Sea Ray Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 We all know how ESPN loves the Brett Favre story and how they over hype it but I'm disgusted with their revisionist history. They are spinning it that Favre has a score to settle with GB because they cut him and said he was through. That's not how it happened. Let's spin the clock back a couple years and look at what really happened...It was getting close to draft time and the Packers needed to know what Brett's plans were so they pressed him for a decision. He then announced his retirement and the Packers made their decisions accordingly. Then he has second thoughts as training camp comes along and the Packers said they've moved on. In fact they drafted 2 QBs as I recall. They tell him they can't accommodate his last second decision and well you know the rest of the story.This wasn't about the Packers cutting Brett Favre. They wanted him but it was only after his first retirement that they moved on. Favre screwed them; not the other way around Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 I specifically did not watch the game because I wanted nothing to do with ESPN's lovefest with Favre. Yes, he can still play when he has the best runner in the league and a great offensive line. Good for him. I have no interest in the drama surrounding it. Too bust having heart attacks watching Bengals games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Honestly, I think there were equal shares of blame (if you want to use that term) in how Favre was handled in Green Bay. Yes, Favre was stupid for how he handled his decision making, but if the guy wants to play, that's on him. The Packers simply didn't want him to play for anyone else and tried to get him to stay retired. I can understand that as well, to keep the legend of Favre within the confines of the Packers organization. However, they made the decision to go in another direction as well and have Rogers, who I still think is a very good QB with a crappy o-line.So in looking at that, I think both got what they wanted minus Favre playing elsewhere and to that I say, get over it Green Bay !!!Now, I can't stand the lovefest for Favre either, but I don't watch much ESPN, so it doesn't really bother me much. What I will admit to is, I loved watching a 39 year old Brett Favre beat up on his old team. You can call it what you want, revenge, payback, or whatever, but it was fun to watch. It wasn't AP taking over the game either, as he only ran for 55 yards and a TD. Favre was 24 of 31 for 271 yards and 3 TD's. He was possessed out there and yeah, I thought it was fun to watch.From a competetive side of things, if it were me and I had the chance to stick it to my old team, that would have a GREAT feeling.So, whatever happens going forward, I don't really care, but it was indeed a good game and I enjoyed watching... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Ray Posted October 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 I don't see where GB shares any blame here. The only reason Favre isn't playing for the Packers right now is because he retired. Of course the Pack didn't want him to beat them. That's only natural. They handled it the way any team that holds a valid contract would. They'd be idiots to make it easy for Favre to join a div rival. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 I don't see where GB shares any blame here. The only reason Favre isn't playing for the Packers right now is because he retired. Of course the Pack didn't want him to beat them. That's only natural. They handled it the way any team that holds a valid contract would. They'd be idiots to make it easy for Favre to join a div rival.Favre wanted to play and the Packers organization didn't want him to play for anyone but them. Once again, while I understand why they were trying to do that, they made their decision (based on Favre's poor decision making) and moved on. Once Favre decided (again) that he wanted to play, they should have simply traded him away without all the hoopla given the situation.Much of the media bashing that ensued had everything to do with how the Packers front office handled that whole situation. Everything from making public the fact they were willing to pay Favre a HUGE chunk of cash to simply not play, to making it seem that Favre really didn't want to play for the Packers anymore, which was not the case at all. They turned it into a circus event and in the long run the very thing they didn't want to happen, happened and last night and it burned them.I personally find the whole thing VERY amusing as I'm in the middle of Packer and Viking country up here in South Dakota and hearing these fans go back and forth like a bunch of scorned women is highly entertaining.Once again, overall, I don't care, but I see both points and think everyone should simply move on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Ray Posted October 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Favre wanted to play and the Packers organization didn't want him to play for anyone but them. Once again, while I understand why they were trying to do that, they made their decision (based on Favre's poor decision making) and moved on. Once Favre decided (again) that he wanted to play, they should have simply traded him away without all the hoopla given the situation.Seems to me they did exactly that. They traded him. The hoopla