Packer487

I kind of laughed when I saw we signed him, but that's a typical Joe D move. Young guy, still has potential even if it doesn't look like he'll ever realize it. But it's a reclamation project and it's a reasonable deal. If nothing else, he's an ok backup center. It gives them some flexibility if they want to move Maxiell or Johnson (or Sheed or Dyess I guess) in a trade. For $4 million a year in the NBA, we could do a lot worse. I'm not wetting my pants in excitement over this one, but I'm not pissed.

I'm pretty much with you. It was quite possibly the worst race I've ever seen. Nascar was trying to make the best out of a bad situation and keep things as safe as possible, but it took pretty much all the strategy out of the race. With so many cars on the lead lap, the teams had to know that any tire problem would knock them to 35th or worse, so I doubt anyone would have tried to press their luck late in the going. I'd be pissed if I shelled out the money to go to that race. Tony George must have been having deja vu, thinking back to the F1 race where only six cars took the green due to tire concerns. Maybe this is just the Racing Gods' way of saying "Only IndyCars should be running on that track"

:lol:

I used to go all the time. Didn't make it to the Indy race last year, but we went to the ALMS race the day before. My favorite spot to sit is high in the grandstands at the end of the main straightaway/entrance to turn one. You can see quite a bit of the track right there. Turn one isn't a great passing area, but guys (especially in the ALMS race) might try to stuff it in there rather than follow a slower car for the next few turns. The other area to sit would be high up at the end of the back straightaway. Unfortunately, due to the run-off road, the grandstand isn't far enough over that you can see the whole back straightaway, but you'd be able to see the main passing area on the track, plus the next two corners. Plus if you're up high enough, you could turn around and see them head back toward the front stretch. If the grandstand could be further to the right, it would be the best seat in the house. I prefer the end of the main straightaway. It's a really great time. The island is beautiful and the organization was top-notch. There were a few problems with the bus transportation to the island last year, but they've assured everyone that it will be fixed this year (and by a lot of accounts it was much better Sunday than it was on Saturday even). I highly recommend going to the ALMS race on Saturday as well. Those cars are bad. ass. You've got your Porsches, Audis, Acuras, Corvettes, Ferraris, Aston Martin, Viper. There are four classes of cars on the track at the same time, all in their own race, all going different speeds. There's a ton of passing and a lot of bumping, banging and wrecking since the slower cars tend to get in the way. The racing in that series is fantastic and it's fun to watch those guys on a tight street course. I love going to Belle Isle. Sadly, I don't think I'm going to make it this year. But I definitely recommend going. You'll have a great time. Getting paddock passes is pretty fun also. You get to go back in the garage and watch the teams work on cars. You can get autographs if that's something you like doing, and it's pretty fun to see how the teams prepare the car.

It's a better bet than the "Will the Wings win 68 games" one...

There are a few things in this post that I don't really agree with, but I've gone through it all before, so that's cool... I believe the thing about him having dinner with the Tampa GM has been debunked. It would've come out by now if the Packers had given him permission for that, and if the Bucs were trying to do it secretly, I highly doubt they would've taken one of the most high-profile athletes in the world out to dinner at a busy restaurant. This story has made the rounds, so I'm guessing if it was true, Minnesota wouldn't be the only club to have tampering charges filed against them. As for the <30 degrees stat, there's absolutely no way that's correct--or even close to correct. The New York Post has his all-time <34 degree stat at 42-11 (It'd be 42-12 after the Giants game). According to his official site, he's 40-5 at home in the cold. I don't know when that was last updated, but there's no way he's played that many cold-weather road games (especially with Detroit and Minnesota having domes).

He was one of the most popular players in the NFL--if not the most popular--before this happened. People don't hate Donovan McNabb. People didn't hate Steve McNair. It's absurd to play the race card on this one. People don't hate him because he's black. People hate him because he electrocuted puppies. He should have gone to jail for what he did. He's a scumball from a family of scumballs. He only has himself to blame for being bankrupt. I don't feel a bit sorry for the man. If you have that kind of gift and then throw it away on something stupid like dog-fighting, you pretty much deserve what you get.

Again, we just don't know what "evidence" the Packers have. If Favre and Bevell had some conversations, it's absolutely nothing. If Favre talked to Brad Childress? Probably more than nothing. I'm not on Thompson's side in this situation, but the tampering charge was absolutely brilliant. It makes it look like Favre was trying an end-around on the Packers and dealing with one of their biggest rivals, plus it pretty much kills any shot he'd ever end up in Minnesota, plus he causes some internal strife in Minnesota, since they've been trying to put on a brave face and pump up Tarvaris Jackson publicly. Our GM may be a complete prick, but he's playing this game perfectly. Damn him.

Let me rephrase. Favre has done nothing wrong by deciding that he wants to play football again. I agree that he could have handled things differently, as could the Packers. It seems there's been a major lack of communication between the parties throughout this situation, which has made it a lot worse than it should have been. The biggest breakdown was that if the Packers truly would have been open to him taking until training camp to make up his mind, they should have communicated that to Brett. I'm really interested to see how this tampering thing plays out...To see who called who and when. The "when" is the biggie for me.

Barry retired on the eve of training camp and completely screwed the team over the process. If he had up and retired at the start of the offseason, people would have been like, "Yeah, can't blame him. The Lions suck!" Favre has done nothing wrong. No one is going to remember this 20 years from now, especially if he doesn't end up playing for another team. But even if he does, in the long run, no one is going to care. You want to bring up Emmitt Smith, fine. Does anyone really remember--or care--about him ending his career as a Cardinal? Honest-to-God, I forgot about it until someone posted a picture of him in a Cardinals uniform on another board. I'm not going to argue with you if you personally remember Reggie as an Eagle. He was a 7-time Pro Bowler with the Eagles and a 6-time Pro Bowler with the Packers. He was certainly more dominant in Philly, but he had some amazing years with the Packers as well. In terms of what team he'll be remembered with, I give the edge to Green Bay because I'm biased because of the Super Bowl win and the images of him walking off the field holding the trophy high in the air.

He hasn't hurt his legacy. Short-term, maybe. Long-term, no one will remember or care. The only way it would be more than a footnote on his career is if he took a team to the Super Bowl. Playing for Washington in no way has hurt Jordan's legacy. Playing for Carolina didn't hurt Reggie. Hell, I'm as big of a Packer fan as there is an I barely remember that that happened. Coaching Washington didn't hurt how Lombardi is revered in Green Bay (even though he retired and then came out of retirement to take over the Redskins). The only reason people will remember that Bourque played for the Avs is that he won a Cup. He'll be a Bruin forever. Namath made an ill-advised decision to play for the Rams...no one mentions that now. Plenty of guys have flip-flopped on retirement. Pretty much everyone (the Packers included) expected this at some point. That act in it of itself isn't attention whoring (though I do think Brett does some of that--if nothing else, he's just way too honest with the media), it's the life of a high-profile athlete faced with the prospects of walking away for good. Ah ok, misunderstood what you meant by "a Packer comeback". I appreciate what you said, though. Picking between the Packers and Favre would be like asking a parent to pick between their kids. I don't want to have to do it this season.

Yeah, ESPN/AP keeps running with that quote. Based on the stuff in the local papers, the interview with Favre, the Packers timeline, and the quotes from TT and MM, I don't believe he ever actually told them "I'm coming back" in March. I think he told them he was having second thoughts, they were going to go talk to him about it, they asked if he was 100% committed and he said no, so they called it off. I still don't see what's so wrong about changing your mind before training camp even starts. It's not like he's asking to come back Week 12 of the regular season (Niedermayer) or for the start of the playoffs (Forsberg). They didn't give him the time he needed to make up his mind. He screwed up by not telling them "I need more time". (But then he'd come across as the jag who was "holding the team hostage".) It's not unprecedented for teams to give their QB until the start of training camp to make up their mind. Elway got until June and it disrupted their offseason plans so much that they went out and won the Super Bowl. Young had until mid-June. He's not a QB, but Strahan didn't even come in until after the preseason last year. Gilbert Brown used to take until at least the start of training camp to announce if he was coming back because he hated the offseason stuff. I wish Favre had handled things differently, but the team could have done a lot of things differently as well. He'll be in town for Frank Winters and Gilbert Brown's Packer Hall of Fame induction this weekend. I imagine there will be a sit-down with TT and MM at some point. Hopefully they can put their differences aside, but I'm not counting on it.

