Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Favre Saga Re-visited
PackerChatters > PackerChatters > NFL Talk > NFC North
maxman44
I have moved on but I did read this and thought it was well written

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/articl...9168/1058/PKR01

QUOTE
Mike Vandermause column: Who dumped who? Sorting through the Favre saga

Nick Barnett tried to describe how Green Bay Packers fans are struggling with the notion of Brett Favre dressed in purple and playing for the Minnesota Vikings.


“It’s hard for them to adjust to it,” the Packers’ linebacker said. “You can’t blame them. They were in love with Brett Favre and he dumped them and went with another chick. So, they’re a little heartbroken.”

If only the Favre saga were that simple. But the legendary quarterback’s ugly divorce from the Green Bay organization has two sides, and Favre no doubt believes the Packers dumped him first.

It’s a classic he said, she said scenario, and fans are caught in the middle like children forced to choose between parents.

Not surprisingly, the Packers organization is reluctant to rehash the gory details of Favre’s departure last season. “I have zero interest in going back to last training camp,” Packers coach Mike McCarthy said at his press conference Monday.

On the contrary, I have boundless interest in the Packers’ breakup with Favre, which has transformed Monday night’s Packers-Vikings game at the Metrodome into the most anticipated regular-season matchup ever. Here are 10 things I believe about Favre and his involvement in the biggest soap opera in Packers history:

1. Favre is good for the NFL
A player on the verge of turning 40 who never has missed a start in 17 years and continues to produce makes for an incredible story. His passion for the game cannot be questioned. The TV networks love him because anytime Favre plays, he compels people to watch. His last-second pass to beat the 49ers on Sunday was remarkable and provided one more piece of evidence proving you should never bet against him, no matter how old he is or what color jersey he is wearing.

2. Favre is not a traitor
Some Packers fans want to demonize Favre for going over to the dark side. But how many of those critics would turn down a sum of around $13 million for less than five months of work to perform a job he loves?

3. Ted Thompson did the right thing
Some fans won’t forgive Packers General Manager Ted Thompson for leaving the train station without Favre last year. But it was a fundamentally sound football decision. Favre announced his retirement, and the Packers moved on. When Favre changed his mind for the umpteenth time — conveniently waiting until the Packers completed their offseason program — Thompson and McCarthy deemed it prudent not to look back. Their confidence in Aaron Rodgers proved correct, and the Packers are in very good hands at quarterback for the foreseeable future.

4. Rodgers isn't to blame
The Packers’ lousy record last season was a result of many things, but Rodgers’ play wasn’t one of them. The presence of Favre wouldn’t have made much, if any, difference in the Packers’ final record. Why won’t the same critics who blame Rodgers for 6-10 also point the finger at Favre for the Packers’ 4-12 record in 2005? Anyone who genuinely believes Favre magically would have turned some of the Packers’ close losses into victories in 2008 are forgetting about his abysmal performance in the final five weeks of the season with the Jets.

5. Trading Favre to the Vikings wasn't an option
It has been suggested that since Favre landed in Minnesota anyway, the Packers should have traded him there last year and gotten more than a third-round draft choice in compensation. There was no way of knowing Favre would be a free agent a year later and still playing, and there’s no way of knowing whether the Vikings would have parted with a first-round pick. What Thompson knew at the time was the Vikings were potentially one good quarterback away from being a Super Bowl contender. No general manager worth his salt would bolster a hated division rival’s biggest weakness.

6. Favre wants revenge
No matter how adeptly Favre dances around the topic this week, there is no doubt he wants to stick it to Thompson in a big way. The jilted Favre wants his pound of flesh, and he wants it badly. Over the past year, Favre stooped to pettiness in taking verbal shots at Thompson. But the quarterback knows the best way to make Thompson look bad is to perform at a high level and propel the Vikings past the Packers.

7. Favre has been coddled
Brad Childress served as Favre’s chauffeur when the quarterback arrived in town, an image the Minnesota coach may never shake. Childress broke every coaching rule in the book by elevating one player above the rest of the team. Favre was allowed to skip most of training camp and walk in off the street and be handed a starting job. Childress looks like a genius now with a 3-0 record, but his buddy-buddy approach toward Favre could blow up in his face and cost him his job, especially if Favre suffers through his customary late-season fade.

