Bill Swerski Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 (edited) I can understand Brett's reasoning but the venue he chose was the wrong one. Call the guy up and tell him that not a gaggle of reporters. 996031[/snapback] Yeah, I'll bet the conversation went something like this... Reporter: Brett, what do you think of Javon Walker holding out. Brett: Huh? Reporter: Do you think it's right for him to hold out? Brett: Umm... Reporter: Don't you think that it hurts your playoff-caliber team when your Pro Bowl WR is holding out. Brett: Well... Reporter: Don't you think he's a selfish jerk for doing this to your offense? Brett: Well, I suppose that I don't think he's handling this the right way... HEADLINE: FAVRE RIPS JAVON WALKER! Edited September 16, 2005 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 HEADLINE: FAVRE RIPS JAVON WALKER! 996060[/snapback] That reminds me of the headline Irvin Blames Favre for Walker injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Agreed. Could we also agree it is the GM's job to get the hold-out resolved instead of the QBs? That's a very good question. I'm not one to get into the mgmt side of things, and I don't know what the exact duties are for a GM, owner, yada-yada-yada. I really don't care. And because of that, I don't know the scopes of each position in the mgmt chain. I'll admit that. But, can we not imagine the following occurring? JWalker and BFavre are having a drink in a local bar, or fishing in MS someplace -- just suppose, go with me here. JWalker : "Man, I'm way underpaid for the results I'm giving the team." BFavre : "I can't disagree with you there, Javon, but that's between you, your agent, and the mgmt (whatever their names are)." JWalker : "And I'm thinking of holding out of mini-camps, training camps, 2-a-days, pre-season until a new deal gets done." BFavre : "I don't agree that that's the best way of going about it. You know how mgmt (whatever their names are) feels about holdouts. I think you can still get your money without having to hold out. I need you there, man, if we're gonna' compete this year." I'm not seeing the big deal here. Just like Drew, Favre provided advice -- "this is what I think" type of stuff. How is Favre playing GM? Did he say, "If you're not here in training camp, then I'm docking your pay $5,000 for every missed day?" No. Favre didn't do that, did he? If we can you can continue to loathe and hate Irvin all you want. Of course now that Randy's a Raider I'd have thought you could appreciate Irvin some. I never said anything about hating or loathing Irvin. I simply believe he's over-stepping his bounds as a commentator here. And it appears double-standards to me -- "BFavre should've kept his nose out of it, but let me put my nose right smack in the middle of it." And I have no clue how Moss being in OAK has anything to do with this. Sorry, but I'm lost with that comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Excellent points, Rhino. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicster Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Anyone else here cheer with utter delight when Michael Irvin got hurt in Philly? I know I did. Karma is a b!cth!! Btw, also a life long Packer fan and Texas Native Republican!!! I'd tell you where I live here in Texas, but I don't come out much during the day for fear the lynchmob will find me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 (edited) Anyone else here cheer with utter delight when Michael Irvin got hurt in Philly? I know I did. Karma is a b!cth!! Btw, also a life long Packer fan and Texas Native Republican!!! 996109[/snapback] Being a packer fan might be why you cheered. Being tea bagged for a decade by the Cowboys does that to a fan. Edited September 16, 2005 by whomper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 JWalker and BFavre are having a drink in a local bar, or fishing in MS someplace -- just suppose, go with me here. 996093[/snapback] Well except he made the comments to the media not Walker on a fishing boat. I went with you though. Why would Favre say what he did instead of saying no comment or saying "that's between management and Javon"? My best guess is to add additional pressure on Walker to get his a$$ into camp. I don't know but I'm assuming Favre wanted Walker in because he is a significant part of the offense. Even Swerski has agreed that Favre made the comments because he doesn't care about Walker's contract just about Walker showing up. In that regard seems to me Favre was not only taking management's side but doing so publicly, which again is not his job just like mentoring Rodgers isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 TOTALLY agree that the venue (public media) that Favre took was probably the poorest. I'm not arguing that one, as I believe we agree there. However, I still believe BFavre was providing his viewpoint and advice. I'm having a hard time seeing where BFavre was playing GM here. If I was BFavre (but I'm not), I would've probably have done the same thing -- don't know if I would've done it thru the media. But, I would've looked for the win-win solution here -- one in which gets JWalker in camp to help the GB team compete and win; and one in which doesn't preclude JWalker in getting a new contract. I'm thinking that that's the case here -- JWalker had a better chance of getting a new contract in camp, not holding out. AT THE SAME TIME, JWalker would be in camp to help with GB's attack for 2005. Win-win. I don't see how JWalker's holdout was a win-win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 I'd tell you where I live here in Texas, but I don't come out much during the day for fear the lynchmob will find me. 996109[/snapback] SE TX? Vidor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Even Swerski has agreed that Favre made the comments because he doesn't care about Walker's contract just about Walker showing up. In that regard seems to me Favre was not only taking management's side but doing so publicly, which again is not his job just like mentoring Rodgers isn't. 996124[/snapback] It's not about taking sides. It's about productivity. If one of my co-workers was "holding out" for higher pay, I'd have to fend for myself on certain projects at work because I need this person's expertise to get work done. The productivity of my lab sufferes. Similarly, the productivity of Green Bay's offense suffers when Walker is holding out. If Walker isn't