I think it's a mistake to say TT's job is to put the best possible team on the field, when what you really mean is that it's his job to put the best possible team on the field THIS year without regard for the consequences that could follow for later seasons.  First off, there's no guarantee that at 39, with an offseason of retirement behind him followed by about a month of throwing balls at a high school, Favre will be playing at anywhere near the level this year that he did last year.  Having Favre as your starter this year is not the sure thing that so many seem to think it is, a player can lose it pretty quickly at that age.  Beyond that, if you go back on your word to Rodgers at this point, that relationship is over.  He's unlikely to re-sign, and you're unlikely to get sufficient time to evaluate him prior to his contract running out, anyway.  Not to mention the ripple effect that letting the inmates run the asylum can have on an entire organization and the possibility that we will all have to go through the whole will-he-won't-he retirement saga again next offseason. 

 Rockadocious, I don't disagree with you that he deserves the opportunity if he can beat out Rodgers in camp, but so far he thinks he's above even having to compete for the job, so that's pretty much a non-issue.

 A couple of thoughts:

The best way to explain a GM's job is to think of it in terms of a GM in the business world.  A GM is worried about business continuiity.  While everyone else thinks just in terms of today, a GM need to think about today, tomorrow and next year.  It's easy to see how TT's style and actions may have been perceived by Brett and others as a sign he didn't want Brett around.  Sherman kissed Brett's butt and gave him access and power/influence Brett never should have had (nor should any other player, anywhere, anytime).  Brett took this as a snub as evidenced by his reaction to the fact that TT did not sign/resign the players Brett wanted, or the coach Brett wanted.  It's very difficult for anyone to give up power or influence once it's been granted.  In the business world, people tend to react like they've been demoted or punished.  That's exactly how Brett has reacted to TT taking away his access after Sherman left.  It isn't a personal thing;  it's just good business.  Brett needs to take a step back, look at the big picture and grow up a little.  He's been mad at TT for the last few years because TT wouldn't give in to him the way Sherman did.  I say, good for TT.  I'm glad the Pack had the good sense to get rid of Sherman and bring in a GOOD front office guy.

BTW, GB would be a disaster if TT had given in to Brett the GM and brought in MOSS and Mariucci.  We'd also be in a serious financial mess if TT gave in to Brett the GM and screwed up the salary structure by keeping Wahle and Rivera with unreasonable contracts for OLs.  Would have been nice to keep Wahle but the longterm cost to the team wast FAR beyond just his contract.

Rich McGeorge:

 A couple of thoughts:

The best way to explain a GM's job is to think of it in terms of a GM in the business world.  A GM is worried about business continuiity.  While everyone else thinks just in terms of today, a GM need to think about today, tomorrow and next year.  It's easy to see how TT's style and actions may have been perceived by Brett and others as a sign he didn't want Brett around.  Sherman kissed Brett's butt and gave him access and power/influence Brett never should have had (nor should any other player, anywhere, anytime).  Brett took this as a snub as evidenced by his reaction to the fact that TT did not sign/resign the players Brett wanted, or the coach Brett wanted.  It's very difficult for anyone to give up power or influence once it's been granted.  In the business world, people tend to react like they've been demoted or punished.  That's exactly how Brett has reacted to TT taking away his access after Sherman left.  It isn't a personal thing;  it's just good business.  Brett needs to take a step back, look at the big picture and grow up a little.  He's been mad at TT for the last few years because TT wouldn't give in to him the way Sherman did.  I say, good for TT.  I'm glad the Pack had the good sense to get rid of Sherman and bring in a GOOD front office guy.

BTW, GB would be a disaster if TT had given in to Brett the GM and brought in MOSS and Mariucci.  We'd also be in a serious financial mess if TT gave in to Brett the GM and screwed up the salary structure by keeping Wahle and Rivera with unreasonable contracts for OLs.  Would have been nice to keep Wahle but the longterm cost to the team wast FAR beyond just his contract.

I like McCarthy over Mariucci, I think like most fans he won me over with his job performance. Moss that's a little more hazy, there just might be another Lombardi Trophy in the case if we had Moss. Would it have been so bad for that stubborn fukk to sign Wahle?

