12/21/24
July 11, 2008
Favre Asks For Release: Favre seeks unconditional release from Packers, sources say. How much worse can this get for the Packers?
There are 3,650 comments on this story on ESPN.com just five hours after posting. Why?
posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 08:24 PM on July 11, 2008
He's just not Green Bay's favrite QB anymore.
posted by chicobangs at 08:56 PM on July 11, 2008
On behalf of the Vikings...we'll take him. (not sure how he'll fit in terms of salary cap, we'll work it out) Fully aware that he's on the decline. Just think he could help for a year and give the Tarvaris Jackson project a little more time to develop.
posted by dviking at 09:07 PM on July 11, 2008
This is heartbreaking. Farve made such a point of leaving the game with a good taste in his mouth. Then the Packers made the playoffs and were competitive all the way through the season. For a class act it was the perfect time to go home. I saw someone thinking that Miami might trade Jason Taylor for Farve. Green Bay should be so lucky. Let Farve play 3 games behind the Miami offensive line and he wiil wish he'd stayed on the farm. Taylor is still an effective legitimate NFL starter. So is Farve. The difference is Taylor would play for a real contender while Farve lives on his back, reduced to being a ticket selling ploy, and having to suffer the mind games of The Tuna. My question is; if Farve is put in a really bad situation (such as Miami), would he quit in midseason? A year ago I would have said, "No way. Not Farve. Not ever.". But after all this, can you be sure?
posted by gradioc at 10:06 PM on July 11, 2008
On behalf of the Vikings...we'll take him. According to Peter King, that's exactly where he wants to go. And, again according to King, why they'd never release him outright. And I'd have to agree with the Packers. If Favre is going to play Hamlet once again ("To play or not to play"), then the Packers have a right to move on. And there is no way, if I were the Packers GM, that I would give him an outright release to a team in my division. A team the Packers play twice a year and would be competing with for the division title and beyond. If Favre really wants to come back, there are several competitive teams (The Ravens, Buccaneers, and I'd say the Jets but based on last year they're not competitive yet) that could trade a high draft pick for him. That could be a win-win scenario.
posted by cjets at 10:20 PM on July 11, 2008
Packers, please reinstate him, then release him. End of story. It really IS that simple. If he is so damn good you can even fathom the thougt of allowing him to end up on a team you might play this year, then sign him. Whatever. Decisions have been made on both ends already. Only the sports media wants to milk this story any further. It seems that Brett wants out of GB and that GB welcomes the idea. Where exactly is the controversy? Very few of the contenders either want or can afford Farve under the cap, so what is all of this malarkey about "swirling trade rumors" and future draft picks? Does anyone know if the Viking can even afford to sign him under the cap? There is also little doubt that Farve can still play, so if the Packers aren't willing to give him the cash his lengthy career demands nowadays, release him, see who does, and move on. How much longer can the media expect America, other than GB fans to actually care? I know I don't. Do whatever, but just do it...
posted by knowsalittle at 10:22 PM on July 11, 2008
come on farve, he is like a kid at a candy store, i want this no i want that... just stay gone and be happy... Dont get me wrong i like the man he was a great (if not one of the best qbs in the game) but its time to go. plz make up our minds and the media's minds iam done hearing and reading about it already
posted by buckchaser at 10:49 PM on July 11, 2008
I think Favre should fulfill his childhood dream of being a baseball player and get into the minor leagues and hit below the Mendoza line. Do that for a year or two and then come back as a part owner and player for the Washington Redskins as a shadow of his former self. On a somewhat more serious note, how many of us sort of expected this to happen the day he announced his retirement? I have to be honest and say that this shocking news isn't really shocking at all.
posted by THX-1138 at 11:18 PM on July 11, 2008
Meet me in St. Louie Louie come and play for the rams....
posted by budman13 at 11:29 PM on July 11, 2008
I didn't expect Favre to unretire, particularly if the Packers weren't willing to take him back. It's strange they don't want him, frankly. He nearly got them to the Super Bowl last season.
posted by rcade at 07:22 AM on July 12, 2008
It's strange they don't want him It would have been (or was) strange in March if they didn't want him. But after going through both free-agency and the draft and putting together a team with the assumption that he wouldn't be there, I don't think it's strange in mid-July.
posted by cjets at 09:44 AM on July 12, 2008
He's just not Green Bay's favrite QB anymore. Well if you read some comments on different threads, that's not true for everybody. Heck there's some Packer fan on the ESPN thread who thinks it's a travesty that the Packers FO is treating Favre this way! Like they're the bad guys in this situation. Packers, please reinstate him, then release him. End of story. It really IS that simple. If he is so damn good you can even fathom the thougt of allowing him to end up on a team you might play this year, then sign him. agreed. Either you believe that your team is better now and going into the future with Aaron Rodgers or Brett Favre. If you believed Favre, then you would have already accepted him back, so it must be the former. Just cut him and let him go and don't worry what he does elsewhere. There is little chance that he will go to another team and have even moderate success given a) He has to learn a new system with new personnel and doesn't even have the mini-camps to work on language/timing/etc. Can he pick up a new offense in basically 2 months? Well enough to be strongly competitive? This isn't baseball where you just need to know how to hit the ball. b) The teams he are going to likely aren't built to support his gunslinging ways. Is a run-oriented team like the Vikings going to be able to handle the 2-3 INT/game Brett? In GB he could overcome those bad plays because they put the ball in the air a lot. I'm not sure that is the case with a team like Minessota/Tampa. If he could play conservative like he did last year, that may not be an issue...but looking at his career numbers, last year was more of an anomaly.
