[Rick]

When Thompson is asked by the media or by shareholders or anyone else why he chose Rodgers over Favre, given Favre's legendary reputation and skills and Rodgers' dearth of experience, he can legitimately answer this way:

"I went with the player that I could be absolutely certain would be 100% committed to playing football this season. I think it's important that a quarterback be entirely focused and ready to play football day in and day out and not have any lapses in motivation or have him questioning whether he wants to play or not or whether he made the right decision to play. I felt we could fully rely on Aaron to be that type of fully committed quarterback for us."

[Bud]

When Thompson is asked by the media or by shareholders or anyone else why he chose Rodgers over Favre, given Favre's legendary reputation and skills and Rodgers' dearth of experience, he can legitimately answer this way:

"I went with the player that I could be absolutely certain would be 100% committed to playing football this season. I think it's important that a quarterback be entirely focused and ready to play football day in and day out and not have any lapses in motivation or have him questioning whether he wants to play or not or whether he made the right decision to play. I felt we could fully rely on Aaron to be that type of fully committed quarterback for us."

If he did answer that way, I would have to follow it up with why are you making coaching decisions? Or are we just assuming that TT/MM are one now?

I can understand TT talking in terms of roster spots being filled but I would think that the coaching staff would be the ones deciding who's starting or not. I think that if TT answered by saying " We offered Brett a roster spot as I felt he could still contribute to the team but I'll have to hand it over to MM to explain why Aaron is the starter." Then, MM could give the explanation that you just gave above.

[strat1080]

If he did answer that way, I would have to follow it up with why are you making coaching decisions? Or are we just assuming that TT/MM are one now?

I can understand TT talking in terms of roster spots being filled but I would think that the coaching staff would be the ones deciding who's starting or not. I think that if TT answered by saying " We offered Brett a roster spot as I felt he could still contribute to the team but I'll have to hand it over to MM to explain why Aaron is the starter." Then, MM could give the explanation that you just gave above.

I think TT received lots of feedback from MM about what he felt about Favre. MM when hearing that Favre was thinking about retiring initially told Favre that he could structure the offseason so that there would be about 80% of the effort he committed to last year but Favre still wasn't interested. They were convinced that Favre was no longer interested in putting in the effort necessary to be a successful QB in the NFL. Favre sold them on this concept and they remain convinced. They have moved on.

This is exactly what a lot of people aren't understanding about the situation. For almost four months since Favre announced his retirement the Packers were under the assumption that Favre was retired. They phsychologically moved on, which wasn't easy. They never were in the situation where they were deciding between Rodgers vs Favre. This was never about Favre vs Rodgers. They know Favre can play and Rodgers is mostly unproven but they don't believe Favre is committed to the team and they had already phsychologically and strategically moved on after Favre's retirement. I hope most fans will understand this.

[Rick]

If he did answer that way, I would have to follow it up with why are you making coaching decisions? Or are we just assuming that TT/MM are one now?

This is definitely a personnel decision more so than it's a coaching decision. Favre is a $12 million dollar player if he's on the roster at the end of camp. It's also one of those cases in which it's highly likely that Thompson and McCarthy have talked extensively about whether they think it's worth it to commit to a player who as recently as June 20th said that he's still not 100% committed to playing and that he's only "thinking about" coming back. Favre had to be asked twice by Van Sustren in last week's interview before he finally answered whether he was 100% committed to playing. But then he followed that up by saying he may decide he doesn't want to play for anyone after all. The guy just can't make up his mind whether he wants to play, and Thompson and McCarthy have probably just decided they're not going to go through this cry-wolf game anymore. Who's to say he won't just quit again if he doesn't feel like playing in the middle of the season?


I can understand TT talking in terms of roster spots being filled but I would think that the coaching staff would be the ones deciding who's starting or not.

This is definitely a different case entirely than deciding who the starting strong side linebacker is going to be or the starting safeties are going to be.


I think that if TT answered by saying " We offered Brett a roster spot as I felt he could still contribute to the team but I'll have to hand it over to MM to explain why Aaron is the starter." Then, MM could give the explanation that you just gave above.

McCarthy would be echoing what Thompson said anyway. Thompson's the one to make this call more so than McCarthy.


This was never about Favre vs Rodgers. They know Favre can play and Rodgers is mostly unproven but they don't believe Favre is committed to the team and they had already phsychologically and strategically moved on after Favre's retirement. I hope most fans will understand this.

Good summation. Favre doesn't even know right now whether he wants to play. If pressed to answer, he might say something like, "I think so, yeah." The Packers need more than that.

[JimATX]

Aaron is on the roster, Brett is retired.

[PACKER76]

[b]
Favre had to be asked twice by Van Sustren in last week's interview before he finally answered whether he was 100% committed to playing. But then he followed that up by saying he may decide he doesn't want to play for anyone after all.

That is incorrect. He never said he may decide not to play for anyone he said
"I may end up not playing at all" He was said that he may not be able to play at all, because he would not turn training camp into a circus. So what he meant was he may not be able to be allowed to play for anyone. Probably because he would not want to be playing his last years as a joke on a non competive team, where TT may trade him to.

[Bud]

If he did answer that way, I would have to follow it up with why are you making coaching decisions? Or are we just assuming that TT/MM are one now?

This is definitely a personnel decision more so than it's a coaching decision. Favre is a $12 million dollar player if he's on the roster at the end of camp. It's also one of those cases in which it's highly likely that Thompson and McCarthy have talked extensively about whether they think it's worth it to commit to a player who as recently as June 20th said that he's still not 100% committed to playing and that he's only "thinking about" coming back. Favre had to be asked twice by Van Sustren in last week's interview before he finally answered whether he was 100% committed to playing. But then he followed that up by saying he may decide he doesn't want to play for anyone after all. The guy just can't make up his mind whether he wants to play, and Thompson and McCarthy have probably just decided they're not going to go through this cry-wolf game anymore. Who's to say he won't just quit again if he doesn't feel like playing in the middle of the season?


I can understand TT talking in terms of roster spots being filled but I would think that the coaching staff would be the ones deciding who's starting or not.

This is definitely a different case entirely than deciding who the starting strong side linebacker is going to be or the starting safeties are going to be.


I think that if TT answered by saying " We offered Brett a roster spot as I felt he could still contribute to the team but I'll have to hand it over to MM to explain why Aaron is the starter." Then, MM could give the explanation that you just gave above.

McCarthy would be echoing what Thompson said anyway. Thompson's the one to make this call more so than McCarthy.


This was never about Favre vs Rodgers. They know Favre can play and Rodgers is mostly unproven but they don't believe Favre is committed to the team and they had already phsychologically and strategically moved on after Favre's retirement. I hope most fans will understand this.

Good summation. Favre doesn't even know right now whether he wants to play. If pressed to answer, he might say something like, "I think so, yeah." The Packers need more than that.

All good points Rick. Good to see you again. I thought your original post was a little short but I think you were just baiting me so you could expound a bit more.

[Rick]

That is incorrect. He never said he may decide not to play for anyone he said
"I may end up not playing at all" He was said that he may not be able to play at all, because he would not turn training camp into a circus. So what he meant was he may not be able to be allowed to play for anyone. Probably because he would not want to be playing his last years as a joke on a non competive team, where TT may trade him to.

I don't agree that that is the only interpretation. I think he very well could have meant that he may, in the end, decide that he doesn't want to come back after all---even to the Packers as the starter. After all, this would be just one more of his serial flip-flops on his retired, un-retired, retired, un-retired, retired(?) decision(s).

According to Peter King, McCarthy said when Brett called on June 20th and told him (McCarthy) he was "thinking about" coming back, McCarthy asked him at that time if he was 100% committed to playing this year. Favre told him no, he's not 100% committed to playing this year.

I think it's entirely possible that not being 100% sure about whether he wants to play is what Favre meant when he said, "I may end up not playing at all" in the interview. He still has not completely decided that he even wants to play for the Packers, let alone for another team.

[Heatseeker]

He still has not completely decided that he even wants to play for the Packers, let alone for another team.

He asked for his outright release from the Packers. Seems to me if he wasn't decided that he wouldn't have done that.

I know he hasn't technically asked for reinstatement yet, but that's just semantics. If he got his release, or agreed to be traded to a team the Packers talked with, THEN he would file. I think he's playing the field a bit right now. Because he knows if he files now, he not only loses money for not showing up to training camp, but he looks like an even bigger fool.

[Wolfman24]

Hello

We can discuss this all we want, JimATX had the answer.

Why did I choose Rodgers over Favre?

Brett said he was retired, we believed him. Aaron is on the roster as our lead QB. Next question!!!

Wolfman 24