I think Brett Favre may have done himself some good with this interview, as he was able to glide past many of the details that have emerged about the ordeal to portray himself as just a guy who wants to play football. That will appeal to some people.
But for those paying close attention to the back-and-forth, some of Favre’s comments come off as disingenuous and others dishonest.
To wit: Favre opens the interview and declares forthrightly that he did not retire because the Packers never asked him to come back. “One of the things people are saying, from what I understand, is that the Packers or Ted Thompson didn’t ask me back,” Favre said. “That’s totally untrue.”
That’s a bit rich. For months, those closest to Favre have been pointing to Thompson’s lack of enthusiasm for Favre as a contributing factor in his retirement. In fact, it’s hard to imagine that many people would even be speculating about Ted Thompson not wanting Favre back if Favre’s confidantes hadn’t been suggesting as much in the media.
Later, Favre seems put out by the fact that the Packers drafted two quarterbacks, as if they did it to spite him. It’s an odd feeling to have unless you are reasonably certain at that point that you are coming back. Why wouldn’t the Packers have drafted two quarterbacks? Favre was retired.
When Greta noted that Favre was very emotional at his press conference and commented that Favre must like being a Packer, he said. “I can’t envision being with anyone else or haven’t envisioned being with anyone else.” And yet we have multiple reports that Bus Cook was out gauging interest among other teams as early as April. Curious.
Then, Greta asked Favre if he talked to Mike McCarthy in June about coming back. Favre said: “I talked to him on June 20th, that was it.” He recounted their conversation — said he’d been working out, feeling good and wanted to come back. Favre said he told McCarthy in that conversation: “If I’m going to play, I’m going to play in Green Bay.”
Wait, huh? If you’re Favre and you’ve never thought about playing anywhere else why would you tell Mike McCarthy that you plan to play in Green Bay? Maybe because your agent has been out gauging interest from other teams?
July 15, 2008 at 12:24 am |
Great site and posts people — I know it isn’t a high standard but I am glad the usual posters from JSonline haven’t found your sight (he said selfishly). My take is that the Pack (TT) wanted the Favre era to end and hastened it (note previous PG posts on TT). Favre wasn’t sure but started to believe he wanted to retire. Now the PR game of local packerbacking press and national Brett press (ESPN, Fox, Biloxi dude) is quite interesting but ultimately why does it matter?
The NFL is the Not For Long league, you play for this season and one season only, 16 games and that’s it. Forget about all this frabba jabba — who gives the Pack the best chance to win — I think that the runner-up in the MVP vote is the only reasonable answer to this question.
I will be disappointed if Favre wants to play and he isn’t starting for the Pack only for the reason that he gives them the best chance to win — period.
Once again great commentary guys.
July 15, 2008 at 12:43 am |
A couple of my observations:
(1) How many times did Favre emphasize that the only thing he is “guilty of” is “retiring too early.” He said that phrase at least three times. In the words of Willie Shakespeare, “thou doth protest too much.” Moreover. clearly he has more to own up to that “retiring too early.”
(2) Without being entirely forthcoming, Favre did corroborate the the Jay Glazer report of his post-retirement waffling.
(3) At one point, Favre stated that he “left the door open” in his retirement speech. Really? Unless I am misremembering he went out of his way to slam the door shut as forcefully as possible.
July 15, 2008 at 8:12 am |
“Forget about all this frabba jabba — who gives the Pack the best chance to win — I think that the runner-up in the MVP vote is the only reasonable answer to this question.”
I disagree actually. Favre may be the more experience and he may even be the more talented, I haven’t seen enough of Rodgers to tell. But in terms of leadership Rodgers wins hands down. Favre has been distant from his teammates for awhile. He dresses in a private room, he spends most of his free time during the season alone, he’s admitted he has little in common with most of his teammates and now he’s doing this. I’m from Minnesota so I’ve seen what happens when you get people who think they are above the team and it never helps the team.
And I think we have to look down the road. Favre is going to stop playing at some point, and given how close he was to doing it this year it isn’t too far down the line. But if we let him come back as starter then we Rodgers – the guy we’ve groomed for years to take over. So then our starting QB is Brian Brohm who has had one year of experience and likely little to no actually game experience. That doesn’t sound overly promising to me. And I’m concerned about winning in the future and now just this season. We have a young, talented team. This isn’t going to be the only chance to do well.
July 15, 2008 at 8:50 am |
Packerbelle –
The argument to me boils down to who gives the Pack the best chance to win next year. You think its Rodgers. Fair enough. The soap opera continues but the private dressing room isn’t an issue (if its even true didn’t Ted send him his locker?) Al Harris on NFL network stated he wanted Favre back as the leader and QB — don’t you think Driver and the line also want him back? Rodgers is not the most humble QB and if he falters the veterans will not cut him slack.
As to the future who knows who is even in uniform 2 years down the road the NFL is a brutal business.
Win now.
July 15, 2008 at 9:00 am |
Here’s some of the stuff that we haven’t seen yet.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=772402
“The Journal Sentinel obtained a transcript of the entire interview, which included comments that were not aired. In a last-minute decision, the network decided to broadcast the interview in two parts; the second part is scheduled to be broadcast tonight on Van Susteren’s “On the Record With Greta Van Susteren.”