Uhh...why not? I don't see what one quote has to do with the other. I suppose I could see objecting to me saying that R-B-F is "pretty solid" but I also acknowledged it's a lot of unproven talent. True on both parts, but in the second part, instead of a guy that was thought of as the top player in the draft heading into his senior season, we'd likely have a 7th round draft pick or a street free agent. I suppose it's possible they would have taken Brohm anyway (if they were truly doing BPA), but I wouldn't consider it likely that they'd burn a 2nd round pick on a 3rd string QB when they only carried 2 last year. Still, the quarterback group would be downgraded. The Packers have chosen to go with their rookies over every vet on the market, which leads me to believe they think Brohm (inexperience and all) is better than the guys out there. At least this way, there's a chance (slight as it may be) that we get Favre back, if not there's a chance (decent) that we'll get a very good draft pick out of this (Montana went for a 1st and a player, I believe, and he wasn't coming off a year like Favre had), and Rodgers has gone through the offseason as the starter and they've been able to tweak the offense slightly to him. None of of those benefits exist in the other scenario, our QB position is downgraded, and we probably have to trade a pick to acquire a decent backup QB. How so? I can see how he'd somewhat be doing wrong by Rodgers by coming back, but no one would have blinked if Favre had just announced he was returning, so really, what's the difference? Some disappointment? Please. Brohm probably doesn't get drafted by Green Bay if Favre announces a return in March, so he's made money off Favre's retirement and the worst-case scenario is he's 3rd string instead of 2nd this year, which would actually probably be a good thing. Flynn probably gets cut if Favre returns, so you could make a case that Favre would be doing wrong by him. Then again, Green Bay only carried two QBs last year, so it wouldn't be a shocker if he doesn't make the team anyway. It's probably more likely than not he ends up on the practice squad this year, which would probably be the case if Favre returns as well. He waffled so much that last year he announced he was coming back before the Super Bowl. The year before they were coming off a 4-12 season and there was a new coach coming in. Pretty reasonable to take some time to figure out if you want to keep playing after that, no? You think there aren't these same issues with a lot of older players? The difference is that Favre is more visible than everyone else in this position and--to his detriment--he'll talk to the media about his situation. He doesn't give the canned quotes lots of other guys do. Can I point out that after the Broncos won their first Super Bowl, John Elway didn't announce he was returning until June 1st. Then he didn't decide he was retiring until mid-April the following year (It was announced May 2nd). Steve Young also didn't retire until mid-June. In some ways yes and in some ways no. It would be nice to have had him commit to play 2 or 3 more years, but what player would actually do that? It's not unique for an older player to reevaluate his situation after each season. I think Favre legitimately thought he was done after 2006, but that last winning streak made him believe there might be something to this team. Then there was a very emotional end to this past season...I have no doubts it's hard to think about going through all that preparation again. I know at the end of seasons I, as a fan, sometimes wonder why I invest so much into games that don't really mean anything in the grand scheme. I wonder why I care so much about the regular season when it means nothing as long as you make the playoffs. Then, come the draft, I can't wait for things to get going again. And that's just me being a FAN. But...but...we would've been just fine (and not just fine, better off) if Favre had announced he was coming back and then retired at the last moment, right? So I'm not sure how you make that argument. And the Broncos sure didn't push Elway to make his decision...he didn't announce a comeback until June, well after the Draft. That's the proper thing to do with your legendary quarterback. At least, if you want him back. I don't think they pressured him to retire either. But there ya go. They pressured him to make up his mind. He did the responsible thing and retired since he wasn't 100% committed to playing again. Now he realizes he made the wrong choice. To me, if you've got a guy that has a hard time making up his mind, the LAST thing you want to do is pressure him into making a decision quickly. We're supposed to be surprised that this ended up happening? From MannysBetter: I never said the Packers pressured him to retire. Just that they pressured him to make up his mind and subsequently, he did the responsible thing and called it quits, since he wasn't 100% sure. In hindsight, he should've said, "I need more time to make up my mind," but then the same jagoffs who are calling him a selfish prick would be talking about how he was "holding the team hostage". The only way Favre wins is to make a decision that he can stick with. And telling him "Make it quick" isn't the best way to go about that. It makes perfect sense to me. Green Bay wanted an answer, so he gave them one. He wasn't 100% committed to returning, so he couldn't say he was coming back. It's an ugly situation and it could've been avoided by simply saying, "Brett, take your time, don't think about football for awhile, and let us know when you decide. We'd appreciate hearing from you before the Draft, but take the time you need to make a good decision that you'll stick with."

He's flip-flopped exactly one time. He retired, and now he wants to come back. No different than Michael Jordan, Dominik Hasek, Vince Lombardi, Bill Parcells, and a slew of others. The Packers wanted an answer before the draft/free agency. He gave them one. Then, after thinking about it for another 3 months, he decided he made the wrong choice. And based on their own comments, the Packers were pretty confident he was going to feel this way. And yet, even though they CLAIM (or at least Favre says they claim this...) they would have given him until training camp if they asked, they certainly didn't offer extra time to make up his mind. You really doubt that the Packers were trying to get an answer out of him before he was ready to give one? I can understand you wanting to have him retire. Maybe the Lions would have a chance to win in Green Bay at some point.....

The Packers said he's welcome back (whether they mean it or not) and he wants to play. Why should he let the media's desire for a story stop him?

Except that Reggie White retired from football, then came out of retirement to play for a different team. It hasn't tarnished his legacy, and I'd be willing to bet that Favre's return would go a whole lot better than White's did. Favre would be comparable to Sanders if he had announced in March that he was coming back and then walked out on the team around this time, saying he thought he would be able to play again but he just can't do it. Favre hasn't screwed the Packers over. They're in an uncomfortable spot, but the offseason hasn't gone any differently than it would have if they would've given Brett Favre this time to think, like they claim they would have. There are plenty of people who are tired of the story. Who cares? The talk was got old, but do you think Favre is the only athlete out there that has "Should I or shouldn't I?" running through his head in the offseason? Strahan was doing the same thing last year and he kept his team hanging until after the preseason was over. Didn't seem to affect them too much. Favre's biggest problem is that he's too honest and sometimes he says stupid stuff and doesn't put the kabosh on things that should be nipped in the bud. Wait, what? So you think it would be better if Favre had just retired on the eve of the preseason? Do you know what Green Bay's depth chart at QB would look like right now if he had done that? Aaron Rodgers At least in Favre's situation the team has had time to prepare and they have made other arraignments. The Packers are in a tough spot, but their season isn't screwed. If Favre comes back, they've got Favre-Rodgers-Brohm, which is as good of a situation at QB as any team in the league. If he doesn't return, they've got Rodgers-Brohm-Flynn, which has a lot of unproven talent, but is still pretty solid with two guys who were widely thought of as #1 overall picks at some point in their careers. If Favre had never given any indication he was thinking of retiring and had walked out now, God only knows what their QB situation would look like. The only reason there's any problem with what he's doing is because Thompson has an ego and he wants to get a look at his QB. Favre has done nothing wrong by changing his mind.

It's pretty cool if you don't live/work in Ann Arbor. If you do, it sucks. We just had Art Fair on the Square in Madison (very similar). We went this weekend and dropped like $250 on stuff for the apartment. I guess that's not a lot at an art fair, but it is for us! Got some very cool stuff though. The one in Ann Arbor is worth going to if for nothing more than to see the animals made out of nails!

It must be contagious, because I've flip-flopped a couple of times today: It's pretty clear whose side I'm on based on my posts on this board. I've worn a Brett Favre jersey the past four days (I have several) and I'm not planning on stopping anytime soon. Then I read some quotes today in the lead up to the interview about Favre saying he didn't want to be traded because it would "cede control to the Packers" and that he "wouldn't come to Green Bay to backup Aaron Rodgers" and I started to think he was being very unreasonable. That realistically there's no way GB would release him and so he better get used to the idea that they'd trade him--and would likely let him have input into his new location. Now, having read the transcript of the interview tonight (the situation just makes me sad, and we watch "Saving Grace" anyway, so I figured I didn't need to see it live) I'm back on Brett's side: I fully believe that the Packers pressured him into making a decision in March and that he did the responsible thing and retired. If he wasn't 100% committed to coming back at that point, there was no way he could tell them he was coming back. If he announced he was coming back and then retired at this point (rather than vice-versa), he would've COMPLETELY screwed the team over. At this point, they're in an uncomfortable situation, but the option is either having Favre-Rodgers-Brohm or Rodgers-Brohm-Flynn. Neither is bad. If Favre announces a comeback and then goes Barry Sanders on us, our QB depth chart looks like this: Aaron Rodgers. Perhaps Rodgers-Flynn. If Favre was, in fact, told that playing in Green Bay wasn't an option and yet they couldn't envision him playing for another team, the Packers are being even more unreasonable than Favre was when he asked for his outright release. The team should not have any control over a player's desire to continue his career. If they really wanted to, they would have the right to say "You can come back, but we aren't moving you. You'll stay on our team." It would be a low move to pull against a player that has done so much for the organization, but if they really wanted to that's their right as he signed the contract. But you can't say "You can't play here AND we're not moving you." That's crap. If Mike McCarthy did in fact tell Favre that they would have let him wait until training camp to announce his intentions, then the only thing that has changed is that the team has believed for three months that Aaron Rodgers would be the starting QB. They would have had to approach the draft and free agency as if Favre wasn't coming back. They would have gone through the OTAs under the assumption that Favre wasn't coming back. They would have added some Aaron Rodgers plays to the playbook in case he became the starter. It's absolute BS that they won't take Favre back if it's true that they were willing to wait until training camp for him to make up his mind, and just didn't inform him of that. I love Brett Favre. People can talk about how "He didn't make this team what it was" all they want to. That is true. Without his line or without Reggie, without Holmgren, maybe they don't accomplish everything they accomplished. He didn't win the Super Bowl by himself. But he did provide some of the greatest sports memories that I have. Memories that I will cherish my entire life. I've got DVD after DVD filled with all of our wins from the last 2 years along with some of the classics over the years that I've been able to find. I even have a couple from that dreadful 4-12 year. The reason I have them is simply so that once Brett Favre is gone, I'll be able to go back and watch him play again. I know the Packers were around for years before Favre came and they'll be around long after he's gone. But for me, it's never going to be the same. I'll still love this team. I'll still cheer my head off for them. I'll still go to games and cherish the moment when I do. But I can pretty much guarantee that I'll never have as much fun watching football as I have had watching Brett Favre. Maybe I'm just an oversentimental fuddy-duddy, but I want another chance to see him in the green and gold. I'm not ready for this era to end. If we were 7-9 last year I could understand wanting to move on, but we were 13-3 and 1 play from the Super Bowl. Favre had one of the best seasons of his career. Why are we so anxious to see the quarterback of the future, when the quarterback of the past and present still wants to play? I do understand why the Packers would want to move on after Favre flip-flopped in March. What I don't understand is, if they were in fact willing to let him wait until training camp to decide, what has changed? Why not, at the point of the flip-flop, tell him, "Brett, take some more time, and talk to us again when camp gets here"? It's now training camp. The man wants to play. Sure Rodgers would be disappointed, but he's smart enough to know that Favre is a special player and taking Favre back isn't saying anything negative about Rodgers. I'm sure Favre knows how this is making him look. The JSO had a poll and only like 47% of the fans want to see him back as the QB at this point. That would have been unfathomable in January. He's coming across looking really bad (though I think he helped himself tonight). But is it not understandable that they forced him into a decision and he did the responsible thing, and now wishes he had made the other choice? He's having to swallow an unbelievable amount of pride to come out of retirement after that press conference he had. But the man wants to play. And I don't see how anyone can fault him for that. I'm sick of seeing the fans turn on him for not doing anything wrong. Could he have handled things better? Sure. He should have spoken well before tonight and not allowed his family, friends, and text messages say it all. Could the organization have handled it better? Absolutely. They could have started by being honest with him--either having the balls to tell him in the first place that they wanted to move on, or given him the time he needed to make a decision he could live with. In the end, I'm inclined to believe what Favre is saying. GMs are notorious liars. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but I'd bet it's closer to Favre's version. Two of the most cherished figures in the history of the Packers retired and then came back: Reggie White and Vince Lombardi. Were either of them selfish, unreasonable, or tarnishing their legacy? No. The hate that's been spewed for Favre is, to me, completely ridiculous. Yes, he's waffled and the will-he-or-won't-he game is tiresome at best and attention whoring at worst. But it's hard to blame a guy for wanting to play if he thinks he still can... I don't buy that for a second. In the short-term, you're probably right. In the long-term? It's going to be a non-issue. Does anyone actually remember Reggie White's year in Carolina? Did it hurt his legacy whatsoever? Not in my book. What about Vince Lombardi coaching the Redskins for a year? Honestly, if I hadn't read a biography of him, I don't think I'd know about that one. Montana as a Chief? Jordan as a Wizard? Did that diminish anything they did with San Fran or Chicago? Nope. And those years definitely don't define their careers. Do people remember Joe Namath for his guaranteed Super Bowl win or his ill-advised year as a Ram? Slightly different, but do people remember Bart Starr as one of the great QBs of all-time, or as a pretty awful coach? These great memories will live on. Even 5, 10 years from now, people really aren't going to care how Favre retired, just that he broke every passing record in the book, won a Super Bowl, and was arguably the most entertaining player of his era. The only way this possible season with a different team is anything more than an afterthought on his career is if he ends up going to/winning the Super Bowl or wins MVP. If he's merely good, no one will care that much. If he isn't good, they'll say he hung on too long, but it won't be mentioned years from now. Just like it hasn't been with Reggie White or some of those other guys I mentioned....

They didn't publicize it at all really. I read that someone was trying to get a rally together and then never heard anything else about it until there was an article about how it already happened. You aren't going to get people to show up by randomly calling phone numbers in the Green Bay white pages... I think Rodgers is going to be a fine football player and I think it's entirely likely he'd be the best QB in the NFC North this year if he plays. Is he Brett Favre? No. But I also wouldn't go thinking that Green Bay will suddenly become Chicago at the QB position. If he stays healthy. I'm sure there'd be a dropoff, but I also think Green Bay would still be just fine at the QB position as long as Rodgers doesn't get hurt.

With the thing in March, here's what I believe would be a perfectly rational explanation: The Packers wanted a decision early in the offseason. Favre couldn't commit 100% to wanting to play at that point, so he did the responsible thing and retired. Retiring and then coming out of retirement would be much less of a problem (Believe it or not) than saying you were coming back and then realizing come July, "Man, I really can't do this again..." You can't tell me that if Favre had said, "I need more time to think about it," and dragged it out until June/July that people wouldn't have been ripping him for holding the team hostage, being wishy-washy, and being an attention *****. He made the decision he thought was right, and he got it wrong. I have no problem with him wanting to remedy the situation. I don't necessarily think Rodgers will be a huge dropoff from Favre. I'm on the record several times over saying that I think he's going to be a darn good quarterback. My biggest concern is that he's made of glass. I don't doubt his skills for a second. I doubt his ability to stay healthy, and if they let Favre go and Rodgers gets hurt, they might as well write off the season. Grain of salt because it's ProFootballTalk, but they're reporting that the Packers would be fine with Favre coming back and competing with Rodgers for the starting job. Works for me. Brett would win. If nothing else, Green Bay has been handling the situation with significantly more tact in the last day or so. I appreciated Thompson's comments reminding people that Favre has done nothing wrong by changing his mind (even changing his mind repeatedly). God knows I have a hard time making decisions sometimes, and I've never been faced with anything of this magnitude; whether to give up something that I've done for my entire life.

He should've been a man at the end of the season and asked out of Green Bay? That doesn't even make sense. The guy's first, second, and third choice is to be the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers. Since he retired that's not an option since they've got a guy they're anxious to see in Aaron Rodgers. So the option is play for someone else or don't play. He stated his preference to play for someone else. If he would have stated his desire to come back in April, they wouldn't have moved him at the draft to the highest bidder. He'd still be this team's QB. I can understand the team tiring of his inability to make a decision, but I still say you have to take a run at it when the window is open because you never know if the team will be in this position again. It would be doing right by a player who hasn't had a chance to hit the escalators in his contract, and would be denied another opportunity if Favre came back to start. It's a tough situation, no doubt. Then again, so many teams in this league have s*** at QB, I suppose it's a nice problem to have. If they didn't have a backup QB that they liked a ton, they'd be on their hands and knees begging Favre to return.

I'm so tempted to make a really insensitive comment here, but I'll resist. Instead I'll just echo the sentiment that we do have quite a few hotties around these parts.

According to Steve Mariucci, Favre has made it pretty clear that his first choice is to play for the Packers. If the option is play for someone else or don't play at all, he'd choose to play for someone else. It's not as if the Packers really want him back and he's asking to be released. I was 100% convinced that Thompson was in the wrong on this one until I read Glaser's report about him unretiring and then retiring again in March. Now I better understand why Green Bay has reacted the way that they have. I don't blame Favre for wanting to come back and play football if he thinks he still can. I don't blame the Packers (entirely) for wanting to move on. It's just sad that it has come to this. My problem is that the window is open right now for the Packers. If they had gone 7-9 last year, I'd have no problem with the idea that it was time to move on. But they went 13-3 and were one play from making the Super Bowl. The window is open and even though the Packers have a nice young core, with guys like Driver, Clifton, Tauscher, Woodson, and Harris getting up there in age, there's no guarantee that they're still going to be a legit contender when Rodgers is ready to lead the team deep into the playoffs. They're a contender NOW. And Favre gives them a much better chance to win now. The Packers won't flat out release him, and they shouldn't. There's absolutely no way I let that guy go the Minnesota Vikings. They'd be the immediate favorite in the NFC. And that's probably where Favre would go if he had his druthers. Not to stick it to the Packers, but because it's a similar offense, they have arguably the best running back and best OL in the NFL, they have a great defense, they play indoors so there's not a real worry about an outdoor playoff game in the cold (though the Giants game was once-every-twenty-years cold), his golfing buddy is on the team (Longwell), and a good friend/previous coach of his is the OC. To me, you take Favre back and throw Aaron Rodgers a nice bonus to account for the fact that he's not hitting the escalators in his contract. Hell, if they're confident enough in Rodgers to think about letting Favre go, then sign him to a nice extension right now. It gives the team the best chance to win NOW (with Favre back), it affirms their confidence in Rodgers as the QB of the future, and while he's still probably cranky that he's not getting to play, he gets a nice chunk of change. Also it avoids a massive PR nightmare. If they aren't confident enough in him to pay Rodgers at this point, then they shouldn't be thinking of dumping Favre. QBs like Favre don't come along very often. Chances are, Aaron Rodgers isn't one of them. I don't see any reason to push the sure thing out the door, especially when the window of opportunity is wide open and the legend is still playing at a level that Rodgers can only HOPE to achieve. I realize that Favre's waffling has been an inconvenience. They probably don't draft Brohm if Favre had said he was staying. But apart from that, what's changed since March? Who cares that he missed a few OTAs--they've let him skip those in the past anyway. They changed a bit of the playbook to play to Rodgers's strengths? That's great. I'm sure they haven't thrown the old playbook away, and now they're better prepared for Rodgers to start at some point in the future. And Rodgers got some extra playing time, which is good. Rodgers is a smart guy. He'd realize that taking Favre back isn't a slap in the face to him, or an indication that they don't think he's good. And Ted Thompson can get over having his master plan delayed by another year. If you've got one of the elite QBs in the league, why push him out the door just to find out if Aaron Rodgers is decent? It's stupid. I don't know who I'd root for if Favre played a Packers team in the postseason. Most likely, I would take no joy in the game, whatsoever, and root for whoever ended up winning to go all the way. But if he plays for another team, I'll have a 1 and 1a this year in my NFL rooting interests. My worry if they let Favre go isn't that Rodgers wouldn't do well. It's that Brian Brohm would end up QBing this team by week 6. If they let Favre go and Rodgers is either ineffective or gets injured, it would be an absolute disaster for Ted Thompson. I'd take Favre back in a heartbeat, even if it eventually costs me Rodgers (which I don't think it would). Edit: It's also worth mentioning that Al Jones, the reporter in Mississippi who is a friend of Favre's and was writing a book with him during the offseason, claimed to know nothing of the claim that Favre thought about un-retiring in March. Per the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

You could've bet him that the Wings would break the all-time win record (or the all-time point record) and saved yourself a few games. Even with the elimination of ties, 68 wins is absurd. That would be 136 points, even without OTLs. We won the President's Trophy this year with 115 and the next highest had 108. There's no way they keep playing that hard the entire season if they're up 30 points on the rest of the league. Absolutely no way. I think you'll win the $50 on the Jackets missing the playoffs, but for the Wings bet you would have been better off going down to Greektown and throwing $50 on black, because the odds of winning would have been a LOT better. Even throwing $50 on any number on the roulette wheel would have given you better odds, and the payout would've been much larger...

After the Cup this year, Holland moved into "I still may not agree with everything he does, but I'm not saying **** because we won a Cup with a salary cap" territory with me. I'm amazed that they pulled this signing off. I said yesterday that the Conklin signing was amazing. This is pure genius. How do you get a guy to turn down a 7 year max deal (or whatever the B's were offering) to come play for 1 year at $4 million BELOW the maximum? And you gotta love Hossa for turning down HUGE money to try to win a Stanley Cup. My next call would be to Mats Sundin. "Mats, Ken Holland here. If you want a Cup, you know where it's at. We've got $2 million in cap space left. If you want it, it's yours. Let me know."