After paying only sporadic attention to the Brett Favre soap opera,  I read the New York Times Sunday edition "Sport of the Times" column by William Rhoden on-line. He has it right, in my opinion, so I printed the article, underlines certain phrases (i.e.: ". . .Ted Thompson  . . and Mark Murphy . . . should feel ashamed of themselves. . . " and "That the president of a team would offer a player of Favre's stature money to stay away is a fireable offense." with the last two words underlined in bold, green ink) and am mailing it to the Packers BOD and management.

Feeling jaded yesterday, I accused Favre's manager, and even his
wife Deanna, of using him to get the REALLY big bucks, to up the ante and
cement the endorsement agreement with the Packers that had been on the table
since March. Such a fiasco makes everyone appear more ugly.

But the Times sports columnist saw through all the chatter to the important
point, and the point that many of us feel in our hearts: This kind of behavior
is not becoming of the Packers' front office and it should never have come this
far. Favre, arguably, played his finest football last year. I think back to that
last, NFC championship, game in frigid Green Bay weather, when Favre threw an
interception and seemingly lost the game all by himself. He wasn't solid all
evening. What kind of thoughts were going through his head then? Did he already
know the current front office managers wanted him out?

Maybe he didnt play well because he was mentally fatigued and thought a snow monster was going to emerge from the ground.

Your post is stupid.

LOUANNE:

Maybe he didnt play well because he was mentally fatigued and thought a snow monster was going to emerge from the ground.

Your post is stupid.

GRAnnie:

  After paying only sporadic attention to the Brett Favre soap opera,  I read the New York Times Sunday edition "Sport of the Times" column by William Rhoden on-line. He has it right, in my opinion, so I printed the article, underlines certain phrases (i.e.: ". . .Ted Thompson  . . and Mark Murphy . . . should feel ashamed of themselves. . . " and "That the president of a team would offer a player of Favre's stature money to stay away is a fireable offense." with the last two words underlined in bold, green ink) and am mailing it to the Packers BOD and management.

Feeling jaded yesterday, I accused Favre's manager, and even his
wife Deanna, of using him to get the REALLY big bucks, to up the ante and
cement the endorsement agreement with the Packers that had been on the table
since March. Such a fiasco makes everyone appear more ugly.

But the Times sports columnist saw through all the chatter to the important
point, and the point that many of us feel in our hearts: This kind of behavior
is not becoming of the Packers' front office and it should never have come this
far. Favre, arguably, played his finest football last year. I think back to that
last, NFC championship, game in frigid Green Bay weather, when Favre threw an
interception and seemingly lost the game all by himself. He wasn't solid all
evening. What kind of thoughts were going through his head then? Did he already
know the current front office managers wanted him out?

I pay little attention to the NYT and even less to the NYT sports section these days.

Yeah, GRAnnie maybe it did have something to do with the NFC Championship game, but not for the reasons you might think.  He disappeared in the second half and couldn't hit his targets.  If it weren't for Taucher's fumble recovery of his redzone pick, they would have been hard pressed to make it a close as they did.  I think this reality sunk on them:  2007 was a near perfect wave and they were where they wanted to be for the NFC Championship game, and still BF couldn't get it done.  In a money game, with the game on the line in OT, he melted down.  He threw yet another ill-advised pass in yet another playoff game when a more patient (and even less talented QB) would have prevailed.  I think they also noticed that he could not longer thrive in cold weather--both in Chicago and in the NFC Championship game--as he once did in his younger years.  I think that then they believed that the gap between a BF and AR wasn't all that large, after all. 

 Thanks for your nice comment, Louanne!

 Thanks, Cheese City Fan;

You made many good points. BTW; I only read the NY Times piece because it popped up on my  ISP/email home page!

Now, time for us all to get away from the computer and clear our heads of sports - oh, but, isn't there a Brewer game on now?!?

Again, we take things to the extreme --- Favre couldn't hit his targets is mentioned, but where is the lack of a running game mentioned, or Martin's and Jenning's dropped passes.  Why does it become Brett's loss, instead of the Packer's loss?

kbachler:

Again, we take things to the extreme --- Favre couldn't hit his targets is mentioned, but where is the lack of a running game mentioned, or Martin's and Jenning's dropped passes.  Why does it become Brett's loss, instead of the Packer's loss?

When, in overtime, with the score essentially 0-0 and the next score wins, he reverts to Favrian form and throws a pick in the worst place possible--at the highest risk target--in a money game.

THIS is what we're reduced to?

Using the Slimes as a moral compass...

it truly IS the "end of days".

kbachler:

Again, we take things to the extreme --- Favre couldn't hit his targets is mentioned, but where is the lack of a running game mentioned, or Martin's and Jenning's dropped passes.  Why does it become Brett's loss, instead of the Packer's loss?