was inevitable.The only way they could avoid being "burned" was if they took Favre back and seeing as they have Rodgers, no one thinks that would be a good move. I think they handled it as well as they could given the circumstances that Favre dumped on them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Favre wanted to play and the Packers organization didn't want him to play for anyone but them. Once again, while I understand why they were trying to do that, they made their decision (based on Favre's poor decision making) and moved on. Once Favre decided (again) that he wanted to play, they should have simply traded him away without all the hoopla given the situation.Seems to me they did exactly that. They traded him. The hoopla was inevitable.The only way they could avoid being "burned" was if they took Favre back and seeing as they have Rodgers, no one thinks that would be a good move. I think they handled it as well as they could given the circumstances that Favre dumped on themI was referring to the hoopla the Packers brought on prior to them agreeing to trade him away. That stuff should have been handled behond closed doors as opposed to in the media. They could have controlled that portion and they chose not to. I'm sure Favre probably didn't help matters much, but once again, I think it's a shared thing.Some people are just Favre fans and some are just Favre haters. I fall inbetween. I don't hate the guy, because every man is entitled to make whatever decision they chose to make, but his indecision was brutal to sit and watch transpire. I don't love the guy either, but think he will still go down as one of the best, if not the best, QB in history based on his stats, not my personal like for him.Bottomline, he's making it fun for me to watch him play in games like last night and as a football fan, I'm cool with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Ray Posted October 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 To me it's not about being a Favre hater or lover. It's that once Favre decided to come back from retirement it was inevitable that he would end up on another team. It wasn't due to the Packers telling him he was washed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 I watched the game with the sound off, after purposefully avoiding the coverage/hype that ESPN laid out there. Favre played great. Split second decisions, then firing the ball into tiny openings. He's still has a gun for an arm. I know he'll probably go out next week and throw 3 interceptions or something, but last night was a thing of beauty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 I don't think anyone was telling Favre he was washed up either.He wanted to keep playing and he is. The Packers wanted to move in another direction and they did.All in all, minus Green Bay keeping the legend of Favre in their grasp, all got what they wanted.I will say this as well and then nothing else to add, Favre will retire as and go into the HOF as a Green Bay Packer.When that day comes, there will be many Green Bay fans that are currently cursing him, finding MUCH love for him...I agree with you COB, thing of beauty !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidge Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Fact is, had Favre not retired and hummed and hahed and sat out the training camps (pretty important considering the inexperience of the GB team a couple of yrs back) he'd still be there and being idolised had he produced.He didn't, he was as indecisive and a 14 yr old girl in a shoe shop and they had Rodgers waiting around. I don't blame GB at all in this situation. They have a team to think about, not an emotionally stunted, selfish, narcissistic 40 yr old.But Goddam he played lights out last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Ray Posted October 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Favre did play lights out but can you imagine how he would have looked behind that GB O-line? It would have been ugly...INTs all over the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidge Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 True enough. I thought Rodgers played very well all things considered. They need their LT back as they have three linemen playing out position I think? Makes our young, work in progress line seem all pro by comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Favre did play lights out but can you imagine how he would have looked behind that GB O-line? It would have been ugly...INTs all over the place.Truthfully I think he may have looked better :| well Rodgers is more mobile and able to pick up some yards by running it...He created alot of sacks himself by just positioning himself badley or getting to close to Tackle & DE....Few of Rodgers sacks vs bengals was his fault imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Ray Posted October 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Truthfully I think he may have looked better :| well Rodgers is more mobile and able to pick up some yards by running it...He created alot of sacks himself by just positioning himself badley or getting to close to Tackle & DE....Few of Rodgers sacks vs bengals was his fault imo.Better? I'll take a few sacks over a QB throwing it up for grabs and that's what we've seen Favre do. 2005 we saw exactly that from Favre 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.