another article

[eagle13]

Green Bay Press Gazette

The Green Bay Packers' general manager has been booed by fans and questioned by the media. And now, in the biggest blow of the offseason, he was called out by quarterback Brett Favre.


Favre's comments on Saturday were so critical that Thompson felt compelled to issue a response Sunday on the Packers' Web site.


A brutally honest Favre, at his celebrity golf tournament in Mississippi, said he was disappointed the Packers failed to acquire wide receiver Randy Moss, who instead was traded to the New England Patriots. Favre also expressed deep frustration at the Packers' failure to improve the offense.


Favre reportedly was so upset about losing out on Moss that two weeks ago he asked the Packers to trade him. While Favre made no mention of that demand Saturday, he lashed out at the plight of the Packers' offense.


"Our offense struggled last season," Favre said. "If it were not for our defense, we would not have won eight games. Right now, it's hard to be optimistic."


That's a resounding indictment of Thompson's offseason performance, particularly his failure to add firepower to the offense. Coming from the team leader, those words had to sting. Why else would Thompson have been prompted to defend himself?


But it's important to keep Favre's comments in perspective. It's not as if Thompson is dealing with an all-out mutiny.


Favre is a fierce competitor who wants to win, and he wants to win now. He's not a disgruntled player blasting his team because he didn't get his way.


Favre called the Packers "a first-class organization," and based on his public comments, appears prepared to do whatever he can to help the team succeed.


But there obviously is a difference of opinion between Favre and Thompson about how to accomplish that goal.


Favre wants Thompson to display more urgency. While Thompson methodically has laid a foundation for the future through the draft, he has been reluctant to make bold moves this offseason to address glaring needs.


Favre isn't blind. He scans the roster and sees no proven, featured running back. Other than Donald Driver, he sees a collection of untested receivers. He sees a lineup of tight ends with limited ability to stretch the field.


Favre wanted an offensive playmaker so badly he said he offered to give up a portion of his paycheck to guarantee Moss' salary in Green Bay.


In fairness to Thompson, he can't make roster decisions based on how Favre or any other player reacts. He must do what he believes is in the best interest of the Packers.


But Thompson will have a hard time explaining why acquiring Moss for a fourth-round draft choice and $3 million in guaranteed money

[ReasonablySober]

I think it's interesting that the national media seems to side with Thompson in that Moss wouldn't be a good fit and that Favre's act has gotten tiresome, while local media is erring on the side of Brett.

[BuckPack]

I think it's interesting that the national media seems to side with Thompson in that Moss wouldn't be a good fit and that Favre's act has gotten tiresome, while local media is erring on the side of Brett.

national media doesn't care about the welfare (or success) of the Green Bay Packers nearly as much as the local media. Nor are they as close to the situation-meaning they haven't followed the team with nearly as much attention and therefore don't have as good of a feel about the needs and shortcomings of the team.

This is the same national media who laughed at the possibility of Moss going anywhere. They've always been a step behind.

[ReasonablySober]

I view it more as the national media isn't emotionally invested in the team, i.e. they aren't fans, meaning they don't hold a particular bias either way in the matter.

[xTitan]

I think it's interesting that the national media seems to side with Thompson in that Moss wouldn't be a good fit and that Favre's act has gotten tiresome, while local media is erring on the side of Brett.

I have always believed one of the main reasons Favre has not asked to be traded is because he would not be treated with kid gloves by ANY other local media. Can you just imagine how hard he would be ripped by say Philly or NY if he turned in any of his several recent poor playofff appearances in those cities? I doubt the multiple intercetion games and downright bizarre moves (goal line vs. the vikes) would be tolerated elsewhere, but the good ole GB Press Gazette has his back.

[BuckPack]

I view it more as the national media isn't emotionally invested in the team, i.e. they aren't fans, meaning they don't hold a particular bias either way in the matter.

True, but guys like Cliff Christl, and some of the other MJS guys, are the first to tell you that they aren't "fans" of the Packers. Sure, maybe they have more of an emotional attachment to the team, but you'd think that would cause some of them to be anti-Moss (like a lot of Packer fans, who went nuts at the thought of seeing the "mooner" in green and gold).

I rarely think the national media, particularly with their severe east coast magnification (and bias), would ever have a "better" bead on the Packers/local team than the local beat writers.

Also, I'm not sure the national attitude is as objectionable to the thought of Moss in green and gold as you claim. I think more are anti-moss or anti-Moss in New England, in particular. In the article I posted in the other thread, all of the ESPN guys said TT has let the talent around Favre drop significantly (I know they don't specifically mention "Moss", but the whole article is in response to the Favre-Moss issue).

[BuckPack]

-= original quote snipped =-



I have always believed one of the main reasons Favre has not asked to be traded is because he would not be treated with kid gloves by ANY other local media. Can you just imagine how hard he would be ripped by say Philly or NY if he turned in any of his several recent poor playofff appearances in those cities? I doubt the multiple intercetion games and downright bizarre moves (goal line vs. the vikes) would be tolerated elsewhere, but the good ole GB Press Gazette has his back.

