Go to 540 ESPN Milwaukee’s website here to find this interview. I’d recommend it. Very interesting perspective. HOmer asked (in a leading way) for Dilfer’s thoughts on the Favre comments today and the overall Lions issue. Dilfer did not agree with Homer’s take it seemed (Homer was not supportive of Favre). In fact Dilfer, who is a bright guy, had a strong response. He said that for all the time that is spent assuming Favre is trying to get back at his old team, at least equal time should be spent thinking about the likelihood that there are (and this is a close quote if not exact) “those in the Packer organization who may want to see Favre’s legacy ruined”. He didn’t go so far as to wonder if info was planted by the Packers or distorted to make Favre look bad etc, but it was an interesting defense of Favre. It left me with this immediate thought: does Dilfer know something more re the Favre/Packer divorce that we don’t?
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
packergeeks 
October 22, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
And why or how does Dilfer know anyrhing about the Packer organization? Just another Favre bootlicker trying to score points.
October 22, 2008 at 5:04 pm |
And there is the fact that the Glazer story came from non Packer sources. Plus, the Packers haven’t shown any inclination to destroy Favre’s legacy. They keep mum on what’s going on and try to keep the focus on the team – as they should.
October 22, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
I agree with Ron and Packerbelle. What’s the benefit for the Packers to destroy Favre’s legacy? Usually A tarnishes B’s legacy because B is overshadowing A. I don’t think TT or MM have any illusions that they are going to be as big as Favre. Plus, we’ve discussed previously on this blog how reclusive TT seems. If, let’s say, Al Davis or Jerry Jones were running this organization, I could see them trying to muddy the Favre waters. But, TT? I don’t think so. Who else would it be? Murphy? No, he’s too new to the scene, he couldn’t possibly develop the animosity for Favre in such a short period of time? Harlan? No way, no how. McCarthy? I guess you never know but I seriously doubt it. He just dosen’t seem to display that kind of character in his public interactions. I’m continously astounded by the national sports media’s defense of Favre. In their eyes, he really is St. Brett! I think a lot of it has to do with Green Bay being a small market and the fact that Favre’s life has been an open book for 17 years. They loved GB while Brett was there, now that he’s gone to NY (more appropriately Jersey), GB is just another small market team. How come they never talk about Buffalo of Tennessee on ESPN, FOX, of NBC? They are small markets. Everything has to be about the Giants, Jets, Patriots, and Cowboys. I guess the notable exception would be the Bears, but perhaps that’s just because they are, you know, the Bears.
October 22, 2008 at 5:47 pm |
I wonder too re who he was referring to etc. But the way he brought this up was sort of odd to me. He seemed to be quite clearly in the Favre camp on all of this, but the way he said something re the Packers, I don’t know, it almost seemed like he knew something. I’m probably just reading into things and it most likely doesn’t matter, but I was just caught off guard when he made these comments.
October 22, 2008 at 7:57 pm |
I have to admit, (and there is nothing other than a gut feeling working here) Glazer being the one to break the Favre trade makes this suddenly plausible in my mind. Again – only working off guts but it is interesting, and Favre’s explanation seems plausible – though he is a lying jerk face. 😉
October 22, 2008 at 10:18 pm |
It certainly does seem like someone close the the Packers has a vendetta against Favre. Remember, even if Glazer got the initial story from non-Packer sources, he still found someone with the Packers to tell him that Brett was talking to other Packer opponents. Without that last bit of information, who knows, Glazer might not have run with the story.
The other hint is the whole team-issued cell phone story. I suppose that PFT and McGinn could have completely fabricated it, but given that McGinn still claims that it’s a matter of semantics, it seems likely to me that someone out there has it in for Favre.
But at this point, I don’t think it’s Thompson or McCarthy anymore.
October 22, 2008 at 10:30 pm |
Let’s not obsess over Favre-Lions dialogue-we can speculate but we will never get the truth unless Brett or a Lion confesses-not going to happen. Most significant news-McCarthy is a dad. This will change his life. Can he remain focused as he has been? Glad for him but will he remain a workaholic?
October 23, 2008 at 7:21 am |
I have to admit that the more I think about it the more I come to realize that Favre is being Favre. Having never met the man I can’t say for sure but to me he seems to be the type of guy who like to pontificate….in other words when he has a audience he loves to hear himself talk. I don’t know if there was any malicious intent involved in his conversation with the lions or if it was just poor judgment. In any event for someone, like myself (along with most Packers fans), who has always wanted the name Favre to be synonymous with the Packers I’m starting to cringe every time I hear or see the 2 names together in a sentence.
October 23, 2008 at 7:35 am |
In terms of revenue growth, the Packers cannot afford to sever their future relationship with BF. When he’s in his sixties and a lot of us are in our 60s, he’s going to assume Bart Starr’s role. Granted, Starr never made Favre money, maybe that’s what Bart stumps whenever he can in GB. MM said the Packers were aware of BF talking to Lions and I think it would have been released before now. Green Bay sports writers do have a lot of time on their hands Wed-Saturdays. Not much of a market for Green Bay Gamblers news, dontchaknow.
October 23, 2008 at 9:35 am |
I really don’t know what to think, but I kind of use the Charlie-Murphy-on-Chappelle-Show explanation of his story about playing basketball with Prince: Who could make something like that up? It’s too bizarre and specific for someone to have inivented whole cloth. And when Favre’s reaction goes from “it’s total bs” to “Sure I talked to Millen but we talked about fishing” to “sure there probably were other people on the line listening and I figured he wanted information” . . . I dunno, he protests too much. The other thing is forget about tarnishing Favre’s legacy, the absolute last thing the Packers want or need is any more Favre stories or distractions. Rodgers has been better than expected and the team has had some rocky games and lots of injuries but show signs of pulling it together for a playoff run. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose by having a Favre story like this break in the middle of the season. To beleive that you’d have to beleive that the organization which wanted him to stay retired or come back and play for them is more petty and vindictive than a star athlete who has demonstrated many signs of at the very least, self-centeredness and egotism. I don’t see what the Packers organization gets out of making this story up and floating it now, 3-4 weeks after it happened. And I hate to say it but it does seem to be consistent with favre’s modus operandi as others have pointed out. To me the most telling event in the entire divorce proceeding was when, unable to come to a settlement, the pack told Favre to come on in to camp and compete for the job, which favre said all along was all he wanted. I think he figured he was calling thier bluff by showing up, that he owuld cause such a commotion that they would cave and trade him to the Vikes if he did it. But then came the infamous meeting with McCarthy where it was revealed that Favre was the one blufffing, he didn’t want “a chance” and he didn’t want to be a Packer any more. I think he is stubborn and bitter and competetive and he still holds a grudge. Those were great qualities when he was in his prime and our QB, but it comes with a lot of baggage. Favre wouldn’t be the first great athlete that wasn’t completely what we hoped he was.
October 23, 2008 at 9:36 am |
sorry, I don’t spell so good . . .
October 23, 2008 at 9:48 am |
It’s probably Pepper Burris getting revenge for having to wrap Favre’s ankles for the last 16 years…
October 23, 2008 at 11:03 am |
I’m amazed at how people don’t understand the team-issued cell phone contraversy. The whole point of that contraversy was **whether the Packers violate the salary cap.** So why—WHY?—would someone within the organization start spreading the rumor that the Packers were violating the salary cap?
October 23, 2008 at 12:45 pm |
With you DDD. The cell phones in question were a “Promotion” program offered by the Cell Company. Every team has them and net impact on the Cap = zero. The only real question is, who has access to the individual phone records? My guess, and that’s all it is, the records reside in NY at the Comish’s office.
October 23, 2008 at 12:46 pm |
Team-issued cell phones don’t count against the salary cap any more than team-issued helmets or shoulder pads. Or laptops for film study.
But if wasn’t the Packers who spread the team-issued cell phone story, who was it? Both Florio and McGinn cited sources. Did they both fabricate it?
October 23, 2008 at 12:51 pm |
And was Thompson lying to all of us when he denied in his press conference that any player was issued a cell phone by the team?
October 23, 2008 at 9:26 pm |
Scott is right. The Packers and Favre will both make more money by working together in the long run. Favre will never be more effective in terms of marketing value in any market other than WI. The Packers will sell more jerseys, trinkets, HOF tickets, etc. if they have new Favre stuff for us to see and buy every year. The Packers have NO incentive to want to poison the well. You might hate the management, but they’re not going to leave all that future money on the table. Favre, on the other hand, has not exactly been rational in his decisions. Favre’s 100% denials have a 100% probability of being revised based on our current sample. He’ll come around and apologize eventually. To use a Nixonian term, there’s a great silent majority of Packers fans that place most of the blame on #4 but who will welcome him back after a few seconds of post-retirement contrition. And he’ll do it, too. He’s screwed up before, and he’ll eventually come around. No one in NY or Bristol, CT will ever show him the love he’ll get in WI. He’s just like a wayward teenager in a goth phase.
October 24, 2008 at 9:48 am |
Money A Charles, money: “He’s just like a wayward teenager in a goth phase.”