This is good news. Bob McGinn reports that the Packers have had internal discussions about relenting on their refusal to trade Brett Favre to the Vikings or the Bears. NFL Network’s Adam Schefter reported the same thing last night. It goes without saying that this would not have been anyone’s first choice. But given the alternatives — keeping Favre on the roster as a $12 million backup, an outright release or a trade to the Buccaneers for a “late round” draft pick — and the apparent failure of the Packers efforts to bribe Favre to retire, a trade within the division looks pretty good. And if Ted Thompson had considered it when we first backed the idea — or at least announced that he would consider it — he might well have more leverage in what should be fast and furious trade talks now.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
packergeeks 
July 31, 2008 at 7:49 am |
By all means: send him to the Bears. He played so outstanding in the cold last December.
July 31, 2008 at 8:05 am |
I guess I’d be okay with the Bears. Not the Vikings. I still think they should just tell him to come and sit him on the bench. Yes, it will cause some dissension but right now anything they do will do that. But I don’t think Favre’s ego would let him play backup for an extended amount of time. But I don’t think you reward the Viking’s tampering and Favre’s ego trip by giving him what he wants.
July 31, 2008 at 8:12 am |
At this point I don’t even care any more what happens. After the $20 million “please go away” offer I have little respect left for either side in this deal. Seeing him in a Bears uniform wouldn’t feel great but seeing him in purple would make me sick. I agree with PackerBelle that you can’t reward Brett by sending him to the Vikes and that Brett’s ego wouldn’t allow him to be a backup. I have no idea what is gonna happen next. Except that I’m gonna be sick
July 31, 2008 at 9:50 am |
i would rather they trade to the jets/buccs for a 7th rounder than to the vikes/bears for a 1st/2nd round pick
July 31, 2008 at 11:05 am |
I agree with Fuzznuts. Why is Favre playing for the Packers such a non starter? Can we discuss the ego of Ted Thompson in detail? This idea is a
total disaster.
Aaron “Jay Fiedler” Rodgers have proved jack in this league and the Packers would trade a healthy Favre to one our division rivals because Thomspon is mad at Favre or Favre did not perform the expected PR way to unretire or playing Favre in 08 would hinder the Packers’ future. I disagree with all of those arguments.
I am sure all Packers fans think the team can be good this season and we have solid young talent but in this league, it could go quickly downhill just as fast. You play for the now in the NFL. Teams go from 4-12, 12-4, back to 5-11 like that. The Bears and Ravens come to mind as recent examples.
I am stunned in the logic of this trade decision.
Please save me the Favre ripped his boss in the media mantra and comparing it to a real job situation because it is not the same.
Favre should be a Packer as long as he can still chuck it. Elway, Marino were never treated like this at all and their egos were just as big as number 4’s. How soon people forget the diva behavior of both of those QBs.
The Montana playing for the Chiefs comparison does not work either because Young had shown much promise ON the field, which led the 49ers to go with him. Legendary NFL QBs do not get discarded by their franchises like this at all for a complete injury prone unknown.
Does anyone see this scenario playing out in Indy or New England at the end of Brady’s and Peyton’s careers?
I am sick. If Favre ends up in Chicago or Minnesota, I will blame him for causing this but my fury will land on the Packers brass for allowing it to happen. It is simple, play the man. Who cares about Aaron Fiedler’s feelings when the Packers have a NFC North division title to defend.
July 31, 2008 at 11:21 am |
Mac G, I disagree that Favre should be a Packer as long as he can still chuck it. Teams don’t need this kind of attitude in the locker room – look at how Randy Moss and Terrell Owens screwed up the teams they were on when they acted like they were better than everyone else. Nor is there any real indication that Favre actually wants to come back to the Packers. After all, you typically don’t act like this when you want to come back. Favre has been doing everything possible to get released. And the only reason I can think of is to play for the Vikings. And I don’t think it makes sense from a business standpoint to essentially reward people who are trying to screw you by giving them what they want.
Aaron Rodgers hasn’t proved himself on the field. He has proved himself in the locker room and in the press by actually being a leader. Favre could come back and have a year like last season, or he could have a year like the 2005 season. Given that he didn’t follow an off-season routine this year would suggest the latter more likely than the former.
July 31, 2008 at 11:36 am |
Again, can we stop talking about how Brett Favre (at age 38) is automatically the best QB in the history of the world? Need I remind everyone:
3-7 in the last 10 playoff games
77.8 QB rating in those 10 games
1-4 in the last 5 playoff games
13 INTs in those same five playoff games
The argument that Brett is automatically better than Rodgers is just as unproven as the argument the Rodgers is better than Farve. In the games that matter, the gun slinger has come up wanting. In the cold, he looks like he belongs at home by the fire with a warm cup of cocoa. The man was great in his time but it appears that it is highly possible that his time is over.
And enough with the TT ego bit – the man’s job is to put the team in the best position to win, now and in the future. You don’t have to rely on ego to come to the conclusion that it is conceivable that TT and MM just don’t think Brett gives them the best chance to win. A 38 year old QB who can’t handle the cold, or the pressure of must win games (see Chicago and Dallas last year plus his play off record), and can never decide if he actually wants to play just might not be the best thing for a team trying to win. Take of the number-4-shaped, green-lensed glasses and look at reality for a while. It is quite therapeutic.
July 31, 2008 at 11:49 am |
Okay the parenthetical was supposed to say (at age 38), but it does seem appropriate as written. No?
July 31, 2008 at 11:54 am |
Is there any proof the Packers teammates do not like Brett Favre anymore? Pickett seems to want him back.
The 2 games I watched Rodgers he got hurt so I can not wait to see all this Favre bashing when Brian Brohm is the starting QB this season.
So do we just ignore Favre’s 07 season and Seahawks game and focus totally on the pass against the Giants or bring up the pick against the Eagles from 5 years ago? Let us talk about the Falcons game where the Packers whole offense was depleted and no Packer could tackle Vick. Favre’s fault of course. OR the Vikings just pissed all over the Packers D in the home playoff loss. Favre’s fault of course.
If Mike Sherman had some balls and went for it on 4th and 1, that Eagles game would have been over.
I think Favre gives the Packers the best chance to win this season and that has nothing to do with Favre colored glasses. What has TT or MM done without Brett Favre? Anything?
Obviously, TT wants to prove to the world he can win without Brett Favre. Calling Favre a backup, offering him 20 mil to stay retired, possibly trading him to a division rival?
Favre created this whole situation and I understand the scorn of fans but how can you argue that this team is better with Aaron Fielder than Brett Favre? Cus TT and MM say so? Or what you actually have seen on the field?
If Favre sucks so bad, then just release him.
July 31, 2008 at 11:59 am |
just trade him to whoever will take him outside of the nfc north. teams are not apparently willing to deal for him because they are unsure if he will play for them because he is unwilling to talk to them…so trade him for a late round pick, $100 or a full tank of gas to the jets, bucs or whoever.
that is better than paying him $20 mil for doing jack…at least you can control where he goes which is really the most important thing. favre can’t block a trade, he can just refuse to show up to that team, so make it easy for a team to take that risk….low risk high reward if he shows up…just get rid of him and end the drama is priority #1 right now.
July 31, 2008 at 12:04 pm |
Packer Belle and Joe, do not take offense to any of my comments. Obviously, I am diehard Packer fan just like everyone on this blog and this whole drama has left me super frustrated.
I just want the Packers to win, regardless who is at QB. I hate the Shebears, Viqueens, and Lions with a passion. I still hate Tampa from the old division and Alvin Harper over TBuck is still cemented in my nightmares from the Cowboy losses.
I do remember what it was like getting bitch slapped in the 80s and early 90s before Favre so that does have some impact but I just can not fathom seeing Favre play QB for one of those teams.
I could rip Favre apart and there is a HUGE case for that. Instead, I want to focus on what player makes the Packers the best shot to win in 08. Most of you believe it is Rodgers and I think Favre is it. Bottom Line.
I apologize if my comments seem harsh. GO Pack GO
July 31, 2008 at 12:25 pm |
Each day of this saga reaches new heights of “worst case scenario”.
So while I’m sitting here in hell, I’ve had a vision of the future:
Thursday: Goodell reinstates Favre.
