash with their health, for the rest of their lives. Their employers will have moved on, and they won't care even a little bit.

Just because an athlete's occupational hazard is injury, and they make a lot of money compared to most of us, they don't deserve the same rights we do as an employee? That makes no sense at all.

Favre put in a lot of time in GB, won a lot of games for them, was a good employee for the most part, gave that town an identity after they'd been irrelevant for 25 years, brought them a championship, made them a contender most years, and now he allowed them to move on. He loves to play, he just wants to go somewhere that will contend and doesn't want him to be the messiah- why is that wrong? I too, would like athletes to know when to quit, to ride into the sunset without tarnishing their legacies, but they're human beings, and they have the right to choose how they end things.

[Irish_Flyers]

You can't use that as reasoning because they are all employed by contract. They are not employed "at will." (Which is what 90% of us Average Joe's are, I'm sure).

Meaning, he signed a contract with them and needs to honor it. I can quit whenever I want (at my own will) and I can be laid off/fired whenever they want (at their own will), and there are no strings attached. That is not so, for athletes, who sign contracts. Granted in the NFL the team has an advantage, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. ;)
I have to disagree with your disagreement. Favre has every right to quit or not quit, and to come back if he feels like it. If someone wants to hire him, why shouldn't they be able to? Is there another job where this isn't true?

As far as playing for the logo, that's nonsense. Do you work for your company or yourself? If a better offer/opportunity comes along, can you leave? If your company isn't trying to be the leader in its industry, and that's important to you, can you go work for a company that shares your beliefs? Do you have to stay with your company until they decide they don't want you anymore? How about if they put you in a subordinate role- well below your qualifications- and some other company wants to make you the head guy? What then? Coaches, GMs, owners will all change, and the logo will have no loyalty to the players after they're done.

All of these guys do NOT make millions. Most of these guys will never come close to what Favre made. Almost all of them will pay for their cash with their health, for the rest of their lives. Their employers will have moved on, and they won't care even a little bit.

Just because an athlete's occupational hazard is injury, and they make a lot of money compared to most of us, they don't deserve the same rights we do as an employee? That makes no sense at all.

Favre put in a lot of time in GB, won a lot of games for them, was a good employee for the most part, gave that town an identity after they'd been irrelevant for 25 years, brought them a championship, made them a contender most years, and now he allowed them to move on. He loves to play, he just wants to go somewhere that will contend and doesn't want him to be the messiah- why is that wrong? I too, would like athletes to know when to quit, to ride into the sunset without tarnishing their legacies, but they're human beings, and they have the right to choose how they end things.

[dmp1234]

Bottom line is... If the packers don't want Brett as a starter then they should trade him
or release him. But they won't because they want him to be sitting there in case rodgers
takes a nose dive. They are just as selfish as brett is. If they don't want him then they shouldn't be affraid to let him go play for the bears or the vikings. If i didn't think someone was good enough to be my qb1 anymore then i wouldn't care who he went to play for.

[Noleman]

I have to disagree with your disagreement. Favre has every right to quit or not quit, and to come back if he feels like it. If someone wants to hire him, why shouldn't they be able to? Is there another job where this isn't true?

As far as playing for the logo, that's nonsense. Do you work for your company or yourself? If a better offer/opportunity comes along, can you leave? If your company isn't trying to be the leader in its industry, and that's important to you, can you go work for a company that shares your beliefs? Do you have to stay with your company until they decide they don't want you anymore? How about if they put you in a subordinate role- well below your qualifications- and some other company wants to make you the head guy? What then? Coaches, GMs, owners will all change, and the logo will have no loyalty to the players after they're done.


What you are saying here makes no sense. If I retire from my job and I have a no compete clause, I can't then go to another employer in the industry and get hired, just because I declared myself "retired". I fI wanted to do so I would have to have the company I retired from waive the no compete clause (or at least agree not to sue me).

Plus your second paragraph makes no sense either. The common office job does not have a time limit on your contract which has to be renewed everytime it comes up. You are under no obligation to stay with the employer and they are under no obligation to continue to employ you (unless it is in your terms of employment). Sure there is recourse against wrongful termination but there are still lay offs and such.

The point is NFL players "opt in" to the system that is in place for NFL employment by joining the NFLPA. The union has negotiated the terms of employment with the owners, so the players all know what they are getting into as far as the risks and rewards of their trade. Whether what was negotiated is fair is irrelavent to those on the outside, as would be any union/management negotiation that did not specifically impact your industry.

[Irish_Flyers]

The Packers weren't the ones to make the decision for Brett to not be playing anymore. It was Favre. So it wasn't them saying he wasn't good enough to be their QB1 anymore. He retired, and that made Rodgers QB1. Packers made the transition forward......were willing to work with him a couple times this off-season to get him back on the team if he was 100% committed, (which he said he wasn't). And Brett was even the one who said, he wanted back in, then 2 days later said, "Never mind."

The Packers will have to give in to him at some point, I just think Favre is a joke at this point, and has lost a lot of respect from me. Make a decision and stick to it. It's not like he didn't have time to think about this. People (media) have been asking him about retiring for the last 2-3 years now.

Bottom line is... If the packers don't want Brett as a starter then they should trade him
or release him. But they won't because they want him to be sitting there in case rodgers
takes a nose dive. They are just as selfish as brett is. If they don't want him then they shouldn't be affraid to let him go play for the bears or the vikings. If i didn't think someone was good enough to be my qb1 anymore then i wouldn't care who he went to play for.

[ruggerx]

What you are saying here makes no sense. If I retire from my job and I have a no compete clause, I can't then go to another employer in the industry and get hired, just because I declared myself "retired". I fI wanted to do so I would have to have the company I retired from waive the no compete clause (or at least agree not to sue me).

Plus your second paragraph makes no sense either. The common office job does not have a time limit on your contract which has to be renewed everytime it comes up. You are under no obligation to stay with the employer and they are under no obligation to continue to employ you (unless it is in your terms of employment). Sure there is recourse against wrongful termination but there are still lay offs and such.

The point is NFL players "opt in" to the system that is in place for NFL employment by joining the NFLPA. The union has negotiated the terms of employment with the owners, so the players all know what they are getting into as far as the risks and rewards of their trade. Whether what was negotiated is fair is irrelavent to those on the outside, as would be any union/management negotiation that did not specifically impact your industry.

They "opt in"? LOL So their options are "opt in" or make a living another way. Again, what other career is set up that way? No compete clause? Again, LOL. No compete clauses expire- they have a time limit, the NFL's do not. If he didn't play for 50 years while still under a contract, he'd remain the Packers' property.

You guys are so brainwashed by "how it is" that you can't see how unfair it is. The Packers could have cut Favre at any time and gone with another player. They could decide to keep him and not play him, for any reason at all. Favre didn't initially choose to go to Atlanta, and he didn't choose to go to Green Bay.

He played for close to 2 decades, yet you guys don't think he has a right to play one more season or two wherever he wants when his team would clearly like to move on? (BTW, when is Rodgers' rookie contract up?) I've gotten ripped on this board for bashing Favre in the past, and now I get ripped for supporting him. :D

[Durstlimpbizkit]

I lost respect for him, but I still wouldn't mind him playing.

[ruggerx]

The Packers will have to give in to him at some point, I just think Favre is a joke at this point, and has lost a lot of respect from me. Make a decision and stick to it.

Honest to God, what do you care? The guy misses playing a GAME, and he'd like to play some more, just not in the place he's been playing for 16 years. He liked playing, but found the mental part draining (big surprise- he's not a rocket scientist), and the pressure of being a deity in tiny GB had to wear him out, too. Maybe he thought, "Hmmmm...fishing every day gets old, it'd be nice to roll out and play without having to be the man every damn day- I wonder if I could do that?"

As my rugby playing was winding down, I was on a team where I was in a QB-like position. I was an All Star (Select Side in rugby terms), my team was undefeated, and we won every league game by at least 50 points. As I walked off the field of the last regular season game in the fall, my coach asked me what was wrong (I guess I looked sour). I told him I just wasn't having fun.

My back-up was a good young foreign player who couldn't crack the line-up with me there, and I just wasn't "feeling" it anymore- the amount of energy needed to play at that level. I decided I was done, but when spring rolled around, I felt that itch again. I went back to the team in a support role, a back-up, but I still wasn't happy (I was still looked at like I was the man, and my former back-up couldn't have been comfortable with me hanging around). We finished 3rd in the country, but I left and went to a lower level team, one where the pressure to be great every day wasn't the same, and I could roll out and have fun with a good group of guys. I helped take a former bunch of misfits to the playoffs in their first season in the league, and had a great time doing it.

All of our playing days are finite, and most of us don't get the opportunity to choose our last game. Somewhere in all of us, even the Brett Favres of the world, is a boy who just loves to sling the ball around and have fun with the guys. I said it before- after all he's done for the NFL and GB, I think he should be allowed to do that.

