Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Farve on Rodgers
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="toolkien" data-source="post: 451155" data-attributes="member: 4637"><p>Of course some of us started to pay attention to Favre's eroding attitude, despite the local media barely touching upon the subjects, as far back as 2005. His threat that he may not return if Sherman is let go because he didn't want to learn a new playbook. The "cut me?" comment in 2006, while small, certainly gave notice as to his attitude. The "trade me" declaration in 2007 when Moss wasn't signed. There was 3 full years of jackassery before 2008 even rolled around. But, again, the Cliff Christl's and the Tom Silversteins and the Bob McGinn's of the local media barely even acknowledged such events occurred. I guess they were too busy with compiling the lists of free agents the Packers were supposed to sign to keep Favre happy. Favre himself gives the recap of his "mistrust" of Thompson going back to 2005 during those Greta interviews. So, and not directly attacking the OP, there is a distinct division in attitude toward Favre depending on how much one decided to pay attention. It is pretty clear that Favre believed he was supposed to have been the de facto GM of the team and when he wasn't allowed to his attitude declined every year, so that even after an inspiring season as 2007, Favre couldn't get enough spark to continue playing, at least not for the Packers, and perhaps found a spark with the notion of playing against the Packers.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>This may be seen as just another rehash, but there's a point - the degree that people over credited Favre for the good years, along with a filtering out of his behavior for several years by either ignoring it altogether or letting it roll off due to Favre's Legendary Status, leaves a schism in perspective and the facts one has on hand for their opinion. The result is this - I am more than ready to move on from Favre as it his no bearing on the future, but there are still plenty of folks who insist on berating those who honestly dislike Favre and have good reason to. So long as I routinely find attacks against "Favre haters", I will defend. It may be tedious to some, but then the internet isn't filled with only things I prefer either. </p><p> </p><p>So long as there are people who believe that Favre was the greatest QB ever, saved the franchise from The Dark Years, single handedly won the Super Bowl, had every right to regard himself as the de facto GM (or simply redact the facts from their ledger), and that going to a division rival for the express purpose of sticking it to the Packers was somehow just Ted Thompson so wasn't that bad, and then use this fantastical perspective (which they are welcome to have in the quiet enjoyment of their own lives) to then point their shaking, righteous finger at folks who remember the years of struggle early on, the multiple chances offered, the quality GM'ing, coaching, scheming, playing on the team beyond Favre, can acknowledge that once Favre stopped throwing the ball to the other team he played great on an equally great team, who then ratcheted down to a decade of Tony Romo-esque play of regular seasons of varying quality (on teams of varying quality assuredly) and bad to terrible post-seasons, was on average a Jim Kelly caliber QB (no disrespect for that level whatsoever) and then began a systematic, public string of whining, complaining, smart mouthing, and ultimatums starting in 2005 culminating in the "retirement" and Divorce, which then led him to deduce that HE had been wronged and legacy burning revenge was the only solution, and attacking the Packers as a consequence is about as bad as it gets, I will provide a counterpoint. </p><p> </p><p>Really, it's not about Favre per se, it's the battle between fantasy and reality regardless of the underlying particulars. There still so many people who exist in a world where Favre is to get all the credit for Packer successes the last 20 years and did little or nothing wrong, and so are mystified at "Favre hater" attitudes. And when you address their fantasies, and hem them in with facts, then they quickly revert to "he was fun to watch" and "you live in your mother's basement" responses, at which point you know you've pretty much won the argument. But wherever there is a breakdown between reality and fantasy, there will be the protracted arguments that don't seem to have a resolution, and that applies to politics, religion, and Brett Favre.</p><p> </p><p>It's simply the reality based attitude that Jim Kelly couldn't have thrown the Bills under the bus and gone to the Dolphins to "stick it" to the Bills without, logically, a goodly portion of the fan base disliking him for it. So long as there are people who will use their fantastically over-hyped framework to ignore Favre's downside, and - based on their fantasies - remonstrate those who dislike him, there will debate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="toolkien, post: 451155, member: 4637"] Of course some of us started to pay attention to Favre's eroding attitude, despite the local media barely touching upon the subjects, as far back as 2005. His threat that he may not return if Sherman is let go because he didn't want to learn a new playbook. The "cut me?" comment in 2006, while small, certainly gave notice as to his attitude. The "trade me" declaration in 2007 when Moss wasn't signed. There was 3 full years of jackassery before 2008 even rolled around. But, again, the Cliff Christl's and the Tom Silversteins and the Bob McGinn's of the local media barely even acknowledged such events occurred. I guess they were too busy with compiling the lists of free agents the Packers were supposed to sign to keep Favre happy. Favre himself gives the recap of his "mistrust" of Thompson going back to 2005 during those Greta interviews. So, and not directly attacking the OP, there is a distinct division in attitude toward Favre depending on how much one decided to pay attention. It is pretty clear that Favre believed he was supposed to have been the de facto GM of the team and when he wasn't allowed to his attitude declined every year, so that even after an inspiring season as 2007, Favre couldn't get enough spark to continue playing, at least not for the Packers, and perhaps found a spark with the notion of playing against the Packers. This may be seen as just another rehash, but there's a point - the degree that people over credited Favre for the good years, along with a filtering out of his behavior for several years by either ignoring it altogether or letting it roll off due to Favre's Legendary Status, leaves a schism in perspective and the facts one has on hand for their opinion. The result is this - I am more than ready to move on from Favre as it his no bearing on the future, but there are still plenty of folks who insist on berating those who honestly dislike Favre and have good reason to. So long as I routinely find attacks against "Favre haters", I will defend. It may be tedious to some, but then the internet isn't filled with only things I prefer either. So long as there are people who believe that Favre was the greatest QB ever, saved the franchise from The Dark Years, single handedly won the Super Bowl, had every right to regard himself as the de facto GM (or simply redact the facts from their ledger), and that going to a division rival for the express purpose of sticking it to the Packers was somehow just Ted Thompson so wasn't that bad, and then use this fantastical perspective (which they are welcome to have in the quiet enjoyment of their own lives) to then point their shaking, righteous finger at folks who remember the years of struggle early on, the multiple chances offered, the quality GM'ing, coaching, scheming, playing on the team beyond Favre, can acknowledge that once Favre stopped throwing the ball to the other team he played great on an equally great team, who then ratcheted down to a decade of Tony Romo-esque play of regular seasons of varying quality (on teams of varying quality assuredly) and bad to terrible post-seasons, was on average a Jim Kelly caliber QB (no disrespect for that level whatsoever) and then began a systematic, public string of whining, complaining, smart mouthing, and ultimatums starting in 2005 culminating in the "retirement" and Divorce, which then led him to deduce that HE had been wronged and legacy burning revenge was the only solution, and attacking the Packers as a consequence is about as bad as it gets, I will provide a counterpoint. Really, it's not about Favre per se, it's the battle between fantasy and reality regardless of the underlying particulars. There still so many people who exist in a world where Favre is to get all the credit for Packer successes the last 20 years and did little or nothing wrong, and so are mystified at "Favre hater" attitudes. And when you address their fantasies, and hem them in with facts, then they quickly revert to "he was fun to watch" and "you live in your mother's basement" responses, at which point you know you've pretty much won the argument. But wherever there is a breakdown between reality and fantasy, there will be the protracted arguments that don't seem to have a resolution, and that applies to politics, religion, and Brett Favre. It's simply the reality based attitude that Jim Kelly couldn't have thrown the Bills under the bus and gone to the Dolphins to "stick it" to the Bills without, logically, a goodly portion of the fan base disliking him for it. So long as there are people who will use their fantastically over-hyped framework to ignore Favre's downside, and - based on their fantasies - remonstrate those who dislike him, there will debate. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: OldSchool101
25 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 8:45 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 WR room
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 6:56 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Today at 6:47 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
M
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: mradtke66
Today at 6:08 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Farve on Rodgers
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