Favre rarely talks to the local media, why would they pull punches?? He leaks EVERY story to his boy in the local papers in Mississippi-Jones-and NEVER throws a bone to the local guys. He interviews once a week (if that), and never does personal interviews. So why would they have his back, again???

Jeter gets ripped in NY and everyone gets ripped in Philly. To say that FAvre would get ripped there is akin to saying the sun will rise tomorrow. You think Philly and NY sports reporters perform their job better just b/c they rip everyone a new a-hole? That's certainly not what the national media thinks.

[El Duderino]

If Thompson is building a team capable of winning a championship in two or three years, what's the point of keeping Favre around? That's what Favre seems to be wondering.

That's the question i just don't get at all.As i've said before,if Thompson feels Brett is only delaying the rebuilding efforts,why not show some backbone and tell Favre he'd rather move on and if Favre still wants to play/win,Brett would be better served going elsewhere.

[ReasonablySober]

He can't. Fans here are exhibit A. Thompson is already hated by the masses for drafting Favre's successor and having the unfortunate luck of being the GM that has to rebuild. There's no way he'd survive trading or releasing Favre.

[BuckPack]

If Thompson is building a team capable of winning a championship in two or three years, what's the point of keeping Favre around? That's what Favre seems to be wondering.

That's the question i just don't get at all.As i've said before,if Thompson feels Brett is only delaying the rebuilding efforts,why not show some backbone and tell Favre he'd rather move on and if Favre still wants to play/win,Brett would be better served going elsewhere.

Couple explanations:

a) Thompson doesn't have the balls to tell him

b) Thompson truly believes that this team can compete while it rebuilds.

c) Isn't convinced that it woudl be the best thing for Rodgers to start, and would prefer having him sit for at least another year.

d) all of the above

I think it's a little bit of everything, with an emphasis on (b). While through the draft he has approached this as a major rebuilding effort, if you look at some of his other actions, it's not as clear cut:

1) Signed Woodson. This is not a move you make if you're building for the long term. He's ging to help you win now, and certainly did last year. If this was his only move in this vein, then I think you could make the case that he did it "to appease the fans/Favre" but in that case, I think we'd all agree that he had very little backbone. Anyway, that wasn't his only move...

b) Attempted to sign TO...this is DEFINITELY not a move that a long-term rebuilding GM would make. I know he didn't end up getting him, and much of this didn't hit the local papers, there was serious intereest (even a contract offer) from GB's perspective. alas, they didn't land him, so his neither plan was altered...

c) attempted to trade for Moss...dicey issue that we've discussed ad nauseum. I think he just messed up and didn't understand the market for Moss (i.e. didn't believe the Pats interest was genuine). But any effort to nab him (which there clearly was) should be viewed as a "win now while we rebuild" approach. I don't think it's as sinister as "he was feigning interest for Favre" b/c he was visibly upset during his day 2 interview, and many local writers have commented on TT "thinking that he had Moss as early as Sunday AM."

4) Resigning Harris to long extension...if he were really looking to play young guys, why not trade Harris while he has some significant value and give some young DBs (i.e Blackmon) soem PT to see if they'll ever be a starting quality DB? Harris isn't getting younger, and he isn't going to help this team get a better draft pick.

5) Signing Manuel...why sign a veteran safety to be your starting FS, when you have some young, green prospects who would probably take over eventually anyway (see Underwood and Culver)

6) Stopgap guard signing in Year 1. Sure he scratched this plan after one year and decided to go the way of all young linemen in year two, but this is not a move on ewould make if he walked in with a plan to do a complete overhaul with young players.

7) Going down to Favre's house in Miss last year and begging him to come back. I don't think this was "just lip service" b/c I genuinley believe in the decency of people and highly doubt that TT would knowingly mislead Brett. BF gave him plenty of opportunities to say he wanted to go young (mentioned it REPEATEDLY in the media, that if he got the hint the PAckers wanted Rodgers to start he would retire), and yet TT did everything in his power, short of signing a ton of FAs, to convince Brett of the opposite.

Finally, while this isn't a point in favor of the long term approach, I don't think you can use his non-activity in the recent FA class as justification for his desire to build solely for the long term, b/c by ALL accounts it was an incredibly weak class that was getting WAY too much money.


Those are just a few thnigs that I could think of off the top of my head that might suggest that Thompson isn't sold on stricly one plan. While CLEARLY he has aimed to build the depth of the team, specifically the linemen on both sides of the ball, with youth and draft picks, I still think he's dabbled with moves that aren't just long term fixes. I believe he's trying to win now while building for the future (primarily--if push came to shove on a decision he'd err with the latter), so I don't think you can fault Favre for buying into that (and M3's in particular) rhetoric.