Peter King of SI.com reported Monday that agent Bus Cook will send a letter to the Green Bay Packers within the next 10 days asking that quarterback Brett Favre be reinstated from the reserve-retired list.
After the letter is mailed, Cook should call G.M. Ted Thompson and shout, “Checkmate.”
Really, what option will the Packers have but to bring Brett back? Cutting him would likely result in Thompson and/or coach Mike McCarthy being hanged in effigy (or, as Ernie Pantusso would say, right here in Green Bay). Reinstating him only to then try to trade him, would cause the legion of pro-Favre members of the fan base to break out the No. 4 jerseys (as if they even put them away) and prepare for a season that promises to be even more magical than 2007.
The only way the team could contain the emotions of folks like the kid who wore a Favre jersey every day for something like eight straight years would be to announce upon reinstatement that the Packers will try to trade him. But that would be the same thing as cutting him, and making such a declaration would hurt whatever little leverage the team would already have in trade talks.
Besides, the Packers would have little control over the outcome of a trade. No team will want Favre unless Favre wants to play for that team. He thus can block any trade by refusing to restructure his $12 million salary, or by making it clear that he’d simply retire, again.
(Then there’s the whole Jake Plummer angle on this one, where a team could trade for Favre’s rights based on a low-round pick, with a higher-round pick going to Green Bay if Favre reports. If Favre doesn’t report, the team could then try to recover any signing bonus money that might still apply to the last two seasons of Favre’s contract. However, the fact that the Packers didn’t file a grievance to recover any bonus money within 45 days after Favre initially retired could be an impediment to such a maneuver.)
The bottom line is that, even though the Packers apparently don’t want Brett and Brett apparently wants to play for a new team, these two parties might have no choice but to set aside their differences and coexist.
Meanwhile, Favre has missed the entire offseason program, which has been premised in large part on tweaking the offense in order to fit Aaron Rodgers’ strengths. Though Favre might not have needed the weeks of T-shirts and shorts practice to get himself ready to play, guys like rookie receiver Jordy Nelson have zero experience with No. 4, so it will place more pressure on Nelson and other members of the team to get ready for a season in which expectations will suddenly spike.
Perhaps that’s why the Packers have sent an intermediary to Mississippi. Surely, the franchise is going to try to talk Brett into staying on his tractor instead of provoking a test of wills that will give neither side what they each seem to want.
If the Packers want to move forward without Favre and if Favre wants to move forward with another team, putting the Pack in checkmate will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for that to happen.
There is, however, one way out of this mess, for both sides. If Brett is willing to admit publicly that he wants to play for another team (without blaming the team for his desires in this regard), then the Packers would be able to grant his release.
Maybe.
_2.gif)





July 8th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Crazy ex-girlfriend analogy FTW!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:10 am
n this instance, it is obvious that Favre made a knee-jerk reaction due to the way he felt the team was treating him. Now, he feels he made a mistake and he would like to change his mind. How many of us have made a decision and turned around and decided it wasn’t the best thing for us. So, everyone should get off his back and let him do what he wants. As for the Packers taking him back, I just don’t get why they wouldn’t. He is still a good quarterback that makes quick decisions in the pocket. Most of his teamates know him and are fimilar with him. There must be some kind of personal issue between Ted and Favre. If that’s the case than Ted should retire, because he’s letting personal issue effect his decision makeing. However, if he honestly thinks the Packers are better with Aaron Rodgers then Brett Favre he needs his head examined.
================================================
In the same article linked in the above story it clearly states it was TT that talked Favre back into returning in 2005. Here is TT’s most recent statement on the issue.
=====================================
“Thompson has been unavailable for comment since the latest Favre news broke. But in an interview before he left on vacation, I asked Thompson to respond to the perception the organization didn’t do enough to talk Favre out of retiring.
“I never understood that, quite frankly,” Thompson said. “We went about this offseason the way we have the last several, making sure Brett knew that Mike (McCarthy) and I both felt he’s still a good player, can still play the game, can still win and that our team was going to be in a position to win.
“I think that’s what a veteran looks for: Do we have a chance to win? And can I still play?
“Other than that, it’s not my place to try to convince someone that they’re making a bad decision or a good decision. It’s my place to say, these are the facts as I see them, now it’s up to you and Deanna to make your choice.”"
========================================
So save the “organization was mean to Brett” garbage. This guy has been jerking chains for 4 years now. The Packers made a decision to move forward based on FAVRE’S RETIREMENT, not some perceived slight to Favre.
Hell, while we’re at it let’s just get a taxidermist on the Packers training squad and get a couple of neighborhood kids to push Favre around on the field and he can play till he’s 100.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:13 am
ATTN Everyone:
If Favre comes back he will get injured. He is on the cover of Madden, remember?
Said injury will ruin his streak thereby ruining his image and reputation.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I’ve been reading a lot of post about the relationship analogy, which I think is a terrible one. Teams are in the business of winning a championship, and Favre gives them a better chance of that,this year. I would rather win a championship than be just competive. It is so hard to win in this league that you have to take your chances when they arise. It’s not a fore gone conclusion that Rodgers is any good, or that he can stay healty. The two games he has entered in he carrer (New England, and Dallas) he has gotten hurt.
This is not an emotional or friendly relationship,this is a business relationship, so that anology sucks.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.25 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Are you guys dumb?
Roger’s hasn’t proved consistent or even good. The Packer’s are poised for another deep playoff run - IF they have a proven quarterback.
Do you really think Roger’s can carry the Packers far in his first playing year? What precedent?
Roger’s has not even earned the privilege of carrying Farve’s jock strap.