8. Favre loves the attention, records
One reason Favre hasn’t retired is he craves the spotlight and cares about his place in the NFL record book. Behind that “aw, shucks” demeanor is a man who can’t get enough adulation. Don’t think Favre isn’t aware of Peyton Manning slowly creeping up on him. The longer Favre sticks around, the more secure his records will be.

9. There is no love lost between these teams
McCarthy and Childress don’t like each other. Favre hasn’t spoken to Rodgers in ages. The Packers filed tampering charges against the Vikings concerning Favre last year. Is there any doubt this goes way beyond a heated rivalry? It’s a border war that spills into the streets and involves passionate fans. Don’t be surprised if pushing, shoving and a few cheap shots break out, on and off the field.

10. This is no ordinary game
Players and coaches will attempt to downplay the hype surrounding this grudge match, but they will fail. First place is on the line, not to mention bragging rights for the next month. But more than that, Favre will loom larger than life over this full-blown, ESPN-fueled media circus.

Ellis269
Yeah. That sounds just about right to me. I'll always love Brett Favre for the player that he was when he was with this team and the contributions that he made. . . but right now I'm looking forward to seeing Capers open up the playbook and let loose the dogs. I want to see the Packers kick the Vikings in the teeth. There's pride and jobs on the line with this game IMO. The first 3 weeks were supposed to be a tune up for the Vikings, but the Packers have struggled in all 3 phases. They need to win this game, and the whole Favre drama just adds to that.
Jeremy
Great article. I agree with every word of it.


It drives me crazy when I hear fans say TT "ran Favre out of town". He did not. He gave him several opportunities to return in 2008. It was only after the proverbial train left the station (the Packers offseason work was completed with Aaron Rodgers appointed the new QB and leader of the team) that they were forced to say "no". We can debate how well the Packers management handled his departure, but you can't really blame them for saying enough is enough.

On the other hand calling him a "traitor" doesn't quite fit either. Going from a team in which you were an icon for 16 years to a divisional rival is a toolish thing to do for sure. There have been many iconic players forced to finish their careers at other places. I don't think it's any coincidence that none of them (to my memory) chose to go to a hated divisional rival. They understood that the fans that have supported them their whole career would be hurt to see him playing for a divisional rival and have avoided that situation. Favre is simply too self absorbed to even understand the fans point of view on this.

Mark Chmura long ago made the statement that Favre was a person who only thinks about himself. At the time I chalked it up to sour grapes because he screwed up his own life and was trying to pass blame elsewhere. But I never forgot that, and when you hear his words and observe his actions over the past several years, you'll notice that he appears to be correct.

But traitor isn't quite the right word either, unless you feel he never wanted to return to the Packers and only unretired knowing that the train had left the station and was hoping for a release instead of a welcome back. That's possible, but I'll give Brett the benefit of the doubt on that one.

heavyD & da Pack
QUOTE (Jeremy @ Sep 30 2009, 11:54 AM) *
But traitor isn't quite the right word either, unless you feel he never wanted to return to the Packers and only unretired knowing that the train had left the station and was hoping for a release instead of a welcome back. That's possible, but I'll give Brett the benefit of the doubt on that one.

I agree that traitor is a bit extreme. And the question on the last sentence says it all, IMO. I guess this is where I don't give Brett the benefit of the doubt. He has stated that he does not like OTA, minis, TC and does not want to put the work in Monday through Saturday. IMO, his 2007 season was the fruits of his off season work and his responsibility to the team for his mistakes (mental blunders and forcing pass after pass). Maybe part of the reason for his end of the season decline (beside the age factor) was that the mental toll was a lot for him. When he announced his retirement from GB, that was something that really struck a chord with me. The mental part of the game.

I have always thought that Favre, being a gunslinger, was not one to overly comtemplate the mental part of the game. I am not saying that he did not work hard.. game film, studying... I am saying that he should a lot of distain for it. It was a reason for his retirement; the way I comprehended it. As to where he was hoping for his release.. That question I have answered my way and that question is what bothers a lot of us, I think. He tried to force his way back into the starting QB spot or his release from GB. After the trade to the Jets, he seemed more unhappy that he was forced to play in NY. Then he wanted his release from the Jets (early before the draft and then after it) and would not commit to Minny until in to TC.
stuffin
Great Article. I agree with all that was said.

Very Objective, even the subjective parts.
packinatl
QUOTE (Jeremy @ Sep 30 2009, 09:54 PM) *
On the other hand calling him a "traitor" doesn't quite fit either. Going from a team in which you were an icon for 16 years to a divisional rival is a toolish thing to do for sure. There have been many iconic players forced to finish their careers at other places. I don't think it's any coincidence that none of them (to my memory) chose to go to a hated divisional rival. They understood that the fans that have supported them their whole career would be hurt to see him playing for a divisional rival and have avoided that situation. Favre is simply too self absorbed to even understand the fans point of view on this.


To be honest I dont think todays player thinks about that very much at all, some yes but the great majority no. Its a business to them and its where they get a paycheck. It would have been interesting to see if Emmit Smith would have been offered more money in say Washington or New York if he would have accepted that deal over Arizona.
OneTwoSixFive
Mike Vandermouse:
1. Favre is good for the NFL
A player on the verge of turning 40 who never has missed a start in 17 years and continues to produce makes for an incredible story. His passion for the game cannot be questioned. The TV networks love him because anytime Favre plays, he compels people to watch. His last-second pass to beat the 49ers on Sunday was remarkable and provided one more piece of evidence proving you should never bet against him, no matter how old he is or what color jersey he is wearing.


(See bolded section) Actually, I do question that (in the last two years anyway). You could certainly make an argument that the year Brett 'retired' was his first effort to arrange things so that he missed as much of preseason OTAs, mini-camp and training camp as possible, and maybe thought he could 'unretire' just in time for the season. Sending Brett his Packers locker, was a very obvious message (I thought) from the Packers org, that they had taken him at his word and moved on. He didn't do much preseason work with the Jets, and prettty much none with the Vikes. With the Vikes he could have had his bicep fixed months before he did, and participated fully in their camp.

I see someone hanging on, I don't see passion except for brief moments on the field where it flickers when he makes a play. I would have loved to have played the Vikes twice in December, after the wear and tear of the regular season had a chance to take its toll. After many games, at age 40, with little or no preseason conditioning. I think he will certainly implode later in the season, whether he is in a dome or not. Shame both Packers/Vikes games are in the first half of the season.
Bob_Nelson
QUOTE (Jeremy @ Sep 30 2009, 08:54 AM) *
On the other hand calling him a "traitor" doesn't quite fit either. Going from a team in which you were an icon for 16 years to a divisional rival is a toolish thing to do for sure. There have been many iconic players forced to finish their careers at other places. I don't think it's any coincidence that none of them (to my memory) chose to go to a hated divisional rival. They understood that the fans that have supported them their whole career would be hurt to see him playing for a divisional rival and have avoided that situation. Favre is simply too self absorbed to even understand the fans point of view on this.


When you really look at it though, is there even another team that he could play for at this stage? What other team plays indoors, has a great running game, and runs basically the same WCO? Going to the Vikings is the best chance for him to a.) win anything of note and b.) extend his career.

Does that make him a guy looking out for his best interests, yes it does. But, weren't the Packers doing the same thing and looking out for their own interests when they made it clear that they weren't going to trade him to anyone that could hurt them (ie the Vikings or even possibly the Bucaneers). Aren't the fans doing the same thing when they say "I want to remember him as a great Packer, not as a hated Viking."

Everyone in this case is essentially looking out for themselves. Thats life.
Bob_Nelson
QUOTE (OneTwoSixFive @ Sep 30 2009, 02:59 PM) *
Mike Vandermouse:
1. Favre is good for the NFL
A player on the verge of turning 40 who never has missed a start in 17 years and continues to produce makes for an incredible story. His passion for the game cannot be questioned. The TV networks love him because anytime Favre plays, he compels people to watch. His last-second pass to beat the 49ers on Sunday was remarkable and provided one more piece of evidence proving you should never bet against him, no matter how old he is or what color jersey he is wearing.


(See bolded section) Actually, I do question that (in the last two years anyway). You could certainly make an argument that the year Brett 'retired' was his first effort to arrange things so that he missed as much of preseason OTAs, mini-camp and training camp as possible, and maybe thought he could 'unretire' just in time for the season. Sending Brett his Packers locker, was a very obvious message (I thought) from the Packers org, that they had taken him at his word and moved on. He didn't do much preseason work with the Jets, and prettty much none with the Vikes. With the Vikes he could have had his bicep fixed months before he did, and participated fully in their camp.

I see someone hanging on, I don't see passion except for brief moments on the field where it flickers when he makes a play. I would have loved to have played the Vikes twice in December, after the wear and tear of the regular season had a chance to take its toll. After many games, at age 40, with little or no preseason conditioning. I think he will certainly implode later in the season, whether he is in a dome or not. Shame both Packers/Vikes games are in the first half of the season.


I agree with you. Once you get him on your team and on the field, the guy will do anything to help his team win. But, his offseason conditioning/practice leaves much to be desired. I always thought it was downright criminal for a guy who was as talented as he is/was to not put in the kind of time that a Peyton Manning puts in.
Pugger
I don't pay much attention to what Favre says. I watch and see what he does. I truly believe Favre is playing where he has always wanted to since Sherman was fired (didn't he once say he'd retire if Sherman was canned?). Favre had it pretty cushy after Holmgren left for Seattle and when McCarthy came on board things changed. With MM's guidance Favre has his best season in eons and the team was at the doorstep of the Super Bowl. Why would he even contemplate retiring? Because he wasn't happy in GB. So he "retired." After that PC and some postering Favre was traded to NY. You can see his silly expression at the NY PC after the trade. He looked bemused by it all. After that season he still had one more year on his contract. He then tried the same stunt he tried to pull here and "retired". After the draft when NY picked a QB Favre asked for his release knowing full well NY would give it to him. NY has a habit of cutting QBs who still have value. Now the coast is clear and Favre is on a team with a HC like Sherman who will treat him like royalty and give him a pass on OTAs, mini camps, etc. I hope we make him rue the day he started all this nonsense and whip the Heidi Hairs once and for all!
rpiotr01
I'm beginning to agree more and more with the article that Cliff Christl wrote a few weeks ago. Ted should have had a sit down face to face with Favre and just said, Hey, I know you've been talking to the Vikings and you want to play there. If you want that to happen go convince them to trade a 1st and a third for your rights. If not, no dice.

Would the Vikings have gone for it? Maybe, maybe not. But if they did we'd have a shot at Michael Oher or Percy Harvin - and more importantly, they wouldn't have Harvin. Maybe we'd take Matthews anyway, but we'd still have a second and a couple thirds to deal with.

They should have just bit the bullet and let the baby have his bottle and gotten something more out of it.
Pugger
TT and the rest of us were well aware the queens were a half way decent QB away from being a sure thing team that could go deep in the playoffs. Why in the world would any GM make a deal like that and improve a divisional rival?? Even tho they thought AR was the future they knew BF could still play at a high level so you don't go and give your rival the one missing piece in the puzzle. When the 49ers wanted to go with Young they didn't ship Montana to a divisional rival either.
Packer Backer NY
QUOTE (Pugger @ Oct 2 2009, 11:15 AM) *
TT and the rest of us were well aware the queens were a half way decent QB away from being a sure thing team that could go deep in the playoffs. Why in the world would any GM make a deal like that and improve a divisional rival?? Even tho they thought AR was the future they knew BF could still play at a high level so you don't go and give your rival the one missing piece in the puzzle. When the 49ers wanted to go with Young they didn't ship Montana to a divisional rival either.


Ask yourself: "Why did the Patriots let Bledsoe go to the Rival Bills"?

If Ted could have gotten a #1 for Favre, even though Favre goes to the Vikings..... I say trade him. Get the best deal possible and stop looking like you were scared to have him line up against you. The whole "poison pill" deal was just a bit strange.
rpiotr01
QUOTE (Pugger @ Oct 2 2009, 11:15 AM) *
TT and the rest of us were well aware the queens were a half way decent QB away from being a sure thing team that could go deep in the playoffs. Why in the world would any GM make a deal like that and improve a divisional rival?? Even tho they thought AR was the future they knew BF could still play at a high level so you don't go and give your rival the one missing piece in the puzzle. When the 49ers wanted to go with Young they didn't ship Montana to a divisional rival either.



Because Ted's job is to do what's best for the Packers, not to do what hurts the division rivals. Getting multiple high picks would improve the team now and in the future. The side effect of that would hurt the Vikings, because they'd have less to work with in building their team.

And frankly, if GB management felt Favre couldn't win the big one, then what's the difference if he plays well for most of the year? You didn't want him because history shows he fades badly down the stretch. So MN has some success, big deal. He wasn't going to have that success with GB.
packinatl
QUOTE (Packer Backer NY @ Oct 2 2009, 10:44 PM) *
Ask yourself: "Why did the Patriots let Bledsoe go to the Rival Bills"?

If Ted could have gotten a #1 for Favre, even though Favre goes to the Vikings..... I say trade him. Get the best deal possible and stop looking like you were scared to have him line up against you. The whole "poison pill" deal was just a bit strange.


I just wonder what the deal was with Tampa Bay. If what Gruden says is true who backed out of that deal? And how much did Tampa offer. And Pugger if what you say is true and Thompson knew that Farve could still play at a high level why not hold for more than what you got? And one more thought. Did the league "push" Thomspon to trade Favre to a big market like NY? There is so much to this that we will never know, from all parties.
Jeremy
I think it would have been a lot harder to put the Favre circus behind them if they had traded him to the Vikings. Rodgers was already under a lot of pressure as the replacement of a legend. Was given even MORE pressure by the idiots who heckled him in practice as if the whole thing was his fault. We're going to throw on top of that having to face Favre twice a season in Aaron's first year as starter? You can't do that to the kid.

Besides, there's no gaurantee they'd have given us a 1st rounder.
Packer Backer NY
QUOTE (packinatl @ Oct 2 2009, 11:51 AM) *
I just wonder what the deal was with Tampa Bay. If what Gruden says is true who backed out of that deal? And how much did Tampa offer. And Pugger if what you say is true and Thompson knew that Farve could still play at a high level why not hold for more than what you got? And one more thought. Did the league "push" Thomspon to trade Favre to a big market like NY? There is so much to this that we will never know, from all parties.


One wonders but in the end, I think TT didn't Favre anywhere near Green Bay. The thought of him lining up with another team and beating his Packers would have been too much of a media circus to handle.
Pugger
QUOTE (packinatl @ Oct 2 2009, 11:51 AM) *
I just wonder what the deal was with Tampa Bay. If what Gruden says is true who backed out of that deal? And how much did Tampa offer. And Pugger if what you say is true and Thompson knew that Farve could still play at a high level why not hold for more than what you got? And one more thought. Did the league "push" Thomspon to trade Favre to a big market like NY? There is so much to this that we will never know, from all parties.


TT only had offers from Tampa and the Jets if what we hear is correct so TT shipped him off to the AFC and away from GB. Jeremy is right, AR didn't need to have that circus so close to home his first year as a starter. So we got a 3rd round pick for a retired player. That extra pick helped us get Matthews. I guess we got a first rounder after all...
sinatra
Whether trading Favre to the Vikes would have been the right thing or not, let's not overlook this little fact: that doing so would have taken gargantuan-sized balls of historic, biblical proportions. There aren't many GMs in the entire history of the game that could have pulled the trigger on that one - if any.
GBP4EVER
Has anyone also noticed Favre is always wearing a Vikings cap in his media meetings? He never did that with the Packers. he always wore that ratty old red cap.
Thirteen Below
QUOTE (rpiotr01 @ Oct 2 2009, 09:49 AM) *
And frankly, if GB management felt Favre couldn't win the big one, then what's the difference if he plays well for most of the year? You didn't want him because history shows he fades badly down the stretch. So MN has some success, big deal. He wasn't going to have that success with GB.


Because it might have given our biggest divisional rival a better chance of beating us in 2 divisional games, possibly making the difference between whether we made the playoffs or not. Ted was just being prudent and minimizing his risks.
Leader
QUOTE (GBP4EVER @ Oct 4 2009, 02:49 AM) *
Has anyone also noticed Favre is always wearing a Vikings cap in his media meetings? He never did that with the Packers. he always wore that ratty old red cap.

He loves the Queens more. sad.gif
chunkymonkey
QUOTE (Leader @ Oct 4 2009, 08:40 AM) *
He loves the Queens more. sad.gif


The new relationship always starts with more energy than was left in the one that lasted 16 years. Eventually he'll fall into the old neglectful habits and start wearing the dirty old hat again.
Terry
QUOTE (Leader @ Oct 4 2009, 02:40 PM) *
He loves the Queens more. sad.gif

I would have said the opposite. :-) The need to wear the trappings suggests an insecurity on the subject, an absence (in part, at least) in the heart more often than not.

Thus... Oh, never mind, I'll forego the obvious political remark guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of three quarters of the posters in the forum, heh heh heh. cool.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.