Big Ernie McCracken Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 i've never know you to be a blowhard so what's the underlying issue here. Problems at home? Work? What's up man? I don't think I'm being a blow hard. I think the Packers positionis ridiculous and the rub for them is they don't have a leg to stand on. The guy wants to start, GB doesn't want him to start for them, not only do they not want him to start, they don't want himthere at all. So why shouldn't he have the right to start for someone else. If the Packers don't want him, then why should they control where he goes. And when he's released or traded my position will be justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) Damn I'm glad I didn't buy a Favre jersey when he retured. As a Packer fan in the Twin-Cities, if Favre ends up here, I don't care if his number is ever retired. Some things you just don't do. Edited July 31, 2008 by kcmast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) I don't think I'm being a blow hard. I think the Packers positionis ridiculous and the rub for them is they don't have a leg to stand on. The guy wants to start, GB doesn't want him to start for them, not only do they not want him to start, they don't want himthere at all. So why shouldn't he have the right to start for someone else. If the Packers don't want him, then why should they control where he goes. And when he's released or traded my position will be justified. That is fine, you stated your opinion. When someone disagreed with your opinion, you turned to name-calling and trying to rip BB for his contributions to this site, even turning to that old aged rip of "Your pathetic, you're on a message board all day " . BB knows football and is a phenomenal contributor on this site. I've never known you to be a problem, but, on this thread, you are just acting very immature. Edited July 31, 2008 by Menudo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameltosis Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I think I hear footballguys crying out for some lame RB rankings and a know a vilage somewhere weeps. you spelled village wrong. irony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 BB knows football and is a phenomenal contributor on this site. I've never known you to be a problem, but, on this thread, you are just acting very immature. I appreciate that immensely, but you know damn that I'm dead wrong a good portion of the time and also know damn well that I love a good argument. As long as both sides can remain reasonably civil, you can learn a ton when people get passionate supporting their positions. I don't have a problem with the position that BEM is taking, I only have a problem with the repeated assertions that he is putting forth as fact and can't support with any evidence. He's taking Favre's position exclusively - which is fine. That he's completely ignoring the Packers' interests here or that they have compensated Favre very well, including a signing bonus up front on the contract that he retired from and then unretired from, is irrelevant and his perrogative. But he's making statements about contractual employment within the boundaries of the CBA that just aren't true and then expecting others to simple acknowledge those mistatements as fact and disparaging anyone who disagrees with him. You know that gets my hackles up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ernie McCracken Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 That is fine, you stated your opinion. When someone disagreed with your opinion, you turned to name-calling and trying to rip BB for his contributions to this site, even turning to that old aged rip of "Your pathetic, you're on a message board all day " . BB knows football and is a phenomenal contributor on this site. I've never known you to be a problem, but, on this thread, you are just acting very immature. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Under the current guidelines of Favre's contract. He has a right to report to camp where GB can use him as a #1,2,or3 QB (the Packers have asked Favre not to show), they can cut at which time Favre will be free to sign with any team he wishes, or they can trade him to a team which Favre deems acceptable. This isn't about whether or not Favre or GB is taking the high road. It's about whether Favre legally has a right to seek employment without being stonewalled by his former employer who have a vested interest in him staying retired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 i've never know you to be a blowhard so what's the underlying issue here. Problems at home? Work? What's up man? If you truly feel that BB is full of schit then just put him on ignore and be done with it. I tend to disagree and think he brings a lot to the site, but that's my opinion. Like quite a few of the people here, the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 You know that gets my hackles up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 My point (before dipstick derailed it) in asking whether Favre had a no-trade clause in his contract is simple... if the Packers and the Jets (or Bucs, etc.) can agree on a trade... maybe a conditional trade, say a 3rd round pick but only if Favre actually plays this season, then the Packers should take just about anything they can. What do the Packers care if Favre decides not to show up to the Jets? At least he would be someone else's problem at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ernie McCracken Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) Those facts are great but you are missing one part of the Plummer angle. Let me explain things beyond what you were able to scramble and put together, so pay attention A team could trade for Favre'd rights based on a lower round pick with a higher round pick going to GB if Favre reports. If Favre decides not to report, then the team could try to recover any signing bonus taht might still apply to the the last two seasons of Favre's contract. The problem is the Packer's didn't file a grievance to recover the money within 45 days after Favre initially retired which would prohibit that move. you are still a dope and now even a dum dum. Learn some stuff before you shoot off your mouth What in this statement or any other isn't fact. Do your homework, you are wrong. It's checkmate and GB has no out. I'm not a Packer fan, but I certainly can appreciate how much Favre has given to a game I'm a huge fan of and find it disturbing that this organization, for selfish reasons (and I know Favre hasn't always acted admirably through this process) is trying to force this guy into retirement when he still feels he's a viable starter. They fully appreciate the PR nightmare that would ensue with Favre on the bench and the first 3 interception game out of Rodgers would have the Cheeseheads on fire and the organization has no interest in that (obviously they've asked him to stay away from camp. If they don't think he's a viable starter, then why are they concerned about trading him to a division rival. This is a case of the Packers trying to have their cake and eat it too, and that ain't how the world works. It's inevitable for Thompson and McCarthy and the organization. If they're smart, they trade him to the team that offers the most, regardless of whether they are a division rival or not Edited July 31, 2008 by Big Ernie McCracken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 My point (before dipstick derailed it) in asking whether Favre had a no-trade clause in his contract is simple... if the Packers and the Jets (or Bucs, etc.) can agree on a trade... maybe a conditional trade, say a 3rd round pick but only if Favre actually plays this season, then the Packers should take just about anything they can. What do the Packers care if Favre decides not to show up to the Jets? At least he would be someone else's problem at that point. I doubt the Bucs are going to go that route again after the Jake Plummer deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ernie McCracken Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 My point (before dipstick derailed it) in asking whether Favre had a no-trade clause in his contract is simple... if the Packers and the Jets (or Bucs, etc.) can agree on a trade... maybe a conditional trade, say a 3rd round pick but only if Favre actually plays this season, then the Packers should take just about anything they can. What do the Packers care if Favre decides not to show up to the Jets? At least he would be someone else's problem at that point. If Favre fails to report or just retires again the trade is void, in the same way if a player involved in a trade fails to pass his physical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I doubt the Bucs are going to go that route again after the Jake Plummer deal. And maybe nobody would... but it all hinges on whether Favre has a no-trade clause or not. I could see a team making a conditional offer though that protects them from a Favre no-show. Offer a third round pick if he shows and plays, which reduces to a meatball sub if Favre decides he is too important to play for a lowly team like the Jets or Bucs, etc. Team X makes the conditional offer. Packers agree and are free of Favre until the HOF ceremony. Favre makes his decision to either show or not show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Sept.8 Monday Night Football Be there or be square. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 He does not have a "no trade clause", but he may likely not show up. Another factor is that another team may want to rework the contract and he can refuse to discuss that. And maybe nobody would... but it all hinges on whether Favre has a no-trade clause or not. To backup what I said, No official no-trade clause Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) Okay, to sum up my position on this thing: Favre is being a whiny little b#tch in this thing. He decided to retire, most probably got talked out of it by MIN, and now wants to dictate not only whether he plays or not, whether he starts or not, but exactly which team he'll start for (pretty obviously MIN), happily screwing over GB in the process. GB is acting liked a woman scorned. They were made promises, got hosed on those promises, and now are looking for any feasible way they can to turn the game around and if not put the screws to Favre, at least derive some kind of benefit from the situation while not letting Favre go to the team that is the biggest threat to at least a divisional title. And in the process, they are trying to protect a 1st round draft pick who they feel has had his time come as well as trying to protect the title contender they have put in place. Both sides look bad and both are acting in bad faith, IMO - but it's Favre who started this mess and then decided to diddle on the side, and it's GB that stands to lose the most from the whole thing. Edited July 31, 2008 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I wonder how Ryan Grant feels about this 20 million buyout proposal. And the Packer front office continues to look bush league with every passing day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulOttCarruth Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Okay, to sum up my position on this thing: Favre is being a whiny little b#tch in this thing . . . Disagree. He does have a sense of entitlement, but who can blame him. The guy has been the face of the franchise for years and singlehandedly brought them back to respectability. He decided to retire, most probably got talked out of it by MIN . . . Highly doubt the Minny part. My bet is he made the decision to come back and approached them (not the other way around) when he got word from GB that he wouldn't get the starting job. ... and now wants to dictate not only whether he plays or not . . . You can't fault him for wanting to play. whether he starts or not . . . He's indicated he's willing to have an open competition for the starting job. That seems reasonable. Bottom line is he'd beat Rodgers out easily. but exactly which team he'll start for (pretty obviously MIN) . . . Why would he want to come back and play for a loser? He clearly has the power to influence his situation. My belief is he wants to play for GB. If he can't play for GB, he wants to play for a contender and one with a relatively familiar offense. happily screwing over GB in the process. I don't get the sense at all that he wants to screw over the Packers. I do think he has a bit of a vendetta against Thompson who has mishandled his star QB from Day 1. The bottom line for me is that the Packers will regret the day that they let Favre walk out the door. Rodgers, while talented, won't hold up. He's gotten hurt everytime he's played or so it seems. People who say the Packers need to move onto the future too easily overlook the past. The pre-Favre days were dark. The way they should've approached the situation is to ask Favre for a 2-year committment. If he said, yes, then they should've put him right back under center. If he said no, then they would've been more justified to go with Rodgers and take an alternative