Look, the Packer’s need to welcome Farve back. If he plays well for someone else (or even if he decides not to play if the Pack just says “no” and he retires) and Roger’s sucks it up on the field (or gets hurt), the Packer’s management looks very foolish and will have angry fans to answer to in small town Green Bay - so long honeymoon.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:29 am
aren’t the Packers better with Aaron Rogers?
the nucleus of the team is young and still developing, especially their WRs. Doesn’t it make sense for the future (not necessarily next season) to have a QB with more than a year left in the tank to develope with the rest of the young team?
In a sport that i see very dependent on team chemistry, and less on individual stars, i think it makes sense to let their youth movement extend to the quarterback position (a position intergral to the overall chemistry of a team).
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:32 am
If memory serves correct, it wasn’t that long ago that Brett said he wouldn’t play for another team because he didn’t want to have to deal with learning a new offensive system again. Sooo, was that a ruse? I think it pains him that he can’t win the big games anymore, “4 and 26th” game in Philly, Ice Bowl II last year. It’s only human nature to want to prove to yourself that you can be better. He should probably consider spending some quality time with that beautiful wife of his and his kids before that time is lost. Unless of course he plays for the Saints just a couple of hours from his house.
Now, what do I do with all those magazines that I bought honoring Favre’s retirement from the NFL. Call me SUCKA!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 8th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Booo!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 11:07 am
To Ted Thompson: Trade Favre. He can’t win the big games. He can’t play in cold weather. He keeps throwing the heatbreaking interception. He peaked a decade ago. Trade him, get what you can for him. Time to move the Packers into the future.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 11:34 am
To Henry:
If I were the manager of a business, I would like to retain my best employees, to assure a bright future. In an instance, my best, and most loyalest employee for 16 years was thinking about calling it quits, I, as a manager, would do everything within my power to change his mind. As long as I thought it was the best thing for the company. Every manager I have ever dealt with would love to keep every good employee. The fact that Ted didn’t do anything to convince him to stay speaks volumes of how he really felt. Remember, Brett told the Packers that he was considering retirement before he actually retired. In that time frame Ted should have made some sort of move.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Rodgers got hurt against Dallas? Huh? He finished the game. He played well. Unlike some other GB QB that day…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 11:38 am
well good thing for the analogy that relationships aren’t only about emotions, and are subject to binding contracts even when nothing has been signed (you live with your girlfriend for long enough and you’re in a common law contract).
And you’re not really implying that business decisions are never subject to emotional attachment, are you?
I’m not defending my analogy out of ego. I don’t care that you think it sucks. I just find it odd when people use extreme language to shoot down an idea. It’s fine to say you don’t agree with it, but don’t you think somebody might be offended if you say that their idea(s) flat out suck?
Sometimes kids who are still learning to have confidence in expressing themselves post on the internet. be sensitive please.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 8th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Yes, Rodges did great in Dallas
and Yes, he did finish the game
and Yes, he did get hurt.
and Yes, he was on the injury list the rest of the season.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
your 100% correct
Sucks is a strong word that shouln’t have been used, and I apologize for that.
The correct way to say it was that your anology does not apply in this situation.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I’m the biggest Packer fan and all this crap (which was brought on solely by no. 4) should be dealt with without pity. Stay retired, or if he selfishly “checkmates” his way back in the roster, make him be the backup to Rogers.
Like all adults, he made is bed and now he has to sleep in it. Enough is enough! I REALLY hope he is not serious about coming back. He’s been saying (up until last week at least) that all of this “were rumors”. Remember Favre, there is no “I” in team!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Hey freak,
Did you miss the part where the article states TT convinced him to come back? Did you miss the part of TT’s quote where he told Favre he can still play but he retired anyways?
TT built a new squad that will be able to compete for the next several years. You honestly believe it’s Thompson’s responsibility to beg Favre to come back when the guy can’t even play in the cold anymore? This is exactly the mentality of the Green Bay Favre fan.
Heaven forbid a 1st rounder who has been in the system for two years and has the confidence of the GM and coach should ever actually play. My god, we might have a Ben Rothliesberger or Carson Palmer on our hands. But let’s just play it safe and go with the drama queen that makes Kyle Orton look like Johnny U when it gets chilly.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
We might be sitting on a Rothliesberger or Palmer in Aaron Rodgers, but we might also be sitting on a Cade McCown or Ryan Leaf. At least we know what we’re getting with Favre.
I read what TT said. I did miss the part where Ted actually said that they WANTED him to come back.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“pftfreak says:
July 8th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Yes, Rodges did great in Dallas
and Yes, he did finish the game
and Yes, he did get hurt.
and Yes, he was on the injury list the rest of the season.”
Rodgers got hurt in practice…tore his hammy. Too much bench time while Favre is stinking it up in the tough games. Trade Favre.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Aaron Rodgers should change his name to China Doll.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
cheers
“The correct way to say it was that your anology does not meet my limited criteria for what makes a good analogy, whereby relationships of different natures (friends, family, professional, sexual, emotional) are always too dissimilar to compare.”
there, fixed. if that’s how you feel (and i admit i made assumptions on your perspective based on the glipse you’ve shown. i hope i didn’t offend)then that’s a true statement. In order for your statement to be true there would need to be both a single perspective for this situation, and a single way to look at professional/emotional relationships- yours.
as it stood, your statement was only true for your perspective. The world exists with an infinite number of perspectives, since they’re all constantly in flux.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
no wonder favre wants to skip on prep and practice. they arent fun and players get hurt at them.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I think that this could all be settled with one segment on the Jerry Springer Show. Maybe two.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated