Response to Steve’s Favre Interview II post


I’m falling in line with many who are questioning Favre at this point and agree with much of what Brother Steve has written on the matter. I worry that he’s become somewhat selfish over time, and part of me can see the functionality of standing up to him.

However, I disagree with parts of the last post. I do think that those 3 points of difference Favre had with Ted Thompson are significant in that they shed light on why Favre’s brother, Favre himself and the now simply out of control Al Jones keep pointing their fingers at TT. It also validates my suspicion (something we’ve written about before) that TT and Favre have not seen eye to eye now for a few years. And it also begs the questions: what else have they differed on and how big is the rift between them right now.

I agree with Brother Steve that Favre is not the GM and on one level, these 3 instances should viewed as Favre and TT simply disagreeing. And taken separately, each issue alone is probably not a big deal. But cumulatively, over time, I could see how Favre would feel a bit frustrated when he believes in something and TT seemingly disregards his thoughts. While he’s not the GM, he has clearly been the most important figure in Green Bay for some time now. That is undeniable. And he has earned that – so he should have some sway at least – more than a Tyrone Culver for example. I agree with Steve that signing Mariucci may not have been a great idea as McCarthy has more than proven his abilities already (and Mariucci was not stellar in his coaching efforts). Favre was off there and if he were off on the other 2, I’d chalk it up to him having no clue re personnel stuff. But I disagree re the other 2 issues: clearly Moss can still play and clearly the O-Line suffered dramatically when Wahle and Rivera left. I think Brother Steve arguing that Moss may not have fit in the locker room is a weak argument – Moss went on to have one of the best seasons ever by a receiver and I think it’s not unreasonable to assume he would have been very good with the Pack too. Favre was right on that one. And, Favre was partially right too on the O-Line issue. The O-Line has been a source of weakness for the last 2 years mostly (with the second half of last season sort of excepted). I don’t think Rivera should have been re-signed, but Wahle definitely should have. We still don’t know who our left guard is 3 years later. At the time, Wahle was a snubbed pro-bowler and a major reason Mike Sherman’s incredibly predictable run game somehow flourished back in the day.

And I also take issue with Favre weighing in only on issues that affect him. Of course he’d do that – if he started saying we need a new safety and a better punter, then he’d be imposing his thoughts on areas that he doesn’t know as much about. It makes sense for him to offer suggestions on matters that affect him.

As we all become more aware of the interpersonal dynamics at play between Favre and TT and Favre and MM, it helps give us more insight into the complexity of Favre’s retirement decision. That said, I still don’t see how this stuff would have influenced him as much as it seemingly did. If he wanted to play, he could have played, by all accounts. He had the support of fans, family, teammates, the coach at least…

I’ve found myself in a curious position today – wavering like Favre from understanding Favre’s position of just wanting to play now and regretting his retirement decision and the teams’ position of just wanting to bring some resolution to this by moving on with a decision they’ve already made. Perhaps in one of the next few posts, we’ll focus in on some possible solutions to this mess – again, as aspiring GMs, we need to think more re how to move forward.


14 Responses to “Response to Steve’s Favre Interview II post”

  1. sfhayes Says:

    Andy writes: “I’m falling in line with many who are questioning Favre at this point and agree with much of what Brother Steve has written on the matter. I worry that he’s become somewhat selfish over time, and part of me can see the functionality of standing up to him.”

    I’m glad you decided to stand up to me, but I don’t think I’ve become selfish over time. I’ve always been selfish.

    Anyway, good points. You may be right that if Favre had weighed in on issues that did not affect him directly I would be criticizing him for that, too. I’m trying to stay reasonably objective about the entire thing, but watching the interview last night I really found myself questioning virtually everything Favre was saying. It’s possible I’m looking for contradictions/faults too aggressively.

    On Moss, though, I don’t think you can simply extrapolate from his record-breaking season with the Patriots that things would have been the same with the Packers. The situations were entirely different, with an experienced and highly-respected coach in Bill Belicheck versus a newbie in Mike McCarthy. Moss has done things that have undermined his team — and coaches — everywhere he has been. My concern then was that he would do something pouty and/or insubordinate and chip away at McCarthy’s authority at precisely the time he needed it most. Maybe that wouldn’t have happened, but if it had these last two years might have looked very different. In any case, I conceded that Favre was right about Moss’s playing ability — not a huge concession given his numbers last year.

  2. Donald's Designated Driver Says:

    Now that Favre has weirdly admitted that he has been trying to meddle in the coaching and personnel decisions, don’t you have to at least wonder how many of Mike Sherman’s decisions were made to placate Favre?

    We’ll never know.