posted by bdaddy at 10:36 AM on July 12, 2008
I find it very strange that GB doesn't want Favre next season. How can you take an unproven (albeit promising) Rodgers over Favre? I realize they want to get Rodgers up to full speed and see what he can do, but the ultimate goal is still to win a superbowl and I have to think Favre gives them the best chance to do that this season. With AP in Minnesota, I find it scary that Favre could go there. If defenses have to concern themselves with AP, Favre could pick the secondary apart and have another anomalous season.
posted by curlyelk at 11:11 AM on July 12, 2008
I'm not sure the Collective Bargaining Agreement would allow for this, but if the Packers could work out a deal with another team in which they arrange a buy-out of Favre's contract, and then deal him for, say draft picks and cash (coincidently equal to the amount of the buyout), it would be a win-win situation. The Packers get rid of Favre and his contract, dictate where he goes, within the limits of whatever teams are interested, and come out with something in return. Favre gets his wish to go somewhere else, and whatever team deals for him gets a serviceable quarterback. If it doesn't work out, Favre stays retired, or he can be a very high-paid, very frustrated 3rd string back-up quarterback.
posted by Howard_T at 11:29 AM on July 12, 2008
Please go away Brett. You've been retiring for half a decade. I'm tired of reading about it. Get out of the newspaper, talk radio, ESPN and my computer. You're getting to be a bigger annoyance the Michael Jackson.
posted by BlindAlvin at 12:18 PM on July 12, 2008
Favre, as good as he's been his entire career, is losing a great deal of respect with this crap he pulls after every season. This year he just happened to take it way farther, with the crying, sobbing, etc. Now the Packers are supposed to just hand him over to another team, possibly their biggest competition in the division? Splendid. Maybe the competitive juices are running too high for him to indeed walk away, but I tend to feel he flat-out craves attention and was probably devastated with the fact the league could continue without him. I predict, at best, another playoff loss with another team and another off-season of retirement B.S. Like a broken record.
posted by dyams at 12:20 PM on July 12, 2008
Favre isn't in front of a camera, isn't chiming in on talk radio, and isn't writing columns for newspapers or websites. The circus is created by the sports media who have nothing more interesting to report. If you're tired of hearing about it, blame the media for the beating of a dead horse. Its not like Favre went through the media to announce he'd like to return, it was leaked.
posted by curlyelk at 01:01 PM on July 12, 2008
I don't think the Packers should release him. They should just let him go to camp and compete with Rodgers for the starting job.
posted by bperk at 01:14 PM on July 12, 2008
I wasn't really referring to the media when talking about the attention he craves. He knows it will come, as it does every year, and he doesn't have to say a thing. One of the things I have respected Favre for in the past is the fact he doesn't say a lot of stupid crap when the microphones are in his face. But he definitely knows the attention will come his way, and he isn't ready to endure a year without fans yelling and screaming for him. His tearful charade after last season, should he come back before another game has even been played, will rank as one of the most pathetic displays in recent sports history.
posted by dyams at 01:18 PM on July 12, 2008
I had heard on that trusted medium of truth, sports talk radio, that the Packers aren't going to release Favre and if he wants to play football it will be as a back-up for Rodgers. And I think that would fair. Maybe not to Favre, but it would be to Green Bay and Rodgers, who have had to remain is stasis for, -what was it?-, two or three off-seasons while Brett did the old Ross Perot "I'm in the race, Larry" "No, I'm back out of the race" decision deal. Staying with the political angle, Brett's like John Kerry, except Kerry didn't flip-flop as much. I didn't expect Favre to unretire, Really? Because it seemed obvious to me that he was probably going to regret retiring and make some announcement about his desire to return. I have enjoyed his football career (well, except for those two playoff games) and I thought he left at the right time. But it sure as heck 'aint up to me.
posted by THX-1138 at 04:12 PM on July 12, 2008
As a Farve Fan I hope he does play one more year. Don't care what team. I spent a lot of time in Hattisburg MS. doing some computer wiring in dorm rooms at Southern Miss. and got to know Brett pretty well. Supper nice guy. Maybe he will play down here in Georgia since he was drafted by the Atlanta Falcons to start with.
posted by Folkways at 04:41 PM on July 12, 2008
If you're tired of hearing about it, blame the media for the beating of a dead horse. How about Brett killed the horse, used the great media wizard to resurrect it at least twice, killed it again, let it rot, finally buried it, dug it up less than two weeks later, had it restored and resurrected again, killed it again, stepped aside so the media grand wizard could beat and finally bury it for him, seemed to be willing to let it lie in the grave only to dig it up yet again, and (how could this possibly happen) the great wizard media heard about it through a "leak", only to resurrect it once again. I just saw on my sports ticker less than 15 minutes ago the the Packers have made two interesting statements. 1. At no time were they considering giving Brett an unconditional release. 2. No team has made any inquiry with the Packer's front office about a trade or other offer. Seems like the grand wizards favorite two favorite sons, Talkradio and ESPNatar have cosmic insight that is full of s.....
