The only thing keeping me from being pissed at Favre is the fact that he’d be playing for the Packers right now if it were up to him. But it’s not up to him, it was up to Ted Thompson. Ted showed no loyalty to Brett, so Brett’s under no obligation to show loyalty to the Packers by not playing for their rival.
And before you whine about the fact that Brett said he was retiring from the Packers, remember that the whole thing was a set up by Ted Thompson to force Brett to make his decision at a time during the year when Brett’s motivation was at its yearly low. Ted didn’t have the balls to just tell Brett straight up that he wanted to let Rodgers start next season (I could actually respect that approach). Instead Ted took the weasel approach.
So in my perfect world the Vikings won’t win a game all season, Favre will throw 50 TD’s and no INT’s, the Packers will win the Superbowl, and Ted Thompson will still get fired. And there will also be lots of free beer in my perfect world.
In my perfect world, he doesn’t play a snap again for any team.
Almost every word that the man has said over the last six months is contrary to the last word that just came out of his mouth.
I’m retired, I’m not retired. For f’s sake. Just get out of the game or don’t.
I have real wonders as to if Carly Simon really wrote the song about him.
I love the Ted Thompson hatred. He didn’t want to play for the Packers any more. Brett didn’t want to play for the Packers. Remember, he started it all by saying he retired, then didn’t, then did, then didn’t. But oh yeah… it’s Ted’s fault for that.
Nowhere on the internets have I read the entire crux of what you refer to as a “tired” argument. So Sportsgamerblog is getting an exclusive scoop! Yes, Brett himself said he was retiring. But that’s not the point. The point is that the entire question of, “Brett, are you going to retire or are you going to play for us next year?” was a trap set by Ted Thompson. He asked the question at a time of year when the answer wasn’t even useful to the team. It’s not like the draft was the next day (and it’s not like they’d seriously be looking at stud QB’s early in the draft even if it was). No, the question was asked at a particular time of year (right after the end of the season, when Brett’s motivation and desire to play another season are at their yearly low) because Ted maximized his chances of getting the answer that he wanted. Once he got that answer, he now had the advantage of being able to blame it all on Brett and claim that the Packers have moved on. This was a cunning trap and might even be deserving of some respect if it wasn’t sprung on someone who deserved better treatment. Like I said, if Ted had just said to Brett flat out, “I don’t care whether you want to play or retire or what, but Rodgers is starting next year and that’s just the way it is” I wouldn’t be as against Ted Thompson as much as I am. But as it is, Ted’s a weasel and a coward.
Your whole argument is based on the fact that Brett changed his mind. Did you call Michael Jordan a whiney prima donna when he unretired the first time or the second? How about Roger Clemens (ok, that might be a bad example)? If the worst thing Brett has ever done to the Packers is change his mind and decide that he wants to play, I can live with that. The fact that you can’t makes me think you weren’t all that much of a Favre supporter before the word “retirement” was ever associated with him.
What I’ve always found funny about our discussions regarding this matter is that your opinion of the timeline is the right one and that there is no other. Brett was wronged in your opinion and there is never going to be anything to convince you otherwise.
I feel that he did not want to play for the Packers anymore and has used the media as a puppet to make it seem as if he was wronged.
I sincerely hope he has his worst career season with the Vikings. I’d like the whole sorry incident to backfire for him and for them.
“What I’ve always found funny about our discussions regarding this matter is that your opinion of the timeline is the right one and that there is no other.”
No, what’s funny is that you think a date on the calendar is my opinion. The fact is that Ted Thompson required an answer from Brett by a certain date. This date was nowhere near the draft.
He got an answer. Brett changed his mind months later, the Packers stated they would allow him to come back… then Brett waffled and then said he would stay retired, then changed his mind again later.
You think Thompson is a villain and Brett was wronged.
I think that Thompson had to make a decision as every general manger does, it wasn’t a popular one, but he made a decision. I thought the decision was the right one then, and I still think it was the right one now.
That’s really the last I have to say on this. The discussion takes us no where. Neither of us will ever see the others point of view.
I think Ted Thompson is a weasel, not a villain. Get it straight.
I bet you $5 I can get you to say at least one more thing on the subject.
“Brett changed his mind months later”. Actually it was less than 3 weeks later, according to the non-Ted-Thompson-provided timeline. Actually most of your timeline seems to fit with the timeline that Ted Thompson provided.
I’m guessing you also trust the insurance company executives more than physicians?
I think we all hashed this out last year, didn’t we? Did the Packers really want Favre back? Probably not. The reason is not because Thompson is some sort of lower life form, but because if Favre returns they lose Rodgers and have to find another future QB. If Rodgers sat through his entire rookie contract, not only would he not want to play for the Packers, but they couldn’t have gotten value for moving him – he would still be an unknown potentiality as far as the league was concerned.. The question was: one or two years of Favre followed by the unknown, or ten with Rodgers? The Packers made the logical choice.
However, because of Favre’s place in Packer history, they gave him multiple chances to play last year (you can say it was disingenuous, but you have to admit he had multiple opportunities), after letting him hold them over a barrel the year before.
The timing was not because of the draft, but because of voluntary off-season training sessions. The Packers rightfully needed to know if Favre or Rogers was going to be the leader; if Favre, no big deal. If Rodgers, he and they needed him to assert himself as a leader from the first possible moment. Assuming a leadership role is not something that should start with July training camps, especially with a guy who held a subservient role on the team for several years.
August 18th, 2009 - 14:23
The only thing keeping me from being pissed at Favre is the fact that he’d be playing for the Packers right now if it were up to him. But it’s not up to him, it was up to Ted Thompson. Ted showed no loyalty to Brett, so Brett’s under no obligation to show loyalty to the Packers by not playing for their rival.
And before you whine about the fact that Brett said he was retiring from the Packers, remember that the whole thing was a set up by Ted Thompson to force Brett to make his decision at a time during the year when Brett’s motivation was at its yearly low. Ted didn’t have the balls to just tell Brett straight up that he wanted to let Rodgers start next season (I could actually respect that approach). Instead Ted took the weasel approach.
So in my perfect world the Vikings won’t win a game all season, Favre will throw 50 TD’s and no INT’s, the Packers will win the Superbowl, and Ted Thompson will still get fired. And there will also be lots of free beer in my perfect world.
August 18th, 2009 - 16:18
In my perfect world, he doesn’t play a snap again for any team.
Almost every word that the man has said over the last six months is contrary to the last word that just came out of his mouth.
I’m retired, I’m not retired. For f’s sake. Just get out of the game or don’t.
I have real wonders as to if Carly Simon really wrote the song about him.
I love the Ted Thompson hatred. He didn’t want to play for the Packers any more. Brett didn’t want to play for the Packers. Remember, he started it all by saying he retired, then didn’t, then did, then didn’t. But oh yeah… it’s Ted’s fault for that.
Ugh. Such a tired argument.
August 18th, 2009 - 18:20
Nowhere on the internets have I read the entire crux of what you refer to as a “tired” argument. So Sportsgamerblog is getting an exclusive scoop! Yes, Brett himself said he was retiring. But that’s not the point. The point is that the entire question of, “Brett, are you going to retire or are you going to play for us next year?” was a trap set by Ted Thompson. He asked the question at a time of year when the answer wasn’t even useful to the team. It’s not like the draft was the next day (and it’s not like they’d seriously be looking at stud QB’s early in the draft even if it was). No, the question was asked at a particular time of year (right after the end of the season, when Brett’s motivation and desire to play another season are at their yearly low) because Ted maximized his chances of getting the answer that he wanted. Once he got that answer, he now had the advantage of being able to blame it all on Brett and claim that the Packers have moved on. This was a cunning trap and might even be deserving of some respect if it wasn’t sprung on someone who deserved better treatment. Like I said, if Ted had just said to Brett flat out, “I don’t care whether you want to play or retire or what, but Rodgers is starting next year and that’s just the way it is” I wouldn’t be as against Ted Thompson as much as I am. But as it is, Ted’s a weasel and a coward.
Your whole argument is based on the fact that Brett changed his mind. Did you call Michael Jordan a whiney prima donna when he unretired the first time or the second? How about Roger Clemens (ok, that might be a bad example)? If the worst thing Brett has ever done to the Packers is change his mind and decide that he wants to play, I can live with that. The fact that you can’t makes me think you weren’t all that much of a Favre supporter before the word “retirement” was ever associated with him.
August 18th, 2009 - 18:28
What I’ve always found funny about our discussions regarding this matter is that your opinion of the timeline is the right one and that there is no other. Brett was wronged in your opinion and there is never going to be anything to convince you otherwise.
I feel that he did not want to play for the Packers anymore and has used the media as a puppet to make it seem as if he was wronged.
I sincerely hope he has his worst career season with the Vikings. I’d like the whole sorry incident to backfire for him and for them.
August 18th, 2009 - 21:48
“What I’ve always found funny about our discussions regarding this matter is that your opinion of the timeline is the right one and that there is no other.”
No, what’s funny is that you think a date on the calendar is my opinion. The fact is that Ted Thompson required an answer from Brett by a certain date. This date was nowhere near the draft.
Please refute.
August 18th, 2009 - 21:52
He got an answer. Brett changed his mind months later, the Packers stated they would allow him to come back… then Brett waffled and then said he would stay retired, then changed his mind again later.
You think Thompson is a villain and Brett was wronged.
I think that Thompson had to make a decision as every general manger does, it wasn’t a popular one, but he made a decision. I thought the decision was the right one then, and I still think it was the right one now.
That’s really the last I have to say on this. The discussion takes us no where. Neither of us will ever see the others point of view.
August 18th, 2009 - 22:32
I think Ted Thompson is a weasel, not a villain. Get it straight.
I bet you $5 I can get you to say at least one more thing on the subject.
“Brett changed his mind months later”. Actually it was less than 3 weeks later, according to the non-Ted-Thompson-provided timeline. Actually most of your timeline seems to fit with the timeline that Ted Thompson provided.
I’m guessing you also trust the insurance company executives more than physicians?
August 19th, 2009 - 07:06
I think we all hashed this out last year, didn’t we? Did the Packers really want Favre back? Probably not. The reason is not because Thompson is some sort of lower life form, but because if Favre returns they lose Rodgers and have to find another future QB. If Rodgers sat through his entire rookie contract, not only would he not want to play for the Packers, but they couldn’t have gotten value for moving him – he would still be an unknown potentiality as far as the league was concerned.. The question was: one or two years of Favre followed by the unknown, or ten with Rodgers? The Packers made the logical choice.
However, because of Favre’s place in Packer history, they gave him multiple chances to play last year (you can say it was disingenuous, but you have to admit he had multiple opportunities), after letting him hold them over a barrel the year before.
The timing was not because of the draft, but because of voluntary off-season training sessions. The Packers rightfully needed to know if Favre or Rogers was going to be the leader; if Favre, no big deal. If Rodgers, he and they needed him to assert himself as a leader from the first possible moment. Assuming a leadership role is not something that should start with July training camps, especially with a guy who held a subservient role on the team for several years.