[Irish_Flyers]

So the NFL and NFLPA should change the contracts rules & regulations that they agreed to, just for Brett Favre?

You can't keep comparing professional athletes jobs to our jobs. They're completely different circumstances.

There is another type of job that has no compete contracts......Radio. The radio industry lives on those type of contracts for many of their employees, especially upper level and on air talent.

The rules in football contracts are set-up, so players can't have a loophole to be able to sign with other team's if they feel like it. What you're suggesting would be a major problem in sports.

Let's say Favre had 2 years left on his contract (which I think he does), and let's say the Packers weren't anywhere near as good as they are right now. Let's say they had two 0-16 seasons, and Favre hated the coach. Without the rules set-up the way they are, (and what you're suggesting is) Favre could retire and then 4 months later, says he's unretiring, and then sign with any other team he wants to.
So how exactly is that fair? In OUR world or regular Joe's, yes that is acceptable. But in the world of professional sports, that isn't a reality. Plus it's not like it's a big surprise to him. Players are WELL aware of contract rules.

And don't use the.....he misses playing a GAME line. Professional sports are FAR from just playing a GAME. You play a game (rugby). I play a game. But until someone pins millions of dollars on my participation to a franchise and a team brand, then professional athletes ARE supposed to be treated different when it comes to contracts. Think about all the stuff that hinges on a professional athletes status with a team. Ticket sales, season tickets, merchandise, TV deals, etc etc. All that has MAJOR multi-million dollar repercussions to a franchise, so that's why contracts are set-up where after a player retires, he can't just go anywhere he pleases.

And all I was asking if people thought he lost a little respect. His flip-flopping did that for me. So "Honest to God," it doesn't matter a whole lot to me. I was merely asking if others have been feeling the same way.

[Irish_Flyers]

They should knock that down to $2 million. Call it an AARP discount. :D

BTW, I'm a little upset there was nothing in response to this. I thought it was a damn funny reference. LOL
He was, after all, a "Retired Person" :D

[Noleman]

They "opt in"? LOL So their options are "opt in" or make a living another way. Again, what other career is set up that way? No compete clause? Again, LOL. No compete clauses expire- they have a time limit, the NFL's do not. If he didn't play for 50 years while still under a contract, he'd remain the Packers' property.
Those are exactly their options. Many other trades are set up exactly like this. In some cases you must belong to a union to work in a particular field. In others you have to obtain special certifications and agree to abide by a set of bylaws. And yes, no compete clauses expire in the real world, and so do contracts in sports. If Favre wants to sit out and only report for the minimum required games until his contract has expired and then sign with another team he has every right.

You guys are so brainwashed by "how it is" that you can't see how unfair it is. The Packers could have cut Favre at any time and gone with another player. They could decide to keep him and not play him, for any reason at all. Favre didn't initially choose to go to Atlanta, and he didn't choose to go to Green Bay.
I never said it was fair or wasnt, that is irrelevant to the situation. The point is he is a part of the NLFPA Union and they have agreed with the NFL that contracts will work this way.
He played for close to 2 decades, yet you guys don't think he has a right to play one more season or two wherever he wants when his team would clearly like to move on?
Would the Packers be nice if they released Favre and let him sign elsewhere? Sure, but they have to keep their business interests in mind as well. I'm sure they will work something out, either by trade, or by making an agreement that he wont sign with a division rival or whatever. But they also shouldnt be forced to let a player who is under contract to them hurt their team's chances of winning.

[Chevy Man 22]

Bottom line is... If the packers don't want Brett as a starter then they should trade him
or release him. But they won't because they want him to be sitting there in case rodgers
takes a nose dive. They are just as selfish as brett is. If they don't want him then they shouldn't be affraid to let him go play for the bears or the vikings. If i didn't think someone was good enough to be my qb1 anymore then i wouldn't care who he went to play for.

I haven't heard the Packers say they don't want Favre only that he probably wouldn't be the starting QB and that they would work with him to work him into the game plan somehow. Favre is the one saying GB doesn't want him and that he doesn't feel welcome anymore.

I said earlier that I hadn't lost respect for him yet but after that ridiculous Fox News interview yesterday I have lost any and all respect for him because it was basically a GB bash fest talking about how GB is doing him wrong and this and that.

I don't know how many people saw Stephen A. Smith's take on the situation the other day but he hit the nail right on the head. Hopefully they replay it during NFL Live or something this week.

[Chevy Man 22]

Also if the Packers were to give in and trade him you can guarantee it won't be within the division or the AFC because they don't want him going to Minny and they sure as heck don't want to send him to a AFC team and take the chance he ends up winning a Superbowl or even worse playing against and beating them in a playoff situation.

[ruggerx]

Would the Packers be nice if they released Favre and let him sign elsewhere? Sure, but they have to keep their business interests in mind as well. I'm sure they will work something out, either by trade, or by making an agreement that he wont sign with a division rival or whatever. But they also shouldnt be forced to let a player who is under contract to them hurt their team's chances of winning.

First of all, other occupations require certification to show a level of proficiency in the trade, and joining a union protects the workers' interests, it doesn't bind them to a particular employer, so those examples aren't really appropriate.

As for the part I quoted, I agree that the Packers will move him, and all their bluster right now is just to drive up the price- there's no way they'll pay him millions to sit on the bench, hurt Rodgers' development by having Favre sitting there, or upset their fans by keeping a legend sitting there.

[ruggerx]

So the NFL and NFLPA should change the contracts rules & regulations that they agreed to, just for Brett Favre?

You can't keep comparing professional athletes jobs to our jobs. They're completely different circumstances.

There is another type of job that has no compete contracts......Radio. The radio industry lives on those type of contracts for many of their employees, especially upper level and on air talent.

The rules in football contracts are set-up, so players can't have a loophole to be able to sign with other team's if they feel like it. What you're suggesting would be a major problem in sports.

Let's say Favre had 2 years left on his contract (which I think he does), and let's say the Packers weren't anywhere near as good as they are right now. Let's say they had two 0-16 seasons, and Favre hated the coach. Without the rules set-up the way they are, (and what you're suggesting is) Favre could retire and then 4 months later, says he's unretiring, and then sign with any other team he wants to.
So how exactly is that fair? In OUR world or regular Joe's, yes that is acceptable. But in the world of professional sports, that isn't a reality. Plus it's not like it's a big surprise to him. Players are WELL aware of contract rules.

And don't use the.....he misses playing a GAME line. Professional sports are FAR from just playing a GAME. You play a game (rugby). I play a game. But until someone pins millions of dollars on my participation to a franchise and a team brand, then professional athletes ARE supposed to be treated different when it comes to contracts. Think about all the stuff that hinges on a professional athletes status with a team. Ticket sales, season tickets, merchandise, TV deals, etc etc. All that has MAJOR multi-million dollar repercussions to a franchise, so that's why contracts are set-up where after a player retires, he can't just go anywhere he pleases.

And all I was asking if people thought he lost a little respect. His flip-flopping did that for me. So "Honest to God," it doesn't matter a whole lot to me. I was merely asking if others have been feeling the same way.

Pro sports are different from your job because...? They get paid a lot? Because you're emotionally invested in a particular guy playing for your team? In the early days of the NFL, players moved from team to team almost at will, sometimes playing for several teams in a season. There was no draft, either, for the first 15 years of the NFL- college players went to the highest bidder, or whoever they felt comfortable with. I'm not saying we should return to those days, but thinking that pro sports is not a job like yours is wrong in many ways.

As I said before, radio no-compete clauses in contracts expire, and they are territorial. If I leave my radio job in LA today, I can take one in Atlanta tomorrow in most cases, and I can sit out 6 months or a year and take one here in LA again- you can't do that in the NFL.

Favre doesn't play a game? Again, why? Because he gets paid a lot? Because you watch him on TV? So? It's still a game, and at some level he enjoyed playing it- regardless of the money (just ask John Madden, he'll tell you over and over). You get used to a level of competition and camaraderie that can't be replaced. I realize that my rugby career was nowhere near as "meaningful" as Favre's football career (although it would have been every bit as meaningful if I had played in other parts of the world)- does that mean one of us hasn't got the right to miss certain aspects of playing? That's ludicrous. Favre is a human being, not a poster on some kid's wall.

Now you're saying that because the Packers and NFL made millions off Favre, he hasn't the right to go out the way he chooses? Yikes. GB and the NFL made far more off of Brett Favre than he ever made off of them, AND they get to tell him when and where he can play- that's fair? You lost respect for him because he doesn't think it's fair?

Favre is a different scenario than most players for several reasons. First, he's near the end of the line. It was rumored that the Packers were pressing him to quit in previous years, when he wasn't playing very well and they were rebuilding. Now that he has value again, they "want" him (posturing for the trade is more like it). Second, the Pack has anticipated his retirement and prepared for it- they've already moved on, and they told him that, so where's the crushing blow to the GB franchise? Lastly, this wasn't some ploy by Favre- he's been waffling for at least 3 years, maybe more- the retirement sentiment was genuine, and he obviously missed playing (he sure doesn't need the money, and he's never seemed to care about the money).