posted by knowsalittle at 07:50 PM on July 12, 2008
As a Vikings' fan, I don't want him. Everyone is talking about the damage that Rodgers' development would take if Favre returned, but it would be the exact same thing for Jackson if Favre came to Minnesota. It might even be worse with Jackson, since he has already been the starter for a year and did OK for himself all things considered. Jackson may be unproven, but Favre is proven...as the guy who has coughed up a hairball in every big game for the last decade. I'll take my chances with Jackson.
posted by TheQatarian at 07:16 PM on July 13, 2008
What dyams said. And if I were Rogers about to start my first season after three years on the bench only to have Farve return as possible competition, the Pack would have another QWB problem on their hands. I'd say play me or trade me.
posted by irunfromclones at 10:35 PM on July 13, 2008
TheQatarian, maybe you and I remember last year a bit differently. I remember a Jackson that threw for more Int's than TD's, was sacked more in 12 games than Farve was in 16, and looked lost most of the time. We have one of the best running back tandems in the games, and that takes a lot of pressure off the passing game, so his numbers are actually somewhat inflated(meaning he's worse than what it looks like). Jackson is not the guy to take this franchise to the Super Bowl. Not sure if Favre is either, but he gives us a better shot this year, and lets Jackson develop another year. And, to be able to see Favre take the field on the season kick-off of Monday Night Football wearing purple would be worth the cost of my NFL Sunday ticket subscription.
posted by dviking at 12:05 AM on July 14, 2008
TheQatarian, considering that the offensive coordinator is cut from the Mike Holmgren cloth, Favre could come to the Vikes and not only perform the way he has with the Packers offense but he can also come in and give Jackson exactly what he so desperately needs, some QB tutoring. The same can be said if he was to go to Tampa, the offense is also very similar. I just don't see the Packers releasing him outright, not to a division rival at that.
posted by BornIcon at 07:56 AM on July 14, 2008
I put the caveat "all things considered" for a reason. Yes, he had more picks than TDs, but he was improving steadily throughout the season. He also had two receivers (Shiancoe and Williamson) who dropped everything he threw at them. There is no way that anyone can know yet that Jackson can't do the job. But ripping him out of the role now after he's already been the starter for a year (and is prepared to start again) will not do him any good. And as I said before, we know Favre will choke in the big game. We don't know what Jackson will do. I'd like to find out.
posted by TheQatarian at 08:24 AM on July 14, 2008
The same can be said if he was to go to Tampa, the offense is also very similar. I'm tired of Tampa going after every old player in the league. If you ought to retire, but want to keep on playing, we welcome you to Tampa.
posted by bperk at 09:42 AM on July 14, 2008
I'm tired of Tampa going after every old player in the league. If you ought to retire, but want to keep on playing, we welcome you to Tampa. Maybe they figure the large retiree population in Florida likes that sort of thing.
posted by bender at 09:51 AM on July 14, 2008
I put the caveat "all things considered" for a reason That's exactly my point...all things considered. Like he had one of the best RB tandems in the league. like he had one of the best offensive lines in the league. All things considered, Jackson was worse than the numbers show. Let's move on.
posted by dviking at 03:00 PM on July 14, 2008
All things considered, Jackson was worse than the numbers show. Favre is a one year solution. If Jackson is the franchise QB, setting his development back with a one-year stop gap QB serves what purpose? Do you think they are only Favre away from the Super Bowl?
posted by bperk at 04:21 PM on July 14, 2008
Has anyone seriously considered the possibility that Favre is a little punch-drunk? Like maybe one too many hits to the head has impaired his judgement some? I am a fan, as comments elsewhere will show, but seriously Brett, you're making yourself look like an idiot here. Retire now -- they've already got a ceremony planned for you at Lambeau. You deserve it.
posted by fabulon7 at 08:07 PM on July 14, 2008
Favre is a one year solution. If Jackson is the franchise QB, setting his development back with a one-year stop gap QB serves what purpose? Do you think they are only Favre away from the Super Bowl? That was my point all along, I don't think Jackson is the franchise QB, at least not at his current level of play. We had the rest of the puzzle in place, just no QB. Favre at least gives us the chance to do something. Maybe he can get it done...maybe not. Either way, the Vikes will be more exciting this year, and it does give Jackson another year to mature, and possibly gives the Vikes another year to find a QB that will lead the franchise into the future. I could be wrong, Jackson could be the next Brady. The fact that I can't find one sports writer or fantasy football expert that ranks Jackson anything but last in QB rankings leads me to believe I'm not wrong.
posted by dviking at 10:51 PM on July 15, 2008
There are 3,650 comments on this story on ESPN.com just five hours after posting. Go home, Brett.