course with Favre. Make no mistake...right now Favre is calling all the shots and holding all the cards because he knows the absolute worst case scenaro for the Packers is to have him show up for camp. That's going to force Thompson to trade him to Minnesota/Chicago or release him in which case he'll sign with one of them as a free agent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Okay, to sum up my position on this thing: Favre is being a whiny little b#tch in this thing. He decided to retire, most probably got talked out of it by MIN, and now wants to dictate not only whether he plays or not, whether he starts or not, but exactly which team he'll start for (pretty obviously MIN), happily screwing over GB in the process. GB is acting liked a woman scorned. They were made promises, got hosed on those promises, and now are looking for any feasible way they can to turn the game around and if not put the screws to Favre, at least derive some kind of benefit from the situation while not letting Favre go to the team that is the biggest threat to at least a divisional title. And in the process, they are trying to protect a 1st round draft pick who they feel has had his time come as well as trying to protect the title contender they have put in place. Both sides look bad and both are acting in bad faith, IMO - but it's Favre who started this mess and then decided to diddle on the side, and it's GB that stands to lose the most from the whole thing. Sounds good to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 so the packers offered favre 20 million to stay retired? I just can't understand their thinking through this whole charade. you want to pay the guy a ton of money to NOT play for the vikings? ok, here's an idea -- pay him to continue playing QB for your f'n team. that's all he wanted in the first place. what's with this weird obsession with moving forward behind aaron rodgers? aaron f'n rodgers. last year favre was an all-pro and rodgers was a middling backup. what has changed from then to now other than some lame organizational posturing? right now favre is a better NFL QB than rodgers, period, and it ain't close. surely the packers realize this? I can see why they're sick of favre the attention wh0re holding them hostage every year while he tries to figure out if he wants to grace the NFL with his presence for one more year. but it sure beats the alternative, if the alternative is THIS idiocy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 so the packers offered favre 20 million to stay retired? I just can't understand their thinking through this whole charade. you want to pay the guy a ton of money to NOT play for the vikings? ok, here's an idea -- pay him to continue playing QB for your f'n team. that's all he wanted in the first place. what's with this weird obsession with moving forward behind aaron rodgers? aaron f'n rodgers. last year favre was an all-pro and rodgers was a middling backup. what has changed from then to now other than some lame organizational posturing? right now favre is a better NFL QB than rodgers, period, and it ain't close. surely the packers realize this? I can see why they're sick of favre the attention wh0re holding them hostage every year while he tries to figure out if he wants to grace the NFL with his presence for one more year. but it sure beats the alternative, if the alternative is THIS idiocy. There's a lot to agree with here and I think Favre is being vinegary fresh about this whole deal. I can completely understand that they're tired of this retired-unretired BS and want to move on. However, I can't get with dropping $20 mil for him not to play somewhere else. Especially if you're trying to lowball Ryan Grant at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSUChiefsTarheelFan Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Especially if you're trying to lowball Ryan Grant at the same time. Who has 10 solid games under his belt. How was Mexico? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Who has 10 solid games under his belt. How was Mexico? 10 more than Forte and Mexico was fine but we got caught in a tropical storm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ernie McCracken Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Disagree. He does have a sense of entitlement, but who can blame him. The guy has been the face of the franchise for years and singlehandedly brought them back to respectability. Highly doubt the Minny part. My bet is he made the decision to come back and approached them (not the other way around) when he got word from GB that he wouldn't get the starting job. You can't fault him for wanting to play. He's indicated he's willing to have an open competition for the starting job. That seems reasonable. Bottom line is he'd beat Rodgers out easily. Why would he want to come back and play for a loser? He clearly has the power to influence his situation. My belief is he wants to play for GB. If he can't play for GB, he wants to play for a contender and one with a relatively familiar offense. I don't get the sense at all that he wants to screw over the Packers. I do think he has a bit of a vendetta against Thompson who has mishandled his star QB from Day 1. The bottom line for me is that the Packers will regret the day that they let Favre walk out the door. Rodgers, while talented, won't hold up. He's gotten hurt everytime he's played or so it seems. People who say the Packers need to move onto the future too easily overlook the past. The pre-Favre days were dark. The way they should've approached the situation is to ask Favre for a 2-year committment. If he said, yes, then they should've put him right back under center. If he said no, then they would've been more justified to go with Rodgers and take an alternative course with Favre. Make no mistake...right now Favre is calling all the shots and holding all the cards because he knows the absolute worst case scenaro for the Packers is to have him show up for camp. That's going to force Thompson to trade him to Minnesota/Chicago or release him in which case he'll sign with one of them as a free agent. Finally some one who has a sense of Favre's historic significance on the Packers and the league Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Finally some one who has a sense of Favre's historic significance on the Packers and the league You won't find anyone with a larger man-crush on Favre than me. I want to have his puppies & be his love slave. That doesn't make him right in what he's doing here. 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.