Friday: Packers trade Favre to the Vikings for a bucket of spit.
Saturday: My dog gets run over by a car and dies.
Sunday: Aaron Rodgers blows a knee and an ankle in front of 60,000 children at Packer Family Night.
Monday: Packers give up a first round pick to Tampa Bay for Chris Simms.
July 31, 2008 at 12:31 pm |
I argue that Aaron Rodgers is better for a number of reasons. One, he’s shown himself to be committed to the team and being a leader. He’s not dressing in his own room away from his teammates. He’s not insulting anyone in the media. And he’s tried very hard to get the team to trust him – and they do. Secondly, Rodgers is younger. I think Favre had a great year last year but he’s almost 39 and he has hip and ankle problems. He’s not as mobile as he used to be and he can’t seem to handle the cold. Also, Rodgers will be playing longer than Favre so he provides more stability at the position (and that’s aside from the annual will he or won’t he retire drama).
I think that the main difference between you and I Mac G is that I’m not focused on this season. I basically wrote off the season when Favre retired because I knew this would likely be a rebuilding year. Plus it seems like this is one of the years where the Vikings actually do well and combine that with the Packers tough schedule I’d really be pleased with a wild card spot. What I am concerned about is the long term prospects of the team. We have a fairly young team that could be really good for a long time. Losing the QB we’ve groomed for three years because Favre can’t make up his mind doesn’t make sense to me. Aaron Rodgers has done everything the Packers of asked of him and done it without complaint. He showed a lot of promise in the Dallas game and with Mike McCarthy as his coach I think he could be a really good QB. I don’t think you throw that away for a guy who has been up and down lately and can’t seem to fully commit.
July 31, 2008 at 12:43 pm |
Packer Belle,
I agree with your points but you are under the assumption that Rodgers will be an above average NFL QB that can stay healthy for long periods of time. I hope it turns out that way. However, I am more skeptical about this prognosis until I see his play ON the field.
I do not think you can ever write off seasons in the NFL or only look at the future when you are coming off a NFL final four appearance.
Can the Pack sign Ryan Grant?
July 31, 2008 at 12:51 pm |
There is no guarantee Favre will be an above average quarterback or stay healthy for long periods of time. After all another name for football is kill the quarterback. We don’t even really need Rodgers to be a star QB. We need him to be a game manager and he’s smart enough to do that.
I think you can write off seasons in the NFL when coming off a final four appearance when you are going through as much shake up as the Packers are. No one knows what a Favre-less team is going to look like and no matter how great a QB there will be a learning curve with Rodgers. But we have young enough talent that the Pack can still be a contender for years to come if we have a younger quarterback.
July 31, 2008 at 1:16 pm |
No offense taken. I am Ukrainian, my grandmother is harsher on me than this.
My point, however, was missed. I don’t think Rodgers is better. I just get sick of hearing Favre is better without any evidence that he is better today – right now. Last season is over and he is a year older. I do consider the way he played last year but in addition to having a great year in a system that forced him to play a style of ball he has admitted he doesn’t like to play (short dink and dunks). He has demonstrated a complete lack of ability to win games that matter since about 1997. But I don’t raise these points to “prove” Favre is not the better QB. I raise them because I am sick and tired of hearing the refrain that Favre is the better QB. I want people to actually make an argument, based on his stats, he’s ability and willingness to lead the team, his ability to win the games that matter and his emotional ability to commit to the team, that he is actually the best man for the job – today. I don’t want to hear about what he has earned in his 17 years in the league – he got that already; its called a 12 million a year salary and his elevation to God status.
And, despite yet another unthinking refrain, Rodgers is not any more of an injury risk then anyone else on the team. They guy got hurt twice. In one case, he finished the game with a broken foot. How is it that when Fare does that he is a God and the toughest man in sports. When Rodgers does it he is a wimp and this proves that he is not physically able to handle the job. And as for his second injury, he tweaked his hammy in practice. But go back and read what he said, what MM said and what the team doctor said at the time. He could have played if needed and would have played if needed. But you don’t have to suit up your back up if he has any sort of an injury if you don’t want to. Rodgers “injury prone” label is a bunch of crap.