Does It All Come Down To Protecting Aaron Rodgers?

As I sift through the "Fire Thompson"'s and "Screw Favre"s out there in the blogosphere, it really seems like everything has come down to either Ted or Brett as the patsy in most people's eyes.

But why?

As much as I think that Favre has mishandled this situation, and that he really is better off retired, looking at some of the comments of other writers not from the Gannett newspapers in Wisconsin really made me think a little bit about this situation.

Many fans and local media are pretty brazen in their vilification of Favre. Mike Woods had a particularly scathing article today, calling Favre the outright "bad guy". But when you think about it, the fans and local media have been dealing with the media blitz of all things Favre for about ten years now, once all the other stars left the Super Bowl team and Favre became the face of the franchise.

But, when you look at the comments of others writers who don't have a connection to the Packers, you might wonder if they aren't the more objective voice:

I didn't realize that the cheddar in Green Bay was starting to affect their brains...In their minds, they've officially closed the Favre era. They whisked the future Hall of Fame quarterback out with the spring cleaning. They've lost their minds. - Gil LeBreton, Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Look, I understand the Packers don't want to keep changing directions. I am an advocate of the prioritizing of drafting, developing young players and sticking with long-range blueprints. I can see the value of a coach selling a team on a concept in the offseason and doing everything possible to follow through with it. I know that team derive beenfits from having players bond in off-season activities. But there can be no bigger mistake a team can make that to overvalue its own decisions. Confidence in your plan is a wonderful thing, but talent like Favre's cannot be schemed or created. When did the object of assembling a team become proving your point? Isn't it supposed to be about winning? - Dan Pompei, Chicago Tribune

Favre wants to play at least one more year. Why any fan wouldn't want to see that baffles me. How the Packers are handling his return is just plain stupid. - Tim Cowlishaw, The Dallas Morning News

So, let's balance this out a bit. If you read Silverstein, Woods, Pellisero, Wilde, or Vandermause, or really, any of the local Wisconsin beat writers, they all tend to fall on the side of Thompson and against Favre.

Yet, when you read nearly any out-of-state writer, they are flabbergasted at the notion that the Packers would not want Brett Favre.

Again, I am not a proponent for Favre's return. I think he's better off retired, and have my own reasons for it. I am not attending any pro-Brett rallies at Lambeau Field, though I don't fault those folks any more than I fault the folks signing online petitions demanding that Favre retire.

What gets me, though, is how the folks not as familiar with the season-to-season media-driven drama see it. Is it that they are just so far removed from the situation that they can't possibly understand it?

Or, do they understand it more clearly, without the tinted glasses that many local writers and fans have built up over the years?

When you are in a dysfunctional relationship, it is almost impossible to see the situation from the outside, and you almost need an objective voice and observer from the outside to bring any clarity to the situation. Are the Packers in a dysfunctional relationship with Favre? Sure seems like it right now, doesn't it?

But, dysfunction or not, do you cut off your arm to spite it? What if these writers are seeing this more clearly than those of us who are just "Favred out"?

The question, then, would be "why?"

Why would Packer management hesitate at bringing back their All-Pro?

Why would a little thing like temporary indecision (which they should have expected, given the last three offseasons) make a player like Favre disposable?

Why would the Packer management become so enamored with their own cleverness in building a team without Favre that they would push him away just to see it work?

Let's take away our own tempest of being outraged at Favre's waffling, and assume for a moment that this was his first attempt to return from retirement. What is to be hurt from his return?

Salary cap space? Never been a problem before. In fact, we still have over double Favre's 2008 salary still available in the cap.

Already have experienced quarterbacks? Daunte Culpepper was the only name that seemed to be a possibility, and after that didn't work out, we are left with three quarterbacks without an NFL start among them.

Want to prove to Favre that he can't always have his way? That's a great idea in theory, but how do you think it is going to impact the team, potential free agents, and public opinion to spite players just to prove a point?

The why comes down to one thing, and one thing only: protecting the plan. And the only difference in what "the plan" is with or without Favre is one guy.

Aaron Rodgers.

The fear is real. If Favre were to come back for one more year, chances are Aaron Rodgers will throw a tantrum and demand to leave, either this year or next year after his contract runs out. Or, worse, he will demand a huge salary renegotiation after this year, which Thompson will be loathe to pay to a guy who, in essence, hasn't proven a thing playing behind Favre.

So, if Favre would be done after 2008, Rodgers could also be gone, and Thompson has the real possibility of having no quarterback for 2009.

This is assuming, of course, that Rodgers has so fragile of an ego that he needs to be protected. His recent snipe in the SI article telling fans to "shut up" or "get on board" certainly suggests he's already tired of the pressures without starting a game yet. Thompson and McCarthy have worked the local press hard to let them know how much they believe in Rodgers.

And the local press has bought in, with plenty of "feel-good" articles building up Rodgers as the ultimate teammate.

So, in essence, they have two egos they are trying to placate...the indecisive, emotional Brett Favre, and the young, no-longer-patient Aaron Rodgers.

Have they decided that they must protect one over the other, made this into a one-or-the-other kind of decision? Has Rodgers privately made it clear to the GM and head coach that if he has to spend another year on the bench, he will be asking for a trade or seeking his fortune elsewhere when his contract expires?

Aaron Rodgers was Ted Thompson's first draft pick as Packer GM, and the fact that he bottomed out from a potential first pick overall to sitting for hours in the Green Room at the draft before finally taken by the Packers hasn't been lost on any of us. Rodgers has had something to prove for years, and has quietly changed his demeanor from chip-on-the-shoulder rookie to dutiful clipboard holder for three seasons.

I'm sure this isn't how Rodgers predicted his career going, though had he gone #1 to San Francisco that year, I'm sure it wouldn't have fared much better than Alex Smith's.

So if, as the out-of-town writers suggest, the Packers are insane to be even be playing poker with Favre, how much faith must they have in Rodgers? Is that faith worth spurning your true legendary quarterback from another season? Or, are they simply and desperately trying to preserve their investment from flying the coop?

As I said, I am not a proponent for Favre returning. I think that he's better off on his tractor, but I am only a fan and an unpaid blogger who just likes to type too much. Apparently, Thompson thinks that Favre is better off on his tractor, too, which to the outsider, seems to be a completely ludicrous proposition.

Not because the outsiders are worried about "giving in" to Favre, but because they see Favre as a great player that makes a team...any team....better.

Maybe they are too far from the situation to truly understand it as well as Mike Woods and many others who place Favre clearly in the role of the bad guy who must be defeated at all costs.

Or, maybe they are the ones on the outside looking in, who see it much more clearly than those of us Packer fans who are (strangely enough) fighting amongst our own over who is truly "The Packers"....Ted Thompson or Brett Favre.

But, let's not forget Aaron Rodgers. Many fans out there desperately want him to get his chance to prove himself. It appears that Thompson may be willing to go to extreme measures to get him that chance, or at least, to keep him around a while longer.

So, if we didn't have Aaron Rodgers, would Thompson be playing hardball with Favre at this juncture?

So, Are You a Favre Fan, or a Packer Fan?

As my head has been spinning the past few days, this question has suddenly become one of great importance in the fandom of the Green Bay Packers. For some reason, Packer Nation has divided itself along two party lines: you are either a Packer fan, or a Favre fan.

Now, mind you, the only reason my head has been spinning is because I had a 24-hour stomach flu all day Saturday, which gives you a lot of time in bed to contemplate the true mysteries of life...like Brett Favre, who certainly has made himself more enigmatic as the week has plodded on.

The funny thing about this whole comparison (which isn't a new one for the Favre Critics) is that it implies you either must take the side of Brett Favre or not. What often goes unimplied is that "The Packers" is really Ted Thompson or Aaron Rodgers, for the sake of argument. Since a lot of the recent criticism seems to be Brett vs. Ted, or Brett vs. Aaron, it's ironic how Brett isn't considered a "Packer".

And, of course, its silly. And loud. I like to think that this whole squabble amongst the media and fans in the blogosphere really do mirror the political spectrum. Most people are quiet, thoughtful, and hang around in the middle, looking at all the facts available, acknowledging the positives and negatives that both "sides" have to offer. However, as you follow the fans who have increasingly extreme views, their numbers dwindle, but they get exponentially louder.

For the "Pro-Favre" side, a Pewaukee man has started a website, bringbackbrettfavre.com, promoting Sunday picket lines to Lambeau Field demanding that the Packers bring back Brett Favre. They are offering T-shirts and bumper stickers with "Favre 08" and "Fire Ted Thompson".

The "Pro-Thompsons" and "Pro-Rodgers" folks have a website of their own, retirefavre.com, dedicated to blaming the Giants loss on ol' number 4 and pleading with people to sign their petition to be sent directly to Brett.

As the extremists continue to bellow and rant, it leaves the rational thought to those of us who are willing to not only sift through the facts, but are also willing to see how this plays out before creating our scapegoat.

The Plusses and Minuses of Brett Favre

Certainly, the most easy target of this castigation is Brett, who is looking more and more the patsy as the timelines come out. In short, he retired, began regretting it immediately, communicated it with the coaching staff, who then wanted to reinstate him, only to be told he changed his mind again. Then, with Bus Cook leading the charge, he apparently asked to talk to Ted about playing again, didn't get a reply, then applied for a release. In return, Thompson has refused a release and told Favre that he will have to be a Packer, though not necessarily as a starter.