Bottom line is this:
1.Favre has every right to ask to play somewhere else.
2.The Packers have every right to get something in return for him.
3.The Packers have every right to mitigate the damage he can do to them by trading him to a team that can't hurt them much.

Would it be nice if GB wished him luck and released him? Sure, but that would be bad business. They're going to trade him, and all their "we want him back but not as the starter" talk will be out the window. Personally, I hope he goes to a legit team, because I really don't want to see Namath play for the Rams again, or OJ play for the 49ers.

I do understand your point of view as far as athletes staying where they "belong," and player movement was part of why I lost interest in the NBA- when you grow up with Doc, Mo, and Bobby Jones, it's hard to stay loyal when players come and go (of course, Doc and Bobby came from elsewhere, and we couldn't win it until we imported Moses, but we forget that). I also understand that the Packers can't set a precedent with Favre, so this is going to shape into TO lite before it's all said and done.

[Raven Maniac (aka TJ87)]

They should knock that down to $2 million. Call it an AARP discount. :D

ROTFLMAO!! LOL!!

I have also lost some respect for Favre. I hope he doesn't end up one of those players that continues to hold on even after he's obviously lost it completely, which could happen quickly at his age. That would be truly sad.

[wibubba]

Actually I lost respect for the Packers. The last 3 years they have been trying to get Favre to retire ... why???
That's not actually the case.

[Xar]

I hope the Packers stick with Rodgers.

Favre is retired, and the Packers need to move on, and right now they are in the best position to do such.

I hear so many people saying "Yeah, but Favre gives them the best chance to win NOW".

However.........thats the problem. IF Favre is allowed to come back as the starter, the ONLY way I would call next season a success is if they WON the SB. Anything short of that is a complete failure of a season. Obviously, Favre is NOT the future of this franchise, and right now they have a VERY promising QB in Rodgers ready to go. If they allow Favre back, chances are it does affect Rodgers mentally, and mabye he doesnt recover. And IF he does recover, chances are he doesnt stick around after his contract is up after the next season because of what happens this off-season.

If they stick with Rodgers.......he may succeed, he may fail........but if he succeeds, they have their next franchise QB

[Voodoo Chylde]

wibubba, you're actually in the proverbial hornet's nest. What's it like on the ground? Is there really widespread discontent with the Packers that they aren't laying down a carpet of rose petals or is it just a vocal few? I think knowing the tenor of the fans and shareholders, will tell volumes about how management will go.

[Irish_Flyers]

Was Favre's last NFL play an interception? Can anyone confirm that? What happened on the last play he participated in, in that NFC Championship game?

[Poochiesdead]

Was Favre's last NFL play an interception? Can anyone confirm that? What happened on the last play he participated in, in that NFC Championship game?He was indeed intercepted.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0afN6BA8uR9ol/610x.jpg

[Irish_Flyers]

Was Favre's last NFL play an interception? Can anyone confirm that? What happened on the last play he participated in, in that NFC Championship game?


He was indeed intercepted.

Anyone think that might have any bearing at all on his decision?
I'm not saying it would be a major contributing factor, but maybe he doesn't want to go out on an INT as his last official play?.?.

It just seems ironic that his last play was an INT.

[Voodoo Chylde]

I lost respect for him when Greta Van Sustren claimed that Deanna emailed her, of her own volition asking for the interview. Brett had nothing to do with it and didn't even know she was contacting her. Riiiight.

[wibubba]

wibubba, you're actually in the proverbial hornet's nest. What's it like on the ground? Is there really widespread discontent with the Packers that they aren't laying down a carpet of rose petals or is it just a vocal few? I think knowing the tenor of the fans and shareholders, will tell volumes about how management will go.
In my opinion it's running about 50/50. Maybe turning against TheFavre a little bit at this point.

check out the local rag: www.greenbaypressgazette.com (http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com)

[wibubba]

Was Favre's last NFL play an interception? Can anyone confirm that? What happened on the last play he participated in, in that NFC Championship game?
It was an INT. Ended the packers chances of advancing to the SB. BEAUTIFUL pass!

[Bill]

Agreed.

Just seems like he's putting himself above the team.

I.

He did that when he refused to help Rodgers out. Its not like he was going to be his competition, Favre was basically telling you he could care less about the packers in the future, they could suck for all he cared.

[sportsnut2006]

Not a Favre fan but if you think any player really cares about his teams future after he is gone is crazy. In the NFL now it is all about me, from both the owners and players. They both just want to make money.