It is a Packers loss, but Brett threw an interception on what could have been the last drive of the game instead of stepping up like great QBs do from time to time.  Same dude who always throws bone headed interceptions at the most inopportune times   ... and it wasn't an excusable interception (4th down or protection breakdown causing lots of pressure).  It was the FIRST play of the drive (if I remember correctly) to the most covered receiver on the field.  It was the typical Brett Favre choke.

jdn:

kbachler:

Again, we take things to the extreme --- Favre couldn't hit his targets is mentioned, but where is the lack of a running game mentioned, or Martin's and Jenning's dropped passes.  Why does it become Brett's loss, instead of the Packer's loss?

It is a Packers loss, but Brett threw an interception on what could have been the last drive of the game instead of stepping up like great QBs do from time to time.  Same dude who always throws bone headed interceptions at the most inopportune times   ... and it wasn't an excusable interception (4th down or protection breakdown causing lots of pressure).  It was the FIRST play of the drive (if I remember correctly) to the most covered receiver on the field.  It was the typical Brett Favre choke.

Again the response is "It's a Packer's loss, BUT..." and then going on to explain why it's REALLY Brett's fault.

Brett was a 38  year old QB who DID step up plenty last year.  Would I have preferred that he hadn't lost confidence in Jennings and Martin and tried forcing it to Driver?  Absolutely.  But I'm not stupid enough to think that I can put a cold weather game offense completely on the back of a 38 year old QB and expect him to proivde all the points in the game.  Makes it pretty easy for the D.

Had we been running that game, had other receivers been productive,then yeah you could put more of the blame on Favre, especially for forcing that throw.  Under the circumstances why aren't you more upset that we couldn't execute any passes to our backs?

This is the kind of muddle-headed thinking of Favre bashers that makes them so unbelievable.  In their minds everything is Brett's fault, even when its not.

Oh yeah - like against the 49ers.   Oh wait, Brett led us to the lead there and th defense gave it up.Oh  - you meant like Eagles.  Oh wait - Brett gave us the lead there, and the defense gave it up.  Or against the Seahwauks -- oh never mind, you only remember what you want to remember, forget the facts.

I'm saying the last interception IS Favre's fault, and if you're going to continue to make excuses for it then maybe you should take a break from lowering your standards to my muddle-headed thinking.  The point is he didn't step up when it counted in the most important game of the season.  In fact, he did the exact opposite.  He threw it to the most covered receiver on first down.  There were a lot of other factors in the game that lead to the loss.  The interception is on Favre. 

jdn:

I'm saying the last interception IS Favre's fault, and if you're going to continue to make excuses for it then maybe you should take a break from lowering your standards to my muddle-headed thinking.  The point is he didn't step up when it counted in the most important game of the season.  In fact, he did the exact opposite.  He threw it to the most covered receiver on first down.  There were a lot of other factors in the game that lead to the loss.  The interception is on Favre. 

I haven't made any excuses for it.  In fact, I said I wish Favre hadn't thrown it.  But again, the loss didn't come down to that interception.  The overtime should have never happened.  We should have been able to run or at least throw to our backs in our house in the cold.

That's the point.  You seem to think that the loss is Favre's fault because he made the last mistake.  But ALL the mistakes contribute to the loss, and had the Packers played better, the last mistake wouldn't have had an opportunity to happen.

As I said, this is the muddle-headed thinking of the Favre bashers.  Somehow its ok that the defense sucked, or that Harris sucked, or that we didn't adjust till half time or that we couldn't run the ball.  But it's ONLY Favre's fault that we lost.  That's moronic.

For someone who throws out so many condescending put downs, you sure do lack in the comprehension department.  I never said it was ONLY Favre's fault we lost.  That would be moronic.  There were many factors that lead to every loss....and Favre's idiotic decisions in key moments should be included.  The loss didn't come down to that interception, but the loss COULD have been avoided had he not thrown it.  The loss could have also happened before the end of regulation if Tauscher hadn't recovered a fumble from another bone headed throw in the 4th quarter. 

Let me reiterate one more time so that maybe you will finally understand...I don't think it's all Favre's fault.  You're right in that if the team had played better, the last mistake could have been avoided.  The fact is, the situation presented itself, and instead of making a play where at least the team could try again on the next down, the team leader gave it to the Giants deep enough in GB territory that they barely had to do anything on offense to win the game from there.  It's not purely out of selective memmory that the second he did that, many fans said "not again!"  He has thrown his fair share of interceptions.  There is a pattern to this.  Denying that is moronic.