Favre says Thompson begged him not to return

[MickeyDavis]

He also had a good point that Harlan never would have let it go this far. Murphy has dropped the ball and failed his first test. He let TT make the decision, that's fine, that's what TT is suppose to do whether you agree with him or not. But the president of the organization needed to step in and get it resolved BEFORE camp started.

[MickeyDavis]

Christl's column is spot on.

He wants to use history, whereas there's never been anything like this situation, ever.

IMO letting Lombardi walk to the Redskins was a much bigger deal than this. Lombardi was 56, still in his prime as a coach. He wanted to coach again, we let him walk and stuck with Bengston.

[ReasonablySober]

He also had a good point that Harlan never would have let it go this far. Murphy has dropped the ball and failed his first test. He let TT make the decision, that's fine, that's what TT is suppose to do whether you agree with him or not. But the president of the organization needed to step in and get it resolved BEFORE camp started.

What the hell is he supposed to do? Force the Jets or the Bucs to make an offer?

The decision was made that Favre could come back but not as the starter. It was made a while ago. After that, I don't see what Murphy (or Harlan) could have done.

[ReasonablySober]

Christl's column is spot on.

He wants to use history, whereas there's never been anything like this situation, ever.

IMO letting Lombardi walk to the Redskins was a much bigger deal than this. Lombardi was 56, still in his prime as a coach. He wanted to coach again, we let him walk and stuck with Bengston.

OK...

1 - The Washington Redskins hadn't had a winning season in the previous 13 years
2 - They weren't even on the Packers schedule in 1969 when Lombardi coached the Skins

Not even close.

[Kerb Hohl]

Didn't want to waste a thread on this...

This is why I hate ESPN:

http://adsatt.espn.go.com/ad/sponsors/Dicks_Sporting_Goods/Jul_2008/dic0-728x90-0070.gif

RealGM wouldn't let me put it up because of size restrictions.

[El Duderino]

He also had a good point that Harlan never would have let it go this far. Murphy has dropped the ball and failed his first test. He let TT make the decision, that's fine, that's what TT is suppose to do whether you agree with him or not. But the president of the organization needed to step in and get it resolved BEFORE camp started.

The decision was made that Favre could come back but not as the starter. It was made a while ago. After that, I don't see what Murphy (or Harlan) could have done.

I like Rodgers a lot more than many who feel he's going to flop or get hurt left and right, so i'm excited he's getting this chance.

With that said, i do agree with Cliff that it was silly to tell Brett, hey come to camp if you want, but you can't compete for a job. Has any team in NFL history ever told a player with skills, come to camp with us, but you can't compete for a job regardless if you perform much better? He used the word cockamamie and it fits.

Were i can't agree is just letting Brett walk to the Vikes. I'd go out of my way to get Favre to a non-NFC North team even if the return wasn't that great just to get this over with, but Favre needs to play along given he can basically veto any trade and if media reports are accurate, Brett isn't helping.

[paulpressey25]

Here's a precedent for trading an older veteran QB coming off a good season......

http://packerville.blogspot.com/2007/03 ... trade.html

The Vikings paid for Herschel Walker and let's see if they want to pay for Favre.

[InsideOut]

He also had a good point that Harlan never would have let it go this far. Murphy has dropped the ball and failed his first test. He let TT make the decision, that's fine, that's what TT is suppose to do whether you agree with him or not. But the president of the organization needed to step in and get it resolved BEFORE camp started.

What the hell is he supposed to do? Force the Jets or the Bucs to make an offer?

The decision was made that Favre could come back but not as the starter. It was made a while ago. After that, I don't see what Murphy (or Harlan) could have done.

This is the question I want answered. The only way out I see is to let Favre play his games and then give him what he wants when he wants it. Favre does not want to play for the Packers and has asked for his release. That would be stupid for the Packers to do and Favre won't tell the Packers where he'd be willing to go because he wants the Vikings. So other than keep playing the retirement game and risk losing all respect and AR what should the president have done? And this scenario even gives Favre the benefit of the doubt. A real case could be made that Favre wanted out of GB right from the start. He was mad TT wouldn't kiss is butt and make the moves he wanted. If that is the case what should the president do when a guy under contract wants his release so he can sign with your enemy?

[Neusch23]

Former and long time Packers writer Cliff Christl comments on NFL.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8097dce2&template=with-video&confirm=true

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- While it might seem contradictory, in truth, strong leadership often is exerted in subtle ways.

That also happened to be Bob Harlan's style during his 19 years as the Green Bay Packers' principal executive.

He rarely, if ever, overruled the people under him, but he influenced important decisions through his wisdom and guidance, especially in his areas of expertise -- public and community relations. And he did so in such a way that the Packers rarely were embroiled in bitter and enduring controversies during his reign.

Perhaps his lasting legacy will be that he was the best goodwill ambassador this storied, 90-year old franchise ever had.

That's why it's hard to imagine that the ongoing dispute between Brett Favre and the Packers would have dragged on this long or become this contentious if Harlan was still CEO. No matter how one slices it, the Packers likely will start training camp on Monday faced with a PR nightmare like none other in their history.

There was a time in this ongoing soap opera when playing the blame game was senseless.

There were no bad guys when Favre was waffling over his future -- theatrics and all -- and the Packers were deciding to move forward without him as their quarterback. It's still senseless to blame either side for anything that transpired from the time a choked-up Favre announced his retirement in early March until he asked for his release in a letter delivered July 12.

Favre changed his mind about retirement. Big deal. How many coaches and athletes in the pro ranks haven't? Is there anyone who goes through life without wavering or changing course on any number of important decisions?

At the same time, the Packers shouldn't be faulted for deciding to give Favre's job to Aaron Rodgers. Some might find that to be a rather curious decision, considering Favre was coming off a banner season, but it's not an unusual step in the National Football League. Teams are forever looking to replace older players, future Hall of Famers included. As the late George Young, general manager of the New York Giants' first two Super Bowl champions, was fond of saying: "It's a young man's game." The 38-year-old Favre, at least as a Packer, simply became a victim of that tenet.

There are also plenty of historical precedents to defend each side's position.

Favre isn't the first Packers star to retire and then want to unretire.

The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try. Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas. The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

In fact, Vince Lombardi's retirement as coach of the Packers and Favre's as a player have followed parallel tracks. Lombardi announced his retirement in an emotional press conference soon after Super Bowl II and essentially cited burnout as the reason. And, by all accounts, he regretted his decision by the time training camp arrived five months later. When the 1968 season ended, he asked out of his contract as general manager of the Packers and bolted to Washington to coach again.

On the flip side, Favre also isn't the first Packers great to be pushed out the door. Hall of Famer Paul Hornung, team leader and most valuable player of the Packers' first two championship teams under Lombardi, was dumped in an expansion draft. The legendary Ray Nitschke was benched and essentially shamed into retirement. Hall of Fame tailback and Green Bay native Arnie Herber was waived at the age of 31 during the final week of training camp in 1941, when he was just a season removed from leading the Packers to an NFL title.

But where this latest story line turned ugly was after Favre declared that he wanted to play again and general manager Ted Thompson responded by saying he'd take Favre back, but only as a backup. That's what has given this story life and given the Packers a black eye. It's what has embittered the greatest player in the franchise's history, invited a barrage of criticism from the national media and disaffected many of the team's fans.

After all Favre has done for the franchise -- more than anyone, he rescued it from the misery of the 1970s and ‘80s that threatened its very existence -- the Packers are unwilling to offer him the same opportunity or courtesy they've extended to other older players whose services were no longer needed.

When White decided he wanted to play again in 2000, the Packers willingly released him from his contract. When 12-year veteran William Henderson had the itch to play again last year after being told he no longer fit in the Packers' plans, Thompson released him, announcing that he was doing so to give Henderson a chance to "pursue other opportunities" with no strings attached.

The hunch here is that there has been only one team for which Favre really wants to play, and that's the Minnesota Vikings. And the reason being is that's the only place where he'd have a legitimate shot at winning another Super Bowl.

The Vikings had the No. 1-ranked run defense in the league last year and have added the best pass rusher in the game in defensive end Jared Allen. In Adrian Peterson, they have the NFL's most explosive runner. And their offensive line is good enough so that Favre shouldn't be constantly running for his life.

All Minnesota needs to become the NFC's preseason favorite is a quarterback.

With any other potential contender -- Tampa Bay, Chicago, Baltimore, the Jets -- Favre would have to carry a full load on offense. And he has suggested in the recent past that such a role would have little appeal to him.

No doubt that also has been the Packers' greatest fear -- that Favre will sign with the Vikings. In all likelihood, it was the impetus for their cockamamie response to Favre's request to be released: That he could come back, but only to carry a clipboard.

In other words, they're playing scared.

If Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy truly believe the Packers are a better team with Rodgers at quarterback, they should have the courage of their convictions. If they have as much confidence in Rodgers and their team as they say they do, they shouldn't fear facing Favre in another uniform.

The Packers could have defused this controversy and made this a much less messy divorce if they had given Favre his release soon after he asked for it. Had they exercised the kind of PR savvy that marked the Harlan administration, they would have released Favre and simply announced that they were doing so only to honor his request.

They still could do that and eliminate what could be a major distraction throughout camp.

Or they also could think outside the box and reap a nice return.

Why not trade Favre to the Vikings? After all, that would be the team most likely to part with a high draft pick in return.

Sure, there would be tremendous risk involved. It would substantially improve the Vikings' chances of winning the Super Bowl this coming season. Then again, New England's loss last February served as yet another reminder that championships aren't won on paper. Moreover, many of the Vikings' best players are on the downside of their careers, and such a trade might even hurt them in the long run, especially if they lose another draft pick over the Packers' tampering charge.

Over the past three years, the Packers have said goodbye to two other key players, Darren Sharper and Ryan Longwell, knowing full well that both could sign with the Vikings, as both ultimately did. But rather than fret the consequences, the Packers responded by winning four of the six meetings between the two teams.

If Thompson should have learned anything from his mentor Ron Wolf, it was that when faced with a tough decision, be bold. But he has been anything but as of late.

The Packers have told Favre they don't want him back as a starting quarterback, yet they're acting as if they're terrified that he'll come back to haunt them.

It just doesn't compute.

Great article. It has it all. The history, which doesn't lie and leads us to the real reason it has become such a mess....and the second to last paragraph tells it all. "The Packers have told Favre they don't want him back as a starting quarterback, yet they're acting as if they're terrified that he'll come back to haunt them."

I agree with this 100%, and for everyone who wants to push all of the blame on Brett, you're entitled to, but it takes two, and since Brett has a contract with GB, and has no business being the second string, something has to give.

Give him the keys to this team, or trade him to the Vikings for a second rounder.

[ReasonablySober]

On the way home I was listening to the radio. Even after Favre faxed in his retirement papers, Thompson reportedly asked for about 24 more hours to find a resolution. Then it hit me what the delay was going to be...he and McCarthy are going to let Rodgers know that Brett's going to be the QB and they want the time to talk him down off the ledge.

The Packers don't want him back. Why the hell go somewhere you aren't wanted? He could have submitted a list of teams he'd play for and a deal could have been done. But he's only got eyes for the Vikings. Instead, he's forced the Packers hand and now the only thing to do is bring him back and watch their QB of the future walk. **** the three years they spent grooming him and the entire offseason, this is all about Brett **** Favre.

Anyone who's ever said he's held the team hostage is 100% right. I can't think of a more selfish move in sports history. It's absolutely unreal.

[MickeyDavis]

While I was initially in favor of letting Favre come back it's my humble opinion that it's too late now. Rodgers should be the guy and we should live with that decision.

However, if for some reason Favre does end up back with the Pack let's not be so dramatic about how the Pack will "watch their QB of the future walk". The odds that Rodgers is a typical Tedford QB are better than the odds he will be a 3 time MVP. Or a one time MVP. Or a Pro Bowl QB. Or an average QB. Far better.

[MickeyDavis]

IMO letting Lombardi walk to the Redskins was a much bigger deal than this. Lombardi was 56, still in his prime as a coach. He wanted to coach again, we let him walk and stuck with Bengston.

OK...

1 - The Washington Redskins hadn't had a winning season in the previous 13 years
2 - They weren't even on the Packers schedule in 1969 when Lombardi coached the Skins

Not even close.

Interesting. The Packers hadn't had a winning season in the previous 11 seasons before Lombardi and were coming off a 1-10 season. And what do you know, Lombardi led them to a winning season.

Also, the NFL schedules were not predetermined in those days. The Packers did not know if they would be playing Washington when they let him go. He was hired on February 7, 1969, the schedule had not yet come out.

Sorry but letting Lombardi leave was a much bigger deal than letting a 39 year old QB leave.

[ReasonablySober]

IMO letting Lombardi walk to the Redskins was a much bigger deal than this. Lombardi was 56, still in his prime as a coach. He wanted to coach again, we let him walk and stuck with Bengston.

OK...

1 - The Washington Redskins hadn't had a winning season in the previous 13 years
2 - They weren't even on the Packers schedule in 1969 when Lombardi coached the Skins

Not even close.

Interesting. The Packers hadn't had a winning season in the previous [b]11 seasons before Lombardi and were coming off a 1-10 season.[/b] Also, the NFL schedules were not predetermined in those days. The Packers did not know if they would be playing Washington when they let him go, the schedule had not yet come out.

Sorry but letting Lombardi leave was a much bigger deal than letting a 39 year old QB leave.

Do you really want to talk about the dynasties the Packers were trotting out there, pre-Favre, in the seventies and eighties?

Legendary coaches retire, move on, get fired, etc. all the time. It's a blip on the radar in an organizations history.

[MickeyDavis]

We can agree to disagree. But I think Lombardi had a hell of a lot more impact than Favre has had. He took a team that had not had a winning record in 11 seasons and won 5 titles in 7 years. He took another team that hadn't won in 13 years and won in his first season.

Your argument about Washington having 13 losing seasons in a row makes the fact that Lombardi turned that around in one year prove my point.

And your argument about Washington wasn't on the schedule isn't valid either since the Pack let him walk months before there was a 1969 schedule.

I'm certainly not saying Favre didn't have an impact but it certainly wasn't at a Lombardi level. You can call Lombardi a blip on the radar. Wow.

I see a lot on this board about how Favre chokes in big games, he's selfish, only won one title in 17 years and now I'm reading that the impact of cutting him loose is greater than Lombardi's. In fact it's "not even close". Interesting.

[InsideOut]

and the second to last paragraph tells it all. "The Packers have told Favre they don't want him back as a starting quarterback, yet they're acting as if they're terrified that he'll come back to haunt them

So if you don't want to cure your division rivals biggest weakness then that means you're terrified? I thought a better word would be smart seeing as how the #1 rule from the dawn of sports has been don't trade within your division. Why is it that all of a sudden a select few seem to have thrown this philosophy out the window? My guess is because the rules have never appied to Favre so why start now.

This isn't rocket science. All TT has to do is ask himself if we have a better chance of beating the Vikings if they have Travaris Jackson (9 TDs / 12 Picks and a 70.8 rating) at QB or Favre. With the obvious answer being Favre then explain to me why we should give them Favre. Just so TT can pound his chest and say "see...were not afraid of Favre and we're going to give him to the Vikings just to prove it". Again, why would we want to help our biggest division rival beat us? Why does this even need to be explained.

[ReasonablySober]

We can agree to disagree. But I think Lombardi had a hell of a lot more impact than Favre has had. He took a team that had not had a winning record in 11 seasons and won 5 titles in 7 years. He took another team that hadn't won in 13 years and won in his first season.

Your argument about Washington having 13 losing seasons in a row makes the fact that Lombardi turned that around in one year prove my point.

And your argument about Washington wasn't on the schedule isn't valid either since the Pack let him walk months before there was a 1969 schedule.

I'm certainly not saying Favre didn't have an impact but it certainly wasn't at a Lombardi level. You can call Lombardi a blip on the radar. Wow.

I see a lot on this board about how Favre chokes in big games, he's selfish, only won one title in 17 years and now I'm reading that the impact of cutting him loose is greater than Lombardi's. In fact it's "not even close". Interesting.

Lombardi leaving. The Packers cutting ties with Brett Favre is much more significant and is going to be of much greater impact than Lombardi resigning in '68.

Furthermore, when he left it wasn't as the head coach, he was the GM. He stopped coaching in '67. He hand picked his successor and stayed on to be the GM for a year before then deciding to get back into coaching in '69. He was supposed to take the job of the guy he hired after only one year on the job?

Favre didn't walk away on his own, wait a year like Reggie, and then decide that he wanted to play again. It's completely different.

It's also not even close to what the Packers would be doing if they cut or trade Favre.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

Thinking outloud....

What if the Packers had given his outright release stating that they owe it to the man that played so great for them. They publicly state that they only requested Favre to be loyal and return the favor by not signing with a division rival.

Now would Favre risk becoming the traitor to the fans and national media? Would he really cross the Packers organization like this while the media is watching and ruin the image he loves?

The Packers would look righteous, wouldn't receive anything (although even through all this we may not get anything from Favre), no controversy on their camp, and they could always throw in the tampering charge if he does sign with the Vikings and I think they would have a better case if it went down this way. Yea, he was an asset but if he retires or wouldve stayed retired we wouldn't have gotten anything for him anyways.

Looking back at all the drama, would you have preferred this action?

[ReasonablySober]

Thinking outloud....

What if the Packers had given his outright release stating that they owe it to the man that played so great for them. They publicly state that they only requested Favre to be loyal and return the favor by not signing with a division rival.

Now would Favre risk becoming the traitor to the fans and national media? Would he really cross the Packers organization like this while the media is watching and ruin the image he loves?

The Packers would look righteous, wouldn't receive anything (although even through all this we may not get anything from Favre), no controversy on their camp, and they could always throw in the tampering charge if he does sign with the Vikings and I think they would have a better case if it went down this way. Yea, he was an asset but if he retires or wouldve stayed retired we wouldn't have gotten anything for him anyways.

Looking back at all the drama, would you have preferred this action?

Nope. Any process that leads to him becoming a Viking is the wrong one.

Maybe if the Vikings mortgage their future by sending a ridiculous amount of picks Green Bay's way, like the package PP describes, I could almost accept it. But I don't want to risk Minnesota getting their first SB rings, Favre at the helm no-less.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

DB, do you think Favre would still go there if they gave him his wishes and asked him not to go there, thus him looking like a traitor in the media?

Im just kinda curious. I think Favre really wants to go there, but how bad would he be willing to make himself look just to play there?

[slappyg]

If TT and MM are so confident Rodgers gives us the best chance to win, why not let favre compete? They said their job is to put the best team on the field. If Rodgers can't handle the pressure of competing, how can he handle the pressure of big games?