Brett Favre

[MWILL]

They dont want to. Its blind unadulterated homerism.
I am the BIGGEST T.O. HOMER on the site and I STILL call him out for the negative. It can be done.

Rogers is not better. But they also dont know what he can deliver if anything for a season. That needs to known.


Absolutely do not hate Favre. No way, he is a good guy and a good QB.
I just cant watch and listen to him being lauded like the next coming of __________(insert grandness here) lol

When he has cost him team ALOT of BIG games due to his poor decision making.... its all about HIM throwing the Game Winning TD.... Aikman hands the ball off to Emmitt..... JUST TO GET THE WIN.

I feel the same way about Farve too. :starspin

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

As opposed to your ommisions. I love how you said, "Aikman would have not have made a bad decision, he would have just turned around and handed the ball to Emmit Smith to win the game." No kidding Sherlock. The only problem wtih that is Favre never had an Emmit Smith to turn around and hand the ball to, or a HOF Michael Irvin, or a perenial pro bowl line. Would have loved to see how Aikman would have done with the Edgar Bennets, Dorsey Levens, and noname offensive line, and Antonio Freemans and Bill Schroeders of the world. Aikman played with great players as well as being great himself. Favre played with good to very good players who he made look better than they really were.

As I said, not only one of the greatest QBs ever, but one of the greatest Players EVer in the history of the game.

[/quote]




:laugh2:

Stop with the:

"Favre was the only great player on the team"
"he didnt have any help"
"he left his superman cape at home for certain games", please.

Plenty of championships have been won with lesser QB's(making better decisions than Favre) and lesser supporting casts.

 

[FloridaRob]

:laugh2:

Stop with the:

"Favre was the only great player on the team"
"he didnt have any help"
"he left his superman cape at home for certain games", please.

Plenty of championships have been won with lesser QB's(making better decisions than Favre) and lesser supporting casts.[/quote]

well, in fact he was the only GREAT player on the team. Please point to the other possible HOF fame players he had on offense.

He didn't have a lot of help in a lot of games, what is your point?

He NEVER left his Superman cape at home for any game, but even Superman lost a few battles.

Plenty of championships are won with lesser QBs. I agree. The Dilfers of the world support that. But none of the teams you speak of were QB driven as the Packers teams have been since Favre has been there. Ron Wolf used to decribe the Packers offense as a QB driven system. Looking back at those lesser Qbs you speak of that have won championships---those teams were great defensive or great running games. Please show me a team in NFL history that has a QB driven Offensive scheme similar to the Packers, that had a lesser QB and won. I don't see one....

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

The "Favre" Wars

 

[peplaw06]

he's not in my top 10... He wasn't even the best QB in the game while he was playing.....

I'll take this as the white flag on the statistical argument.

 

[peplaw06]

if i were management and at the end of the last 2-3 years i had to wait for favre to go on a sabbatical to see if he could go another year, i'd get tired of it. hostage may be harsh, but geez dude...chit or get. i'm not sure why he can't make up his mind but he seems to cry out if the spotlight isn't on him.

this has nothing to do with him the player. he's a 1st ballot HOF easy. now if they had a whiner-boy-HOF he'd be in the running for that at this rate as well.

i think green bay had enough and if favre wants to come back as a backup, good. i'm on the management side of this cause favre needs to stop the drama-fest every year. he's now gunning KISS for the most times any major celebrity can retire from their chosen field and just be kidding.

i don't think green bay should be forced into a trade OR making him the starter if they've spent all this time getting aaron rogers up and going FINALLY. i hope they don't cave into the great favre who seems to be relying on his rep and history to get his way.

he never could make up his mind on the field and made crap up as he went and now he can't make up his mind off the field either.

favre is one of the greatest to play the game. he's also one of the biggest prima donnas and i'm just tired of favre-TV.

It's just as simple for Green Bay. If they want him back, bring him back. If they don't, then they can release or trade him.

I can't for the life of me figure out why they DON'T want him. But hey, it's their team. I'll assume they have a valid reason for not wanting him. Why not trade the guy, then? Last month he was retired... meaning GB was getting nothing for his services, and he was gone. Now they could possibly get something for the guy, when they clearly don't want him? No brainer right?

And they can pick the team he goes to, to boot. Trade him to Kansas City for a 4th rounder. They get a draft pick they wouldn't have otherwise, and they don't have to face him twice a year, and not likely to face him in the playoffs.

But no Green Bay is being stubborn. Brett was stubborn and indecisive, so they're returning the favor. Makes everyone look like a bunch of children.

They don't want him, but they don't want him playing elsewhere. Who's holding who hostage again?

 

[iceberg]

It's just as simple for Green Bay. If they want him back, bring him back. If they don't, then they can release or trade him.

I can't for the life of me figure out why they DON'T want him. But hey, it's their team. I'll assume they have a valid reason for not wanting him. Why not trade the guy, then? Last month he was retired... meaning GB was getting nothing for his services, and he was gone. Now they could possibly get something for the guy, when they clearly don't want him? No brainer right?

And they can pick the team he goes to, to boot. Trade him to Kansas City for a 4th rounder. They get a draft pick they wouldn't have otherwise, and they don't have to face him twice a year, and not likely to face him in the playoffs.

But no Green Bay is being stubborn. Brett was stubborn and indecisive, so they're returning the favor. Makes everyone look like a bunch of children.

They don't want him, but they don't want him playing elsewhere. Who's holding who hostage again?

who signed that contract to begin with?

 

[peplaw06]

who signed that contract to begin with?

The Packers and Favre.

 

[FloridaRob]

they have not said they would not trade him, only they would not release him the reason they do not want him back is because all the offseason work done, they have tweaked the offense to use more of Aaron Rodgers skills. Rodgers has not missed any OTAs, has been in Green bay, having weekly get together with his teammates at his house. Over the past few years, Favre has been off to himself, not associating with many of his teamates (big age difference) and I think once the team moved on (with his retirement and subsequent possible unretirement) they decided it would be unfair to Aaron Rodgers. And they can say he can come back all they want but the Packers will not have FAvre come back and play QB again. Not as a starter and not as a backup.

To bring back Favre now after the whole offseason of getting Rodgers ready to play, they would lose Rodgers as a leader. And who could blame him.

After watching the interview on Gretas show, it looks like Christie Brinkley has a better chance of reconciling with her ex husband Cook than Brett has of reconciling with the Packers. Sad ending for sure....

If Minny wants him, tell them to send the Packers Adrian Peterson and it is a done deal.

 

[MWILL]

:laugh2:

Stop with the:

"Favre was the only great player on the team"
"he didnt have any help"
"he left his superman cape at home for certain games", please.

Plenty of championships have been won with lesser QB's(making better decisions than Favre) and lesser supporting casts.

well, in fact he was the only GREAT player on the team. Please point to the other possible HOF fame players he had on offense.

He didn't have a lot of help in a lot of games, what is your point?

He NEVER left his Superman cape at home for any game, but even Superman lost a few battles.

Plenty of championships are won with lesser QBs. I agree. The Dilfers of the world support that. But none of the teams you speak of were QB driven as the Packers teams have been since Favre has been there. Ron Wolf used to decribe the Packers offense as a QB driven system. Looking back at those lesser Qbs you speak of that have won championships---those teams were great defensive or great running games. Please show me a team in NFL history that has a QB driven Offensive scheme similar to the Packers, that had a lesser QB and won. I don't see one....[/quote]

These excuses for Farve needs to stop.

I've seen two teams that had a bunch of nobodys one year, then win the SB the next. The Ravens & Rams

Two teams that started that thier (soon to be S.B.) seasons with no Hall-of-Famers & no true stars.

Kurt wasn't Kurt, Faulk wasn't Faulk, Holt wasn't Holt, Reed wasn't Reed, Lewis wasn't Lewis....etc..

Their careers were made during their S.B. runs.

In 2007 I felt GB was in that same mold of those two teams (with the exception of some FA pickups) that would surprise some teams.

RB Grant was coming on, you had WR's that can get the job done.
The "D" was improved and you have a HOF QB.

All Bret had to do is not mess it up and guess what....he did.
Trent Dilfer & Kurt Warner didn't mess their chances up. Both not HOF QB's either.

Bret had weapons: Bubba Franks, A. Freeman, Good "O" Line, A. Green.
if you can't score with these guys on your team......you won't win.

You say it was a QB driven scheme. Well if you had a QB that likes to take too many risks on the field, you would think the coaching staff would change that scheme years ago....or maybe they did and Bret didn't listen. Who knows?


:starspin :starspin :starspin :starspin :starspin

 

[iceberg]

The Packers and Favre.

and he's being held hostage by being asked to do what he said he'd do or is he being a whinerboy because he's not getting his way?

 

[peplaw06]

and he's being held hostage by being asked to do what he said he'd do or is he being a whinerboy because he's not getting his way?

Again, I never said I liked Favre's actions. But Green Bay management is being just as childish as he is. Therefore, I don't feel sorry for them.

If Favre is expected to be held to what he said he was going to do, then Green Bay better pay him his $13 million, whether or not they want him back. He petitions for reinstatement, Green Bay has his rights, they better pay him. Sounds like they'd rather pay him $13 million and make him sit behind Aaron Rodgers out of spite, than get something for him and get rid of that salary. Makes a lot of cap management sense, doesn't it?

 

[iceberg]

Again, I never said I liked Favre's actions. But Green Bay management is being just as childish as he is. Therefore, I don't feel sorry for them.

If Favre is expected to be held to what he said he was going to do, then Green Bay better pay him his $13 million, whether or not they want him back. He petitions for reinstatement, Green Bay has his rights, they better pay him. Sounds like they'd rather pay him $13 million and make him sit behind Aaron Rodgers out of spite, than get something for him and get rid of that salary. Makes a lot of cap management sense, doesn't it?

none of this makes any sense. but if a team were to allow a player to "retire" for the summer and come back and go team shopping, what control does a team have over their players in the end?

i fully admit i'm going to be jaded in this cause i hate the prima donna attitude favre is going through. play, don't play. retire, don't retire. for whatever reason he's grown to be one of the biggest attention ****** in the league and i'm just sick of him and want him to shut up and do something NOT on my tv.

by "hostage" favre would do that to a degree with his whole "can i go on" he'd pull at the end of every year so he could schedule a press conference (ie, LOOK AT ME!!!) and say yes, madden, i'll make you happy for another year. that's a dramafied statement, yes. i don't think he let it roll to where the team couldn't adequately plan one way or another, no. that would be self-serving of my own views to say that.

but at this point i see no reason why green bay should just bow down to the great favre and give the child the candy he's asking for. we all railed on TO when he wanted to go to another team and get out of his contract, and TO was an evil man for doing that. favre however, can pretty much beat up a boy scout AND the old lady he's helping across the street and still be a good guy.

so at this point if anyone can dig up the video of favre getting slammed well after the play by *i think* a chicago bears player, that would make my day.

 

[peplaw06]

none of this makes any sense. but if a team were to allow a player to "retire" for the summer and come back and go team shopping, what control does a team have over their players in the end?

Simple... they don't have a lot of control. It's just like if someone under contract intends to force a trade or hold out. They can do that without actually retiring. And in the end, it's the same scenario. The team can also cut a guy without paying him what they agreed to in the contract.

That's now the state of the NFL with the way contracts are allowed to be done. If the team or the players don't like it, then they need to address it at the CBA meetings.

i fully admit i'm going to be jaded in this cause i hate the prima donna attitude favre is going through. play, don't play. retire, don't retire. for whatever reason he's grown to be one of the biggest attention ****** in the league and i'm just sick of him and want him to shut up and do something NOT on my tv.

by "hostage" favre would do that to a degree with his whole "can i go on" he'd pull at the end of every year so he could schedule a press conference (ie, LOOK AT ME!!!) and say yes, madden, i'll make you happy for another year. that's a dramafied statement, yes. i don't think he let it roll to where the team couldn't adequately plan one way or another, no. that would be self-serving of my own views to say that.

We're in agreement here. I just don't absolve the team of the part they're playing in all of this.

but at this point i see no reason why green bay should just bow down to the great favre and give the child the candy he's asking for. we all railed on TO when he wanted to go to another team and get out of his contract, and TO was an evil man for doing that. favre however, can pretty much beat up a boy scout AND the old lady he's helping across the street and still be a good guy.

I don't equate the Packers organization to boy scouts or old ladies. And no, I didn't like what TO did either. But I hate the Eagles, so I didn't exactly think he was evil. He was a scary dude when he was on the other side.

so at this point if anyone can dig up the video of favre getting slammed well after the play by *i think* a chicago bears player, that would make my day.

With the state of NFL contracts, I don't blame any player for doing what they feel is necessary to do their business and look out for their best interests. It's a business.

I also believe what Favre said about feeling like Green Bay was forcing him to make a quick decision this offseason, and he felt like his hand was forced. I think this whole thing is a big mess too, just don't believe that one side is fully to blame.

 

[iceberg]

i understand where you're coming from pep. i just don't see green bay management doing the LOOK AT ME at the end of every year. as for "forcing a quick decision" i don't think a yearly pilgramage to the alter of inner strength and self realization he's done for the last 3-4 years to be quick.

maybe they just got tired of the game and moved on. should they let favre go? maybe. maybe it is spite to hold on and force something else.

like i said before - if i were management, i'd tire of the "can i go on" questions as the end of every year. hard to plan long term when your golden boy plays that card every year. maybe cutting him would just end the drama but cutting an icon is a PR hit as well. giving him what he wants? i'd not do it just because i'm a stubborn spud and don't want to allow anyone after him to do that w/o seeing i won't just give into demands.

like parcells at the end of the last few years - "can i go on?" it gets old. if you don't know sit down till you figure it out. i put ellis in to the "shut up and play" category also. his drama is self-serving and whiney.

how long is "long enough" and if you need to prep your franchise for the future how long do you need "if" favre were to decide say NOW he didn't want to play anymore.

i see more the management side of this having to deal with a "malcontent" (for lack of a better word right now) and just wanting to move on past the beauty pageant without building a rep you can come and go as you please.

however i do agree that's the nature of the game today by contract, so it's a game on and off the field, i suppose. maybe this is why my overall "love" for football has waned over the years.

 

[FloridaRob]

rumor here in Fla is that Favre was having dinner with Bruce Allen, GM of the Bucs, last night. REportedly a trade is in the works for Favre to go to Tampa for Chris Sims and a 2nd round pick.

Stay tuned. No link!!!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

rumor here in Fla is that Favre was having dinner with Bruce Allen, GM of the Bucs, last night. REportedly a trade is in the works for Favre to go to Tampa for Chris Sims and a 2nd round pick.

Stay tuned. No link!!!

Well, that would make sense. Gruden has history with Favre. He was in Green Bay in the early 90s and he runs a WCO, which would fit Favre. I could see it happening in Tampa Bay. It's a very short hop from Tampa to Guflport Ms., which is where I believe Favre lives. That's maybe an hour and a half flight, if that. Tampa has a ton of cap space, if I'm not mistaken.

This could be a rumor that has some legs.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

they have not said they would not trade him, only they would not release him the reason they do not want him back is because all the offseason work done, they have tweaked the offense to use more of Aaron Rodgers skills. Rodgers has not missed any OTAs, has been in Green bay, having weekly get together with his teammates at his house.

I dont believe they are that far ahead in preparing for Rodgers at QB. Thats now why they dont want him back.

All Bret had to do is not mess it up and guess what....he did.
Trent Dilfer & Kurt Warner didn't mess their chances up. Both not HOF QB's either.

Bret had weapons: Bubba Franks, A. Freeman, Good "O" Line, A. Green.
if you can't score with these guys on your team......you won't win.

You say it was a QB driven scheme. Well if you had a QB that likes to take too many risks on the field, you would think the coaching staff would change that scheme years ago....or maybe they did and Bret didn't listen. Who knows?

That is the essence of my argument about Brett and his shortcomings.

The last part is very possible.... how many times did Holmgren have that look on his face after Brett threw an INT? (he was probably supposed to hand off or something)

rumor here in Fla is that Favre was having dinner with Bruce Allen, GM of the Bucs, last night. REportedly a trade is in the works for Favre to go to Tampa for Chris Sims and a 2nd round pick.

Stay tuned. No link!!!

Interesting.... I dont see it though.