There are multiple reports that are pointing to progress being made in connection with talks regarding whether the Packers will trade quarterback Brett Favre.
Sal Paolantonio of ESPN has reported that the Packers and Favre are talking about trade parameters, with the team cognizant of the fact that the Packers can’t trade him to a new team without Favre’s approval.
Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reports that Favre and the Packers talked about the situation in recent days. The Packers apparently want to hold Favre until a team suffers an injury at the quarterback position. Under this scenario, the team that loses its starting quarterback would then “assume the position,” as the Redskins did after defensive end Phillip Daniels tore an ACL in the first training camp practice of the year.
Cole’s source also makes the case for a team not having to worry about Favre learning the offense, since Favre basically flies by the seat of his pants, anyway.
“Brett is a sandlot guy,” Cole’s source said. “When [Mike] Holmgren was there, half the time he didn’t even run the play that Holmgren [called]. He just threw it where he felt like. Go back to the Super Bowl. That first touchdown pass to [Andre] Rison. That wasn’t the play that was called.”
This portion of Cole’s story suggests to us that Cole’s source is Favre’s agent, Bus Cook, primarily since it smacks of the same reckless, short-sighted thinking that has plagued this entire effort to get Favre to a new team. Does Cook (or whoever the source is) think it’s a good thing that Favre will “just throw it where he feels like”? NFL coaches are control freaks, disinclined to say, “Let the quarterback do whatever in the hell he wants.”
The import of Cole’s report is that this could take a while, since the Packers think the only way to maximize trade value is to trade Favre to a team who has lost their starter.
The end game in that case, however, is that the Packers might get nothing. If they still are squatting on Favre’s rights when the regular season opener approaches and if Favre seeks reinstatement a day before the date on which salaries for vested veterans become fully guaranteed, the Packers will be faced with taking Favre back and owing him $12 million, or cutting him loose for nothing in return.
_2.gif)





July 25th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Farvegate continues.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 25th, 2008 at 8:46 am
If I am Favre, I would send my reinstatement papers in and tell the Packers I do not want to be traded. Then, only 3 things can happen: 1. You end up starting and playing like you want to. 2. You sit on the bench and make a cool 12 million(which will tick the GM off). Or 3. They release you to avoid having to pay you and eliminate the drama, in which case you can play for whoever you want.
Geez Brett, its a no brainer. Force the Packs hand!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.35 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
July 25th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Teddy ‘the terrible’ Thompson is flying too close to the fire here. If anybody wants to get the most out of a favre trade, it’s Senor Tightness. Favre still wants back in, no matter who is spinning the boos Thompson received at the cowherders meeting.
To have Favre released for nothing would serve TT right. Then he cuold spend the rest of his days on this earth thinking about the draft pick that got away.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1.65 / 5 with 6 rating(s)
July 25th, 2008 at 9:02 am
If a coach loses a QB in the preseason…he’s not gonna care if Favre ‘flies by the seat of his pants’. He’s Brett-frickin-Farve for chrissakes!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.75 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
July 25th, 2008 at 9:03 am
the team that ends up losing its starter may very well be Green Bay; if Rodgers previous injury history continues, by week 2 Favre could be the starter again.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
July 25th, 2008 at 9:13 am
When Holmgren was there, they always ran a script of about ~16 plays at the start of games, so there’s more than a little retconning in that “does whatever he wants” statement.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 25th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Whats this about Favre?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 25th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Farve is not a “sandlot” guy.
When the play breaks down, then yes, but so is every quarterback. Farve plays within the west coast offense and goes through the progressions well. The reference to Holmgren’s years was when Farve was young and admittedly didn’t know what a “nickel” or “dime” defense was.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 25th, 2008 at 9:43 am
The Superbowl TD to Rison was an *audible* — a play changed at the line of scrimmage but entirely within the playbook of the team. Favre later said he recognized the defensive fromation from *film study* of a 49ers game in which Joe Montana had called the exact same pass *as an audible* (also resulting in a TD.)
That is about the furthest point from ’sandlot’ that is possible for a pro quarterback to get, and requires a thorough knowledge of the playbook he is calling the audible from. So Cole’s source on this is either blowing smoke or just plain stoopid.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
July 25th, 2008 at 9:45 am
So the trade to the Bucs is on hold until their top 14 QBs all get injured?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 25th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Imagine this:
Favre gets traded to the Bucs. And then the Bucs turn around and trade him to the Vikings!
Now that would be great!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
July 25th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I see Packers president Mark Murphy is towing the company talking point by saying they want to protect Favre’s legacy (when it’s really the Packer’s front office they are trying to protect) by not wanting to see him play for anyone else.
He sites Joe Montana playing for the Chiefs, stating nobody remembers him playing for Kansas City. Tell that to Chiefs fans given he led them to the AFC championship game, their furthest postseason run since the Len Dawson days.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 25th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Gameday-
It doesn’t matter if Favre tells him he doesn’t want to be traded. He doesn’t have a no-trade clause. He is their property and they can send them to whatever team they want. Hopefully Brett will get into a freak tractor accident that will permanently end his career so we can stop dealing with this garbage.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.6 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
July 25th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Great plan TT. Wait and hope that another teams suffers an injury at the QB position in order to gain leverage… BRILLIANT!!
This is about the dumbest thing I’ve heard yet.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
July 25th, 2008 at 10:11 am
astute point, mcrowell. now THAT’d be ironic
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 25th, 2008 at 10:12 am
According to Adam Shefter “. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers on Friday July 25th 2008 summoned in a new era of football by trading for Brett Favre from the Green Bay Packers for a 2010 first round pick”
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 25th, 2008 at 10:14 am
“Cole’s source also makes the case for a team not having to worry about Favre learning the offense, since Favre basically flies by the seat of his pants, anyway.”
I still say this is why chucky would not want number 4.
And
To say that number 4 plays “sandlot” is an insult to real sandlot QBs like V.Young and Ookie.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 25th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Gameday, your freak tractor accident swipe was way outta line!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 25th, 2008 at 10:22 am
“The Tampa Bay Buccaneers on Friday July 25th 2008 summoned in a new era of football by trading for Brett Favre from the Green Bay Packers for a 2010 first round pick according to Adam Shefter.”
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
July 25th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Braun::
I didnt make that comment.
Someone else did when addressing me about a no trade clause.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 25th, 2008 at 10:44 am
and if the pack cuts him in midseason, bf might have some issues latching on where he would like to, also.
i am sure the pack is intently watching who all gets hurt or stays hurt… including rodgers.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 25th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Gameday, you are so right. I apologize. My comment should have been directed to ARiebel. Guess ‘Favre’ and ‘accident’ in the same sentence messes with my ability to read!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 25th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Thompson is in a no win situation:
1. If he trades or releases Favre to play, and Rodgers gets hurt, he looks like an idiot regardless of where Favre goes.
2. If he trades or releases Favre to play, and Favre has a good year, he looks like an idiot especially if Favre’s new team does better than GB.
3. If he puts Favre on the bench, and Rodgers struggles, he looks like an idiot whether Favre plays or not because he has to pay 12 million.
4. If he tries to keep Favre ‘retired’ by refusing to release him or trade him, he looks like an idiot.
Right now, if he takes Favre back as the starting QB (and face it, he’s earned that), Thompson still looks like an idiot because if that happens, then why all the posturing? The ‘tampering’ charge with the Vikings is starting to crumble as well.
If Favre returns, the only way Thompson saves face is to resign himself, otherwise he looks like an idiot.
Is there a scenario where Thompson doesn’t look like an idiot?
And by the way, for all you posters who keep hammering on the two poor years Favre had in 2004/2005/2006. Ya’ll need to remember that there was 1) no running game due to injuries and inexperience 2) inexperienced O-line 3) inexperienced wide receivers. So during that time, Favre did what he was supposed to do; attempt to make plays.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 25th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Every year it’s the same thing! Will he comeback or will he retire? Farve was a great QB, I’ll even admit he had an excellent year last year….he did throw that INT at the end of the NFCC!
1. GB needs to deal with the 12 Mil. against the cap!
2. Why is Goodell involved with this situation, is Goodell a micro-manager?
3. The cell-phone bill? You know this is true! How dumb is Brett to use that phone to call the Vikings?
4. 2 of my Favs from all time. Unitas and Montana finished thier careers with differint teams, what’s the big deal? Time to move on for Brett and Green Bay!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
July 25th, 2008 at 11:27 am
It may just be me, but I’m starting to think that this talk of him going to TB is more sizzle than steak. Gruden can’t stand INTs, nor a QB who is too into doing his own thing. Garcia and Gruden had some interesting moments over the first 6 or so games last season. Then again, maybe we’d do well with a QB (and playcalls) that would be more about winning the game than just having the O not lose it for us.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated