Packers statement on Favre

[Greg C.]

Does this deserve it's own thread? I think so. It's too important to get buried. It's from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Interpretations, anyone?

Packers statement on Favre
By Lori Nickel
Friday, Jul 11 2008, 03:57 PM
Here is an official statement just released by the Green Bay Packers on Brett Favre:

"The Green Bay Packers are aware of the latest developments regarding Brett Favre.

"Brett earned and exercised the right to retire on his terms. We wanted him to return and welcomed him back on more than one occasion.

"Brett's press conference and subsequent conversations in the following weeks illustrated his commitment to retirement.

"The finality of his decision to retire was accepted by the organization. At that point, the Green Bay Packers made the commitment to move forward with our football team.

"As a retired player, Brett has the option to apply for reinstatement with Commissioner Goodell. If that were to occur, he would become an active member of the Green Bay Packers. As always, the Packers will do what's right and in the best interest of the team.

"As with all Packers greats, Brett's legacy will always be celebrated by our fans and the organization, regardless of any change in his personal intentions.

"Brett and Deanna will always be a part of the Packers family."

A call in to GM Ted Thompson revealed that he was in the office today but has now left.

 

[pack_in_black]

No chance they release him. He'd be wearing purple in a heartbeat if that happened.

I think that if he does request reinstatement, they'll put him on the roster and trade him at the first opportunity.

 

[Greg C.]

It seems pretty clear in the press release that Favre will not play for the Packers again. But the mention that if he is reinstated he will become an active member of the Packers is a reminder that the team holds the cards here. They could seek a trade. That may not be easy, though, so maybe the best outcome would be some sort of gentlemen's agreement where they grant Favre his release but he agrees not to sign with another NFC North team.

I've already heard that Baltimore may be interested. It is not a given that Minnesota and Chicago are his most likely destinations.

 

[MassPackersFan]

No chance they release him. He'd be wearing purple in a heartbeat if that happened.

I think that if he does request reinstatement, they'll put him on the roster and trade him at the first opportunity.

At first I thought no way. Not purple. But then I realized hey, he would be nice and cozy in the dome. Wouldn't have to get dirty. The AARP Favre could be happy with that scenario.

 

[MassPackersFan]

It seems pretty clear in the press release that Favre will not play for the Packers again. But the mention that if he is reinstated he will become an active member of the Packers is a reminder that the team holds the cards here. They could seek a trade. That may not be easy, though, so maybe the best outcome would be some sort of gentlemen's agreement where they grant Favre his release but he agrees not to sign with another NFC North team.

I've already heard that Baltimore may be interested. It is not a given that Minnesota and Chicago are his most likely destinations.

Not to be a jerk about it, but at this point, there is no way I would trust Favre and Cook with a "gentleman's agreement" not to play for certain teams.

 

[packersfan4life]

What a mess. I am/was a big of a Favre fan as any, but this just isn't good for Favre or the Packers. Favre has meant a lot for the Packers and the Packers have done a lot in return for Favre. The Packers have moved on from him since he retired and have drafted and built their team accordingly. If they don't take him back they are made out to be the bad guy. No man is bigger than the team or the organization for that matter, but it seems Favre thinks he is.

I guess the best thing to do for both parties would be to grant Favre his release with the stipulation that he can not sign with any NFC Central teams. That way Favre can play where he wants without jeopardizing the Central. I know they won't get any compensation, but no team would trade the Packers for a soon to be 39 year old quarterback.

 

[Title Town USA]

That may not be easy, though, so maybe the best outcome would be some sort of gentlemen's agreement where they grant Favre his release but he agrees not to sign with another NFC North team.

Why? If the Packers would rather have Aaron Rodgers be their starting QB for the 2008 season than Brett Favre, why would they care if he played on another NFC North Team? According to them, he's not good enough to matter as an opponent, right? If they think Rodgers is better than him, than why would they be afraid to play him.

 

[packer_backer]

Does this deserve it's own thread? I think so. It's too important to get buried. It's from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Interpretations, anyone?


"Brett earned and exercised the right to retire on his terms. We wanted him to return and welcomed him back on more than one occasion.


"Brett and Deanna will always be a part of the Packers family."

A call in to GM Ted Thompson revealed that he was in the office today but has now left.

lmao! um yea, sure they did.

 

[Greg C.]

That may not be easy, though, so maybe the best outcome would be some sort of gentlemen's agreement where they grant Favre his release but he agrees not to sign with another NFC North team.

Why? If the Packers would rather have Aaron Rodgers be their starting QB for the 2008 season than Brett Favre, why would they care if he played on another NFC North Team? According to them, he's not good enough to matter as an opponent, right? If they think Rodgers is better than him, than why would they be afraid to play him.

The Packers are by no means saying that Favre is not good enough to matter as an opponent. If they thought that, McCarthy would not have tried to convince him to come back before he retired. They're just saying that it is best for the team to let Rodgers take over now. If they didn't have a promising QB ready to take over my guess is that they would've welcomed Favre back with open arms.

Besides, it is common practice for teams to avoid trading big-name players within the division. Therefore, if the Packers allow Favre to go his own way, which is something they don't have to do, it would be reasonable to put a condition on his freedom.

 

[MassPackersFan]

Does this deserve it's own thread? I think so. It's too important to get buried. It's from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Interpretations, anyone?


"Brett earned and exercised the right to retire on his terms. We wanted him to return and welcomed him back on more than one occasion.


"Brett and Deanna will always be a part of the Packers family."

A call in to GM Ted Thompson revealed that he was in the office today but has now left.

lmao! um yea, sure they did.

Yeah you're right, this isn't the first time the Packers chose to go in another direction at quarterback. How could we be so silly, thinking that they had supported Favre through all of his retirement talk (and near choices) in the past years. :thumbsup:

 

[mkapp]

Dont forget that there is still that little pesky thing out there called the Madden curse. IF Favre comes back, he has the cover spot on Madden looming over him to either get injured, arrested, or have a horrible year.

Do yourself, your fans, and your legacy a favor and stay retired.

 

[Title Town USA]

They're just saying that it is best for the team to let Rodgers take over now.

This makes no sense at all. How is it best for the team to start your 2nd best QB over your best QB? What kind of logic is that?

 

[NFL_GEEK]

They're just saying that it is best for the team to let Rodgers take over now.

This makes no sense at all. How is it best for the team to start your 2nd best QB over your best QB? What kind of logic is that?

Rodgers is Ted's golden boy

 

[Greg C.]

They're just saying that it is best for the team to let Rodgers take over now.

This makes no sense at all. How is it best for the team to start your 2nd best QB over your best QB? What kind of logic is that?

It's called "big picture" as opposed to "tunnel vision."

 

[Title Town USA]

They're just saying that it is best for the team to let Rodgers take over now.

This makes no sense at all. How is it best for the team to start your 2nd best QB over your best QB? What kind of logic is that?

It's called "big picture" as opposed to "tunnel vision."

The "big picture" in the NFL is winning. Brett Favre gives the Packers the best chance of doing just that. You have Aaron Rodgers "tunnel vision syndrome".