King: Commissioner refereeing Favre situation

[Jimke]

Re: King: Commissioner refreeing Favre situation

Goodell wants to make sure the Jets get a good deal.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: King:Commissioner refreeing favre situation

1.) The Packers were giving their commentary on Favre day after day as well. Don't be so naive as to think that wasn't for a purpose.

2.) Favre is not "wrong" to ask for his release, by any stretch of the imagination. If he's not going to be the team's starter, why would you expect him not to ask for the ability to choose his own team to play for? Favre wasn't wrong to ask for his release, and the team was not wrong for not granting it. Try to grasp something here: the Packers will ruin this season and play Rogers even with Favre on the bench, rather than have Favre back as the starter. That should tell you plenty about agenda right there: both sides have one, and both sides want their agenda to win out.

3.) The hypothetical is by no means pointless. You merely wish to avoid it because you know that it kills your griping against Favre.

1) Favre more or less forced their hand on that one. He fired the opening salvo.

2) After the Packers said that they would not release Favre, but would consider trading him if he'd submit a list of suitable teams, he refused. At that point, he crossed the line. And that's not even mentioning the tampering charges.

Try to grasp something here: Favre will not be an excellent QB this season. Last year was the first time he justified his salary in a good while, and he would be the first to state that it was largely because he spent all offseason putting in 'extra' work (in quotes because I highly doubt that QBs like Brady and Manning consider it 'extra'). The Packers likely realize this, and figure that if they're going to take a hit in QB play this season, they'd rather take a larger hit and just take their medicine now by getting Rodgers the experience that he definitely needs. It was going to happen soon anyways, and this is the quickest way to get them back to contention in the post-Favre world.

3) Yes, the hypothetical is pointless, because Brady would never do that in the first place. IF he did exactly what Brett has done (down to rejecting the trade proposition initially, leaking multiple conversations to the media, and calling Pioli a liar), then yeah, I'd be pretty pissed at Brady. If, in addition, I wasn't confident that Brady would be an elite QB anymore due to his not putting in as much offseason work as his rivals, then I'd arrive at largely the same conclusion on him as I did on Favre. It's not like everyone that's fed up with Favre has an axe to grind with him. Most of us had no strong opinion of him one way or the other until this recent crap happened.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: King:Commissioner refreeing favre situation

1) Favre more or less forced their hand on that one. He fired the opening salvo.

That's just complete nonsense.

2) After the Packers said that they would not release Favre, but would consider trading him if he'd submit a list of suitable teams, he refused. At that point, he crossed the line. And that's not even mentioning the tampering charges.

Why should he not have refused, given that the list the Packers would have is going to be far more limited than the list of teams who'd be happy to bring Favre in?

Try to grasp something here: Favre will not be an excellent QB this season. Last year was the first time he justified his salary in a good while, and he would be the first to state that it was largely because he spent all offseason putting in 'extra' work (in quotes because I highly doubt that QBs like Brady and Manning consider it 'extra'). The Packers likely realize this, and figure that if they're going to take a hit in QB play this season, they'd rather take a larger hit and just take their medicine now by getting Rodgers the experience that he definitely needs. It was going to happen soon anyways, and this is the quickest way to get them back to contention in the post-Favre world.

This is just your opinion, and it's probably about as wrong as it gets. Favre would have likely had another great season in Green Bay.

3) Yes, the hypothetical is pointless, because Brady would never do that in the first place. IF he did exactly what Brett has done (down to rejecting the trade proposition initially, leaking multiple conversations to the media, and calling Pioli a liar), then yeah, I'd be pretty pissed at Brady. If, in addition, I wasn't confident that Brady would be an elite QB anymore due to his not putting in as much offseason work as his rivals, then I'd arrive at largely the same conclusion on him as I did on Favre. It's not like everyone that's fed up with Favre has an axe to grind with him. Most of us had no strong opinion of him one way or the other until this recent crap happened.

You'd be celebrating Brady as a hero. There's a reason that Favre's fans and teammates love him despite all this naughty retirement talk 'year after year'. It'd be the same for Brady. Hometown fans love personable players who win.

 

[fgssand]

Re: King:Commissioner refreeing favre situation

I can understand the Packers wanting to move onto the youth (see Brady and the effects) but I can understand Farve not wanting to retire yet which is why I completely understand how this got ugly. I hope it sorts itself out and I wish Goodell had stayed out of it. But for me I never like to see great players retire because when they do thats it its over, I want to see the great players play.

I do not think Rogers showed GB what Brady did - even with Brady impressing everybody that knew anything in Foxboro - Bledsoe still lead this team until injury knocked him out.