In the transcript, Favre expressed frustration with three incidents in the recent Packers past involving Thompson.
In one instance, Favre told Van Susteren that “I worked my butt off two years ago to try to get them to sign Randy Moss,” adding that he was willing to give up salary to land the talented receiver.
But Favre said Thompson denied publicly that Favre had lobbied to get Moss, which Favre said was not the case. Moss signed with the New England Patriots.
In a second instance, Favre said he once tried to convince Thompson to re-sign Marco Rivera and Mike Wahle, two key linemen, but the two got away and signed elsewhere.
In a third case, Favre told Van Susteren he tried to convince Thompson to interview Steve Mariucci, an old friend, for the head coaching job vacated by Mike Sherman. Favre said Thompson ended up hiring Mike McCarthy instead.”
So basically, all the rumors of Favre try to tell Thompson how to run the team are true. Getting upset because the GM doesn’t interview your friend to be headcoach? Come on.
The irony is that Thompson publicly denied these things to protect Favre’s image. And now Favre clumsily tries to use this as evidence of Thompson’s “dishonesty.”
July 15, 2008 at 10:00 am |
DDD — Just got this. I was working on on a post (up now) making exactly the same points. Which makes you brilliant…
July 15, 2008 at 10:58 am |
“The argument to me boils down to who gives the Pack the best chance to win next year. ”
While I would love for the Packers to do very well next year, I’m more concerned now with what is going to happen over the next couple of years. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Vikings had a really good year this year. It’s about time for them to have a great year, keep a bad coach and then go into a downward spiral again. My concern is what happens after this year. Given how close Favre was to retiring this spring it seems like the odds of him sticking around for more than one or two years is unlikely. Then we lose Rodgers and we have Brohm, who given the two years left on Rodgers’ contract likely would see no game time, as our starter.
Maybe that is the difference between me and people who want Favre to come back. In all aspects of my life I’m very future oriented and I’m willing to give up a little now to have a more secure future. And as much as I loved watching Favre play I don’t think one (or even two) more years is worth the locker room issues it would cause or losing the guy the Packers have spent three years grooming to be his replacement.
July 15, 2008 at 12:06 pm |
I didn’t see that Favre “corroborated” the Glazer report at all. In fact, I was disappointed that GVS didn’t ask him about it (although maybe it’s in Part 2). I think the Glazer report (that Favre and the Packers had an “agreement” in late March for him to return but then he reneged) has turned fans against Favre more than anything. But neither TT nor MM have confirmed that’s the way it happened. Silverstein also dropped the ball by not asking TT about it in the MJS interview.
July 15, 2008 at 12:52 pm |
Ted Thompson did corroborate it.
http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/2008/07/12/favre-retirement-timeline.aspx
“The following is a timeline provided by Packers general manager Ted Thompson of the off-season dealings with quarterback Brett Favre. All of the information comes from Thompson and several sources close to Favre did not return phone messages seeking verification of Thompson’s account.”
“# Week of March 24 – Offensive line coach James Campen, who is visiting Louisiana, stops in to see Favre at his Mississippi home and is asked by Favre whether he thinks the Packers would take him back. Campen reports the conversation to McCarthy and Thompson. McCarthy calls Favre and hears the same things Campen did.
# March 27 – Thompson and McCarthy decide they would be fine with Favre returning even though Aaron Rodgers is set to begin off-season workouts as the starter, and they inform Favre. “Mike said, ‘Ted and I talked and we said, fine.’ But we’d like to come see you, and Brett was kind of excited that we were coming to see him.” In preparation to leave for the owners meetings in West Palm Beach, March 30-April 3, they arrange to meet with Favre and wife, Deanna.
# March 29 – McCarthy makes plans to fly to Hattiesburg on April 1 to make plans for Favre’s return. McCarthy is leaving for evening Mass when Favre calls to inform him he has changed his mind. “We were all set for them, but Brett called back and that he and Deanna had a long talk about it and they were going to stick with their original decision.”"
July 15, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
Here’s the relevant portion of Favre’s interview:
Favre paraphrasing McCarthy: “I had to tell the team something. You told me you were not 100 percent committed, ****not only when you retired but several weeks after when we were talking about coming down there, when we had that conversation.**** You said you were not 100 percent committed.”
“That conversation” a “couple weeks later” when they “were talking about coming down.” On a chartered plane perhaps?
July 15, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
I don’t know, I don’t see any mention of an agreement. Sounds more like TT wanted to rush Brett into making a decision but Brett still wasn’t ready to commit.
BTW, why is it relevant that McCarthy was leaving for evening Mass? Is Silverstein trying to put a pro-Packers spin on the story by portraying McCarthy as a churchgoer?
July 15, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
Brett did not ask TT and MM to come visit him. He only asked if the door was still open if he were to return. It doesn’t sound to me that there was any agreement in late March.
July 15, 2008 at 6:01 pm |
[...] packergeeks clinically dissect the inconsistencies in Favre’s story, while BeerKid at Packer Palace just wants to know when Favre went off his [...]
July 17, 2008 at 12:58 am |
[...] this fits a pattern, as we’ve pointed out here and here. Favre has been caught shading the truth or flat-out lying nearly a dozen times. The worst [...]