I definately think he has to keep the future in mind.  I still think that means with Favre.  You can't go into a season where you think you can compete for the SB with a so-far fragile QB and a rookie to back him up.  You know Favre is going to play and that you have ARod as the backup.  I also don't necessarily think the relationship with Rodgers is completely lost, either.  All reports are that he could handle it (especially if he got beat out in camp), and that he and TT are close (see last post).  Furthermore, the best possible solution might be to trade Rodgers and go with Brohm as the "future."  I'm sure we could get a 3rd and a vet backup for this season from Tampa.  I also think AR is better than either of the guys Miami has, but I don't think you could get Taylor for him.  Again, I think TTs ego will get in the way.

Regardless, I don't see how TT can take the risk and tempt the football gods like that.  It has career suicide written all over it (not to mention any of his pets).  Favre showed that he had LOTS left last season and has always been a hard worker.  He did wear down by the 18th game in overtime in the cold.  Favre has at least said he made a mistake by saying he retired too early.  I don't know if he will go farther because of....

 You get the point.

 

 

BTW, I think TT is a very good GM and I think Brett should stick to playing football and not whining about his boy Marco.  TT should also spend some of this room we have to really make the players believe that we are going for it. 

Rich McGeorge:

 A couple of thoughts:

The best way to explain a GM's job is to think of it in terms of a GM in the business world.  A GM is worried about business continuiity.  While everyone else thinks just in terms of today, a GM need to think about today, tomorrow and next year.  It's easy to see how TT's style and actions may have been perceived by Brett and others as a sign he didn't want Brett around.  Sherman kissed Brett's butt and gave him access and power/influence Brett never should have had (nor should any other player, anywhere, anytime).  Brett took this as a snub as evidenced by his reaction to the fact that TT did not sign/resign the players Brett wanted, or the coach Brett wanted.  It's very difficult for anyone to give up power or influence once it's been granted.  In the business world, people tend to react like they've been demoted or punished.  That's exactly how Brett has reacted to TT taking away his access after Sherman left.  It isn't a personal thing;  it's just good business.  Brett needs to take a step back, look at the big picture and grow up a little.  He's been mad at TT for the last few years because TT wouldn't give in to him the way Sherman did.  I say, good for TT.  I'm glad the Pack had the good sense to get rid of Sherman and bring in a GOOD front office guy.

BTW, GB would be a disaster if TT had given in to Brett the GM and brought in MOSS and Mariucci.  We'd also be in a serious financial mess if TT gave in to Brett the GM and screwed up the salary structure by keeping Wahle and Rivera with unreasonable contracts for OLs.  Would have been nice to keep Wahle but the longterm cost to the team wast FAR beyond just his contract.

 

Excellent post. If the bashers succeeded in getting rid of Thompson how long would it be before a good GM would be willing to take the Green Bay job? We'd have years of mediocrity to look forward to. 

rockadocious2:

I definately think he has to keep the future in mind.  I still think that means with Favre.  You can't go into a season where you think you can compete for the SB with a so-far fragile QB and a rookie to back him up.  You know Favre is going to play and that you have ARod as the backup.  I also don't necessarily think the relationship with Rodgers is completely lost, either.  All reports are that he could handle it (especially if he got beat out in camp), and that he and TT are close (see last post).  Furthermore, the best possible solution might be to trade Rodgers and go with Brohm as the "future."  I'm sure we could get a 3rd and a vet backup for this season from Tampa.  I also think AR is better than either of the guys Miami has, but I don't think you could get Taylor for him.  Again, I think TTs ego will get in the way.

Regardless, I don't see how TT can take the risk and tempt the football gods like that.  It has career suicide written all over it (not to mention any of his pets).  Favre showed that he had LOTS left last season and has always been a hard worker.  He did wear down by the 18th game in overtime in the cold.  Favre has at least said he made a mistake by saying he retired too early.  I don't know if he will go farther because of....

 You get the point.

 

 

BTW, I think TT is a very good GM and I think Brett should stick to playing football and not whining about his boy Marco.  TT should also spend some of this room we have to really make the players believe that we are going for it. 

Agree w/ this 100%.  Also, for those afraid that signability of Rodgers would have been a problem had they brought Favre back - a friend of mine made a great point:  combine the familiarity of 5 years in Green Bay + more cap room than probably any competitors for his services (assuming there is a cap after the next CBA) and we still would have had the inside track to keep Rodgers.  TT has done a nice job with the Packers - there is no denying it.  But this one moment in time is going to define his Packer career.  And what will be the guage as to whether or not it was a good decision?  What it always has been and what is always will be:  W's and L's.  After rejecting Favre's desire to come back if he gets more of the former he's a genius.  If he gets more of the latter, he's going to be lynched. 

hbk21042000:

First off I apologize for starting "another Favre thread" but this hasn't been addressed yet and I'm wondering about other posters thoughts on the subject. The more this story takes shape with each passing day the more I see Favre in the role of Mike Tyson. (A bit of a stretch but just read on..) I made a reference in one of my other posts/rants about how much respect I've lost for Favre in the past few weeks and how I blame some of this on Mike Sherman for letting this snowball into what it's become. But I said that Favre NEVER would've acted like this if Holmgren was still around or McCarthy came around sooner than he did.

 I would hope Favre would act exactly the same way.  When did Rodgers win this job from Favre?

The only reason Favre wouldn't act the same way with Holmgren around, is Holmgren would have never done anything this stupid.  I like most of TT's moves, and I like the accountability McCarthy has brought, but the Packers blew this and McCarthy has admitted it, in several ways:

- McCarthy's comment that they would have given him more time if he had asked.

- The fact that they won't release him.  He's too good to let go, but not good enough to start, even though he was one of the best QB's in the league last year and Rodgers hasn't beaten him out yet.

I am not a Favre apologist.  He blew some of this also.  But I think we should recognize that the Packers are very much at fault here.  Blaming him for this is like the people who blame him for a bad 2005, ignoring that we had no receivers, and a 5th string running back.  Somehow those factors just don't play into things.

Rich McGeorge:

 A couple of thoughts:

The best way to explain a GM's job is to think of it in terms of a GM in the business world.  A GM is worried about business continuiity.  While everyone else thinks just in terms of today, a GM need to think about today, tomorrow and next year.  It's easy to see how TT's style and actions may have been perceived by Brett and others as a sign he didn't want Brett around.  Sherman kissed Brett's butt and gave him access and power/influence Brett never should have had (nor should any other player, anywhere, anytime).  Brett took this as a snub as evidenced by his reaction to the fact that TT did not sign/resign the players Brett wanted, or the coach Brett wanted.  It's very difficult for anyone to give up power or influence once it's been granted.  In the business world, people tend to react like they've been demoted or punished.  That's exactly how Brett has reacted to TT taking away his access after Sherman left.  It isn't a personal thing;  it's just good business.  Brett needs to take a step back, look at the big picture and grow up a little.  He's been mad at TT for the last few years because TT wouldn't give in to him the way Sherman did.  I say, good for TT.  I'm glad the Pack had the good sense to get rid of Sherman and bring in a GOOD front office guy.

BTW, GB would be a disaster if TT had given in to Brett the GM and brought in MOSS and Mariucci.  We'd also be in a serious financial mess if TT gave in to Brett the GM and screwed up the salary structure by keeping Wahle and Rivera with unreasonable contracts for OLs.  Would have been nice to keep Wahle but the longterm cost to the team wast FAR beyond just his contract.

 

Favre never asked for TT to bring in Mooch.  He asken him to TALK to Mooch.  TT said he would.  TT lied.

I think TT has made some great moves.  TT has also blown some.  TT has admittted that he was too conservative with respect to Moss and should have been more aggressive on this.

 Brett isn't arguing with TT's decisions - he's concerned about his lack of forthrightness on them  For example, Brett was concerned that TT publicly said that Brett never had conversations with Moss and didn't try to lobby him, him Brett says he did and that TT knows he did.  The issue isn't primarily the fact that we didn't get Moss.  The issue is that TT wasn't honest about it.

A good GM of course is worried about continuity.  But if you're trying to meet your sales goals, and you've got a great old salesman and some hot young guys, you don't can the old guy just because he is old and to open more room for the young guys.  You keep bothand pay the young guys a little more etc. if you need to.  You don't just can the old guys because the whole team sees what you did -- and some day they will be older too.

Answer a simple question - When did Rodgers beat out Favre?  If Favre had been injured in the off-season, and they didn't think he'd be able to play, but then it turns out he can and he'd be fine, would you have told Favre that the job wasn't his?

The Packers blew this one.

Apok2:

I think it's a mistake to say TT's job is to put the best possible team on the field, when what you really mean is that it's his job to put the best possible team on the field THIS year without regard for the consequences that could follow for later seasons.  First off, there's no guarantee that at 39, with an offseason of retirement behind him followed by about a month of throwing balls at a high school, Favre will be playing at anywhere near the level this year that he did last year.  Having Favre as your starter this year is not the sure thing that so many seem to think it is, a player can lose it pretty quickly at that age.  Beyond that, if you go back on your word to Rodgers at this point, that relationship is over.  He's unlikely to re-sign, and you're unlikely to get sufficient time to evaluate him prior to his contract running out, anyway.  Not to mention the ripple effect that letting the inmates run the asylum can have on an entire organization and the possibility that we will all have to go through the whole will-he-won't-he retirement saga again next offseason. 

 Rockadocious, I don't disagree with you that he deserves the opportunity if he can beat out Rodgers in camp, but so far he thinks he's above even having to compete for the job, so that's pretty much a non-issue.

Of course having Favre play at a high level this year isn't a given.  OTOH, 37-38 is the age where most great QB's have gotten worse, and Favre actually got better.

When did Rodgers beat out Favre?  Why should this be a case of Favre having to beat out Rodgers in camp rather than the other way around.Favre was one of the best QB's in the league last year.  I guess I missed where Rodgers beat him out.  And we know that the Packers didn't think he had, because they wanted Favre to come back and were willing to let him come back.

kbachler:

When did Rodgers beat out Favre? 

------------------------------------

That would be when Brett RETIRED cause he couldn't guarantee a Super Bowl victory next year and couldn't even commit to 100% dedication on behalf of the Packer Organization.

The King is dead...

long live the King!

 

 

Apok2:

I keep hearing about TT's ego and the role it's playing in this situation.  Could you give me an example?  With Favre, it's pretty obvious, he thinks he's above having to earn back the job that he walked away from 4 months ago.  What actions or comments of TT's in this situation indicate to you that he has an ego problem? 

The fact that he said he would talk to Mooch and then didn't.

The fact that he wouldn't go a draft picker higher for Moss, and then later admitted it was a mistake.  (The Raiders never wanted Moss in the same conference.  Tie would have gone to GB.)

If TT doesn't have  abig ego, he shouldn't be in the job he's in  He needs to have one.   Talk to guys like Randy Cross who knew him, and listen how TT has cut himself off from old football friends since taking this job, so that he can keep things secret and be "the man".  I'm not saying he shouldn't do that, HE SHOULD.  But when you have a 17 year HOF QB, you can at least be honest about things, and he wasn't.

Why did TT go see Favre to talk about the locker?  He didn't.  He went to see him to see if everything was alreight because his conscience got to him about the wasy things were handled.

lamboo:

kbachler:

When did Rodgers beat out Favre? 

------------------------------------

That would be when Brett RETIRED cause he couldn't guarantee a Super Bowl victory next year and couldn't even commit to 100% dedication on behalf of the Packer Organization.

The King is dead...

long live the King!

 

Try again  Injuries don't count as beating someone out, neither do retirements.  Fact is, the Packers knew he hadn't beaten out Favre, because they were willing to let Favre come back.

This is where the Packers have blown it.  Why have they committed to someone that hasn't won the job?

kbachler:

Of course having Favre play at a high level this year isn't a given.  OTOH, 37-38 is the age where most great QB's have gotten worse, and Favre actually got better.

That would seem to indicate that 2007 was an aberration, and that we could and should expect a soon-to-be 39 year-old quarterback to put up washed-up QB numbers.

CheeseCityFan:

kbachler:

Of course having Favre play at a high level this year isn't a given.  OTOH, 37-38 is the age where most great QB's have gotten worse, and Favre actually got better.

That would seem to indicate that 2007 was an aberration, and that we could and should expect a soon-to-be 39 year-old quarterback to put up washed-up QB numbers.

 Except that unlike nearly any of those prior QB's (save Warren Moon) he still has a very strong arm and is able to move well, which indicates he's not washed up.

 I have no problem with Favre backing up Rodgers - once Rodgers beats him out.  Predicting who is playing better is not the way its done.  You win a job.

kbachler:

CheeseCityFan:

kbachler:

Of course having Favre play at a high level this year isn't a given.  OTOH, 37-38 is the age where most great QB's have gotten worse, and Favre actually got better.

That would seem to indicate that 2007 was an aberration, and that we could and should expect a soon-to-be 39 year-old quarterback to put up washed-up QB numbers.

 Except that unlike nearly any of those prior QB's (save Warren Moon) he still has a very strong arm and is able to move well, which indicates he's not washed up.

 I have no problem with Favre backing up Rodgers - once Rodgers beats him out.  Predicting who is playing better is not the way its done.  You win a job.

I don't know if you've been noticing, but 'ol Brett's not as mobile as he used to be, and the arm's the last thing that will go on him.

You also help win a job by showing up at OTAs and getting your reps in rather than ride a lawn tractor.