  3. PackerBelle Says:

    “On Moss, though, I don’t think you can simply extrapolate from his record-breaking season with the Patriots that things would have been the same with the Packers. The situations were entirely different, with an experienced and highly-respected coach in Bill Belicheck versus a newbie in Mike McCarthy.”

    I agree. There is also the fact that the Patriots were largely veterans while the Packers were largely very young players. Moss might be willing to behave with a bunch of veterans telling him to do so, I don’t think he’d listen to people he would consider beneath him – such as Donald Driver or Greg Jennings.

  4. awhayes Says:

    Steve, Packerbelle – wrong. Moss would have been a good Packer because he has matured, he and Favre would have been pumped to play together, Driver, Jennings and Moss together would have been unstoppable, and our run game would have opened up big-time.

    DDD – great point re Sherman and Favre. In fact, I had written in my first draft of the post that a good counterargument to my argument was what if Favre had tons of personnel sway with Sherman – would then Favre be at least partially responsible for the horrendous ideas we’ve all attributed to Sherman??!! (I didn’t include that in my post because it would have disrupted the momentum I had making my argument…)

    However, while I don’t think a QB should get so involved in personnel matters that it affects the job he’s doing, I can’t imagine that Favre is the only QB who has offered suggestions to management on personnel issues. And, I wonder to what extent management may actually go about soliciting Favre’s feedback???

  5. PackerBelle Says:

    How mature of Moss was it when he basically got pissed when he was told that Donald Driver would still be the No. 1 receiver? A mature player would have accepted it and then come in and tried to show he was the best.

  6. sfhayes Says:

    AWH — Moss matured after he arrived in New England. That was far from inevitable, as you know. Nice fake certitude.

  7. awhayes Says:

    Moss matured because he’s older. I wouldn’t think hanging out with cheaters would be helpful on one’s path to maturity.

  8. Corey B Says:

    an incredibly predictable Run game has been the signature Packer play since time immortal.

    When you are running a 6 line Jumbo package and they know it’s coming – they know where it’s going and they can do NOTHING about it…like drinking hot cocoa.

    Moss and Driver would have been AMAZING. your 4th wr is james Jones? That’s hot.

    we had the Pats beat by like 600 or more yds in RAC. imagine Moss taking his RAC away from the Pats and putting in our column.

  9. Dave Says:

    Why not put it to a vote of the shareholders? If the people want Brett to start, then he’ll start. If they want him to stay retired or be traded or released, then he will. All parties would have to agree to submit to the will of the people, but isn’t it the fans that matter anyway? This way Packer management would be off the hook no matter the outcome. They’d look like geniuses for caring about what their fans want… and Brett would likely be our starter.

    Either way, I’m sick of all this drama. It’s like your parents getting a divorce and both of them trashing each other trying to get you to like them better. Being adults and professionals would be a nice change.

  10. PackerBelle Says:

    I don’t think it is because he’s older. Otherwise his behavior should have improved the longer he was in Minnesota and been better in Oakland than it was in Minnesota. Neither of those situations occurred. In fact his behavior seemed to get worse as time went on.

  11. PackerBelle Says:

    Putting it to a vote of the shareholders is a very bad decision in my opinion. For one thing it sets a bad precedent. If we let them decide this now, why shouldn’t they get a vote on other important issues? Like whether or not to extend a coach or GM’s contract. Or whether or not to pursue a given free agent. Secondly, there is a reason why shareholders have no say in the running of the team – they don’t really know what they are doing and it is a time-consuming, inefficient way to run a business. The Packers pay people a lot of money to run the team and they do it because those people supposedly know more than the average fan. Let them do their jobs.

  12. Dave Says:

    It would have to be a one time deal. I’m aware it’s unprecedented, but this is a very unique situation. There doesn’t seem to be a correct answer to the problem, so everyone is playing to the court of public opinion. If it’s the public’s opinion that matters here, then why not let them provide the answer? I just think it’s a nice clean resolution to a really sticky situation, which would allow all sides to save some face.

  13. awhayes Says:

    Dave – I’m not sure I’m in line with the shareholders ideas due to the precedent issue as Packerbelle points out, but I like the creative thinking there. I do wonder though where Mark Murphy is on all of this. I know he’s sided mostly with TT and MM etc, but I wonder a little bit why he wouldn’t have been a part of the conference call last week.

    But Dave, your divorce analogy is really dead on. I think many fans wading through the info to get at the truth in the faint hope that somehow, both parties aren’t really at fault and in fact, something can get worked out. But the fact is, this looks like it’s headed in the direction of a divorce and none of us kids are sure who will have custody of us. (My wife made the same point last night). Just really sad.

  14. Dave Says:

    Fair enough. I guess I just have some faint hope of an amicable ending to this mess. Alas, it doesn’t seem promising. Anyway, thanks for hearing me out!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: