This is outrageous. I mean anyody would want the guy on their team but COME ON. Retire or don't, you're acting like a grandstanding punkazz.

Does this affect your opinion of Favre?

I loved the player but I don't like the guy very much.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
-Carl Sagan

"Does this affect your opinion of Favre?"


No. My opinion of him already wasn't that great. Granted, his numbers are phenomenal. His career has been no short of outstanding. However, Brett has his shortcomings. Here's a few:

1. Puts himself in front of a young team that has a definite future for his own motives.

2. Refused to mentor Aaron Rodgers.

3. (To my beliefs)--he has depth perception issues with his vision in Domed Stadiums. Arlington does count. I get to this more later.

4. For all his greatness, has exactly ONE Super Bowl Ring.

5. Leads the league in all-time Interceptions.

6. IS A TERRIBLE ACTOR.


To illustrate point 3 further--look at his numbers while playing in the Metrodome, for example. He's been notoriously bad playing in Domed Stadiums. More than 25% of his 288 INTs have been thrown in Domes. That's why I think it would be priceless to see Favre get picked up by the Vikings.

Who thinks it would be hilarious to see Favre come back for somebody like the Vikings or Bears and fall straight on his azz and see Rodgers take the Pack to the Super Bowl this year? I think that would be funny azz sh*t.




"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

Favre has been holding the Packers hostage for 3 years now, he is being very selfish in the whole deal, he should just give it up and let them develope a QB, all he is doing is setting the franchise back another year every year he plays this game

------------------------------------------

Q: How is Chad and Marvins relationship?

A: Marvin is the Ringmaster

Mikey admitting this organization is a circus

Its not like they cant do anything. They can release him or they can trade him. If they trade him, they get some compensation. If they release him, its just like he retired...

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

I agree with Bronco.

If he is holding them "hostage" and they just want to "move on," they should release him.

Not releasing him and then claiming he is "holding them back" makes no sense, as they are simultaneously saying that he is good enough to be a threat to their franchises success but not good enough that he wouldn't hold them back.

Which is it? Either you're comfortable with Rodgers, fine, release Favre, or you think Favre is so good you don't think you can beat the team he plays for, so, fine, make him your QB. The organization gets the decision, so why should I feel bad for them?

Besides, you only live once so if he wants to play one more season and another team wants him, why should he retire to help out the Packers franchise? He has given them 100% when he played for them, that is all any employer can ask. Asking him to make his career decision on their timeline is not within their jurisdiction.

And, I agree with Falc (against my better judgment) that he is overrated. His best game was his first, against none other than the Bengals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGGfhTdiKF0

I don't have an issue with what he is doing, but I am not to into how he is doing it. I can understand the dilemma, who wants to get old and quit???? especially when you are still performing at a high level. The problem is, that the guy just follows his gut a little too closely, he should have waited before announcing any decision. I think the article said he was disjointed because they didn't "try" hard enough to talk him out of retirement... now that is being a baby.

I don't see a big deal going on here. Just like every football situation, the team is going to decide what is best for them and the player is going to decide what is best for him. If he wants to come back let him, if he wants to come back but only if he is promised to get his own way... well... Brett meet Chad, Chad meet Brett....

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

Bronco playing devil's advocate:

The PAckers should have known this was likely to occur when they signed to him a 5 yerar extension two years ago. Everyone and their brother knows Favre is a competitior and would likely want to return to the gridiron (and definitely not quit after his last game was an NFC championship home LOSS).

If the PAckers play stupid and act like they never thought Favre coming back was likely, they are the idiots. Ted Thompson and McCarthy should have a contingency plan. This whole "acting dumb" routine is insulting to an extent. Either they were incompetent and didn't think Favrwe would return (which is inexcusable) or they purposely ignored it and hoped it wouldn't happen (qhich is also inexcusable).

I dont pity them like most of the media. They get paid a lot of money to make a lot of tough decisions. This one should be right up their alley.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

What to think, what to think...

This is probably one of those "we don't know the whole story" events that I probably wouldn't feel entirely comfortable passing judgment on until years of uncovering the facts revealed a new perspective. As of right now, neither side looks terrible, nor all that great.

Ultimately, what it comes down to his this: for better or for worse, Favre and the Packers agreed to a five-year deal. It means the Packers have to deal with the consequences of signing the most popular player in football (maybe all of sports) to a long-term deal when year-to-year retirement rumors were a distinct possibility. If they really didn't want him to start for that long, they really shouldn't have inked him for that long because they had to know Favre would not accept a backup role.

But it also means that Favre has to deal with the consequences of waffling on retirement. He couldn't just expect the Packers not to want to know whether or not to figure him into the plans. That's selfish, idealistic and unrealistic. If the team decided to move on without him, well......you're the one who signed the long-term contract and then suddenly decided to tug at the carpet underneath the deal. To Favre's credit, he has acknowledged that retiring "too early" was his mistake and isn't passing the buck on it.

But people also need to remember that Favre received chances from this Packers' team that not many QBs normally get. A consectutive-games-started streak isn't just a test of endurance, it's the coach handing you the ball game in and game out. Favre went through a streak in 2005-6 that likely wouldn't have been tolerated from other QBs.

Favre didn't really do any decisionmakers any favors by having such a good year last year. If this "retire-unretire" decision happened in early 2007, I think sentiment would be more in the Packers' corner. Instead, you have a legion of Favre supporters who now feel they have statistical support to back up every single sentimental reason they have to support the guy (standing by his wife w/ breast cancer, playing a great game in his dad's memory, his home wiped out during the hurricane, his "play the game for the right reasons" attitude, his toughness, etc.).

How long is Aaron Rodgers signed for? Maybe the Packers were afraid of losing him if Favre came back and Aaron had to sit the pine for another season. Granted Steve Young did it for awhile but the 49ers did finally get rid of Montana didn't they?

_____________________________________________
January 6,1991: The last post season victory for the Bengals.