there to work WITH Favre, they're going to be less effective running those plays in game situations. You can't blame Favre for wanting their offense to be as effective as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 TOTALLY agree that the venue (public media) that Favre took was probably the poorest. I'm not arguing that one, as I believe we agree there. However, I still believe BFavre was providing his viewpoint and advice. I'm having a hard time seeing where BFavre was playing GM here. If I was BFavre (but I'm not), I would've probably have done the same thing -- don't know if I would've done it thru the media. But, I would've looked for the win-win solution here -- one in which gets JWalker in camp to help the GB team compete and win; and one in which doesn't preclude JWalker in getting a new contract. I'm thinking that that's the case here -- JWalker had a better chance of getting a new contract in camp, not holding out. AT THE SAME TIME, JWalker would be in camp to help with GB's attack for 2005. Win-win. I don't see how JWalker's holdout was a win-win. 996156[/snapback] He was trying to use his status and popularity to leverage Walker into camp. I'm not sure why you think Walker had abetter chance of getting a new contract in camp since he didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 TOTALLY agree that the venue (public media) that Favre took was probably the poorest. I'm not arguing that one, as I believe we agree there. However, I still believe BFavre was providing his viewpoint and advice. I'm having a hard time seeing where BFavre was playing GM here. If I was BFavre (but I'm not), I would've probably have done the same thing -- don't know if I would've done it thru the media. But, I would've looked for the win-win solution here -- one in which gets JWalker in camp to help the GB team compete and win; and one in which doesn't preclude JWalker in getting a new contract. I'm thinking that that's the case here -- JWalker had a better chance of getting a new contract in camp, not holding out. AT THE SAME TIME, JWalker would be in camp to help with GB's attack for 2005. Win-win. I don't see how JWalker's holdout was a win-win. 996156[/snapback] Gotta agree here. Favre was talking more out of the interest of the entire team winning. That's all. I heard Irvin's comments and he made it sound like it is Favre's fault that Walker didn't get a new contract before the injury. I'm surprised he didn't blame the Hurricane recently here in NC on Favre as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 bill swerski and fightingevil sitting in the fishing boat: bill: hey you liberal, how you doin;? fe: liberal? shove it you NRA gun-toting redneck ... bill: you are a moron, gimme a worm fe: hey man (swigs beer), i was trying to pay you a complement bill: whoa, i think i've hooked something ... help me here you slightly more intelligent than a newbie! << both pulling frantically on the rod (no pun intended) >> fe: c'mon stupid ... reel this sucker in! quit spitting yer darn terbacky and let's get this bad boy into the mobile home ... i'm hungry! bill: darn, you would think between a moron and a postdoctoral-level scientist that we would be able to catch a simple fish! << line snaps ... fish gets away >> bill: great dumbass, i'm outta here. chao. fe: fine. i'm thru fishing with u. please don't reproduce - i don't want to fish with your kids either. << bill ignores fe >> just catchin' up those who didn't want to wade through the 20 pages ... oh, and favre should still keep his mouth shut. tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 (edited) He was trying to use his status and popularity to leverage Walker into camp. I'm not sure why you think Walker had abetter chance of getting a new contract in camp since he didn't. 996176[/snapback] Bingo..Favre knows hes a media darling. As soon as he commented on this Walker was put in a bad light publically. A pro bowl wr getting 1.2 million over 2 years remaining in his contract give Walker a reason to pipe up for some more money. I agree Rhino that playing out a contract is honorable but this is a business and when a guy blows up and he is going to be paid chump change for 2 years by NFL standards he should look into a new deal. He chose to stay with what he had for whatever reason and now he is screwed. edit to add: Were not talking a T.O situation here where he signed a fat deal and wanted to renegotiate one year later. This is a guy who didnt hit the motherload yet. Edited September 16, 2005 by whomper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 He was trying to use his status and popularity to leverage Walker into camp. Club, I think we can both agree that that is your assessment (opinion, interpretation) of what was actually and factually said. My assessment (opinion, interpretation) is obviously different. So, it appears that we'll agree to disagree on this point. I'm not sure why you think Walker had abetter chance of getting a new contract in camp since he didn't. Probably because that more players that got their contracts re-worked reported FIRST, then received renegotiated contracts SECOND. Would you agree with this one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 So, what if Favre said, "I don't care if Walker's in camp or not." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Probably because that more players that got their contracts re-worked reported FIRST, then received renegotiated contracts SECOND. Would you agree with this one? 996207[/snapback] First I'm on beer #3 and have only 1/2 an hour left here at the office so I'm starting to care less and less about this whole thing. I don't know if that's true or not but I'll certainly take your word on it. Doesn't change the fact that Wlker's getting into camp on-time did not result in a new deal for him. The only other one I can recall right now is Gates, whose hold-out appeared to have helped him, minus the one game. I'm mainly here to defend my boy Michael anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 I'm mainly here to defend my boy Michael anyways. 996249[/snapback] Me too..If this thread was titled shut up S. Young I wouldve taken Favres side Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Me too..If this thread was titled shut up S. Young I wouldve taken Favres side 996282[/snapback] Favre would have still been wrong but I probably would have only had one reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.