I am not saying Rogers isn't good - nobody knows. I do know that Favre lead GB to the Championship game last year and sure does deserve to at least be able to compete for the job. Even if he did retire and unretire and act like an idiot.

 

[Jackson 2]

Re: King:Commissioner refreeing favre situation

i hope there is some transcript or audio clips somewhere

If you Google "NFL Sirius Radio" and get to the website, you may be able to get it. I'm not sure, but it was the best radio I've heard in so long that I was really disappointed when it ended at 4:00.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: King:Commissioner refreeing favre situation

That's just complete nonsense.

How so? That doesn't quite suffice as an argument.

Why should he not have refused, given that the list the Packers would have is going to be far more limited than the list of teams who'd be happy to bring Favre in?

Because he's under contract with the Packers. This is not an even negotiation, by a long shot.

This is just your opinion, and it's probably about as wrong as it gets. Favre would have likely had another great season in Green Bay.

In 2005 and 2006, Favre threw 38 TDs and 47 INTs. If you want to disagree with my argument, then go ahead, but that right there doesn't qualify as an argument. McCarthy and Favre both stated repeatedly last season that he had spent the previous offseason grinding through film study and preparation in a way that he had never done before. Obviously, he hasn't done that this offseason. That's a good reason to think that Favre will be more like 2006 and less like 2007 this coming year. Give me a reason why anyone should expect that Favre will be as good this year as he was last year, and you might actually have a leg to stand on.

You'd be celebrating Brady as a hero. There's a reason that Favre's fans and teammates love him despite all this naughty retirement talk 'year after year'. It'd be the same for Brady. Hometown fans love personable players who win.

So let me get this straight: you ask me how I'd respond to something, I tell you, and then you say that I'd actually do the opposite? Why even ask me, then?
And once again, since it doesn't seem to have gotten through to you the multiple previous times that I said it, it's not contemplating retirement that is the issue. It's taking your grievances public and calling your GM a liar, while refusing to meet the team halfway on something that they don't even have to meet you halfway on.

The Packers already said that he could come back as a backup. That wasn't good enough. Favre refuses to be anything but a starter.
They already said that they'd look into trades outside of the division and, ideally, the conference. That wasn't good enough. Favre alone decides where Favre plays, and Favre wants to play in Minnesota.
At this point, Favre takes the whole ordeal public and calls Thompson dishonest. If Brady did that, I WOULD lose a lot of respect for him, because a lot of my respect for Brady is based on the fact that he is too professional to pull stunts like that.

And if you think that Packers fans everywhere are still universally ballwashing Favre, you're wrong. A lot of them are fed up with this soap opera, too.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: King:Commissioner refreeing favre situation

How so? That doesn't quite suffice as an argument.

The last time I checked, telling your team that you want to come out of retirement wasn't a "salvo". Perhaps that's why.

Because he's under contract with the Packers. This is not an even negotiation, by a long shot.

Players under contract ask to be cut or traded. It happens in all the major sports. When a player has the season Favre had last year and is then told he'll be in camp as the backup, the notion that the player is wrong to ask to be released is just silly. Heck, by getting released instead of traded, Favre is likely passing up money.

In 2005 and 2006, Favre threw 38 TDs and 47 INTs. If you want to disagree with my argument, then go ahead, but that right there doesn't qualify as an argument. McCarthy and Favre both stated repeatedly last season that he had spent the previous offseason grinding through film study and preparation in a way that he had never done before. Obviously, he hasn't done that this offseason. That's a good reason to think that Favre will be more like 2006 and less like 2007 this coming year. Give me a reason why anyone should expect that Favre will be as good this year as he was last year, and you might actually have a leg to stand on.

Sure. The reason he'd struggled in the previous two seasons had been the stupid moves by the front office leaving them starting running backs named Gado, lousy receiving corps and a gutted offensive line. Not surprisingly, that's when his offensive numbers dropped, and not just a little bit.

So let me get this straight: you ask me how I'd respond to something, I tell you, and then you say that I'd actually do the opposite? Why even ask me, then?
And once again, since it doesn't seem to have gotten through to you the multiple previous times that I said it, it's not contemplating retirement that is the issue. It's taking your grievances public and calling your GM a liar, while refusing to meet the team halfway on something that they don't even have to meet you halfway on.

I asked because I wanted to give you the opportunity to come clean. You chose to maintain a fiction. Your choice. As for the meeting halfway part, what's halfway between staying retired and playing?

The Packers already said that he could come back as a backup. That wasn't good enough. Favre refuses to be anything but a starter.
They already said that they'd look into trades outside of the division and, ideally, the conference. That wasn't good enough. Favre alone decides where Favre plays, and Favre wants to play in Minnesota.
At this point, Favre takes the whole ordeal public and calls Thompson dishonest. If Brady did that, I WOULD lose a lot of respect for him, because a lot of my respect for Brady is based on the fact that he is too professional to pull stunts like that.

Why the hell should Favre accept coming back as the backup after leading his team to a 13-3 record and the NFC Conference Finals last season? Are you even trying to use your head on this?

And if you think that Packers fans everywhere are still universally ballwashing Favre, you're wrong. A lot of them are fed up with this soap opera, too.

So, there are a lot of idiots in Green Bay.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: King:Commissioner refreeing favre situation

The last time I checked, telling your team that you want to come out of retirement wasn't a "salvo". Perhaps that's why.

The team didn't make any public statement until he demanded unconditional release if he could not be the starter, which was not granted.

Players under contract ask to be cut or traded. It happens in all the major sports. When a player has the season Favre had last year and is then told he'll be in camp as the backup, the notion that the player is wrong to ask to be released is just silly. Heck, by getting released instead of traded, Favre is likely passing up money.

Right, and those requests get rejected all the time. And when the player continues to make a huge fuss about it, that player rightly gets labeled for what he is. Which is exactly what's happening with Favre.

Sure. The reason he'd struggled in the previous two seasons had been the stupid moves by the front office leaving them starting running backs named Gado, lousy receiving corps and a gutted offensive line. Not surprisingly, that's when his offensive numbers dropped, and not just a little bit.

In 2005, Gado didn't start until November, and he managed 580 yards on 143 carries with 6 TDs. Since when does 4 YPC = ****ty running back? In 2006, Ahman Green rushed for 1000 yards.

You can also do a lot worse at WR than Donald Driver, and I don't get how you justify blaming Walker blowing out his ACL in the first game of the year on a crappy front office, but you seem to have managed to. Greg Jennings also put up some good production in 2006. They didn't have the best receivers and RBs in the league in 2005-2006, but they weren't even close to the disaster that you're trying to pretend that they were.

I asked because I wanted to give you the opportunity to come clean. You chose to maintain a fiction. Your choice. As for the meeting halfway part, what's halfway between staying retired and playing?

Come clean? You give yourself too much credit- I stated my perfectly rational hypothetical opinion, and because it didn't support your argument you decided to claim that I was lying rather than refute it in any meaningful way. That's a pretty sure sign that a debate isn't going your way, isn't it?
Besides, that's beside the point. If a bunch of Packers fans were blindly supporting Favre because he's Favre, I'd dismiss it as the homerism that it would be. My initial question was why he still had widespread public support (not just Packer fans) no matter how much he reveals himself as a drama queen

Why the hell should Favre accept coming back as the backup after leading his team to a 13-3 record and the NFC Conference Finals last season? Are you even trying to use your head on this?

Because he retired after the season and the team made its plans to move on without him. While he was chilling on his farm in Mississippi, other guys were committed to the team. And, as good a year as Favre had last year, the Packers still got their asses handed to them almost every time they played a legitimately good team anyways. The teams that they beat had a cumulative record of 100-124. It was an extremely easy schedule.

Maybe if you took the time that you spend making snide comments, and instead spent it backing up your arguments, you'd be making some headway here.

So, there are a lot of idiots in Green Bay.

By your logic, that everyone that doesn't agree with you must simply be an idiot, end of story, then yes.

 

[signbabybrady]

Re: King:Commissioner refreeing favre situation

I do not think Rogers showed GB what Brady did - even with Brady impressing everybody that knew anything in Foxboro - Bledsoe still lead this team until injury knocked him out.

I am not saying Rogers isn't good - nobody knows. I do know that Favre lead GB to the Championship game last year and sure does deserve to at least be able to compete for the job. Even if he did retire and unretire and act like an idiot.

I hear ya...it did take me like 5-10 games to fully get on the Brady wagon after Drews injury. and even after getting on it was the Snow game that probably sealed it.


I wanna see Farve play again and its obvious it wont be in Green Bay anymore. We will see what comes next.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: King:Commissioner refreeing favre situation

The team didn't make any public statement until he demanded unconditional release if he could not be the starter, which was not granted.

The timeline, from the Packers' point of view.....

http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/2008/07/12/favre-retirement-timeline.aspx

Even taking everything from the Packers' claims as true, it was already known that Favre wouldn't be the starter prior to the request, and the request was first made privately.

Look, it's clear that you just want to bash the guy no matter what, so the facts won't matter. However, the 'salvo' argument was just ludicrous, and the others really aren't much better.