Many fans have clamored for Favre's return, and their rationale isn't bad, especially when viewed from the perspective of the other 31 teams (particularly those with quarterback issues over the last 17 years). Favre is a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer who recently enjoyed a renaissance last season with a 13-3 team. The Packers have three quarterbacks on the roster who have never started a game, and only one who has ever played in an NFL game. Many fans and writers of other teams are flabbergasted that the Packers would even hesitate to bring Favre back.

However, the retirement flip-flop is enough to raise concern, not only for Thompson, but for even the most fervent of Favre fans. I do believe that Favre is very emotional about this (as was evident in his retirement press conference) and he is a willow-in-the-wind, getting blown whichever way pushes the hardest.

Seems like when Deanna has his ear, he seems more content with retirement. But, when Bus Cook and Al Jones have his ear (both of whom have something to lose with Favre's departure), he can be led to believe that he can/should return, and that perhaps there are some conspiracies in the works against him.

The fact that Brett himself hasn't spoken yet seems to give this a little more credibility. However, this doesn't excuse his lack of commitment to his decisions, and he's given Ted Thompson every right to handle this with the perceived "lack of respect" that he has. How serious is Favre now? Is this just another emotional roller coaster?

Is Favre hurting his own image or legacy? I've commented on this a dozen times...I don't think he gives a rat's arse about his image or legacy as long as he's playing. And, therin lies the conflict.

Are the Packers a better team with Favre? That's a great question, and a lot of it depends on Aaron Rodgers. If he is as good as McCarthy and Thompson are touting him, then maybe its a good move to go forward without an indecisive old veteran who is going to want his contracted salary.

But, like it or not, Brian Griese, Steve Bono, Jeff Garcia, Quincy Carter, and Jay Fiedler didn't bring any more promise than the guy they replaced, and with the perceived feeling that the Packers are on the cusp of a Super Bowl, Favre brings more instant credibility to such a drive.

But, Favre had his option to be a part of such a drive without all this drama. In fact, he had it twice. So, the problems that he is dealing with now, both in terms of dealing with his contract status and public dissent are his own fault, and it will be up to him to handle it delicately if he truly does wish to play football in 2008.

And, he may want to get a new agent.

The Plusses and Minuses of Ted Thompson

Or, is that "The Packers"? I don't think that I can recall another Packer GM who has come in and been defined as "The Packers". Certainly, I don't think Mike Sherman was. I don't know if Ron Wolf even had that kind of distinction. But, Ted Thompson, somehow, has gotten such a groundswell of support that when it comes to Brett Favre, Ted and his plan for rebuilding the team has become "The Packers".

I don't know how comfortable I am with that. But I digress.

Thompson has been the stoic, Teflon general manager since the day he walked on the job. When fans have decried his quirky drafts, his lack of free agent moves, and his tendency to leave entire squads with barely any experience among them, he has generally ignored it and kept on.

Certainly, I find some respect with that. If you're going to have a plan, stick with it, and live or die with it. Holmgren had that same plan with Brett Favre early in their careers, and true dat, Holmgren lived or died on the decision to stick with him through thick or thin.

Thompson was given a retirement notice in early March, well in time before the draft, and according to reports, tried to encourage Favre to stay. When Favre started to reconsider, Thompson appeared to be open to allowing him to return, but then accepted Favre's flip-flop again.

Thompson has been vocal, along with Mike McCarthy, in his support for the new starter, Aaron Rodgers. After two rebuffs from Favre, he's moved ahead and tried to get this team ready for the next phase.

But, has he? Yes, he took two quarterbacks in the last draft, but one was much like Rodgers, in that he was great value that fell out of the first round and into Thompson's lap. Given Thompson's draft history, that might have been a likely pick whether Favre had retired or not. The Packers again eschewed any major moves in free agency, again passing on Randy Moss, and have left $32,000,000 in salary cap space yet to be used.

It almost looks like Thompson was still keeping space for Favre. Was he?

Thompson is being made out to look like a helpless, hand-wringing putz who has been placed into a "no-win situation" by Favre. I find this insulting to Ted Thompson. It is his job to prepare for all contingencies, and as the 2007 NFL General Manager of the Year, you would expect him to be better prepared than the average general manager.

To presume that Ted Thompson is a victim is a pretty treacherous cut by those who are actually looking to defend him. He's not paid that much money to be a victim, he is paid that much money to handle these situations well. Yes, Favre has given him a difficult hand, but not an impossible hand.

While many celebrated Thompson's refusal to respond to Favre's use of text messages while Thompson was on vacation, one has to think that had he picked up the phone, called Favre, and told him "You have my number, quit texting me. You have my ear, talk to me," much of the subsequent drama might have been avoided. Certainly, Bus Cook wouldn't have been able to say, "Look, Brett! I told you he's out to get you!"

The old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me", and after offering Favre a chance to come out of retirement once, you would think that was strike two. But, that's not the way it works, because at any time Favre changes his mind and follows through, Thompson is stuck with that contract and must accept him on the team or get rid of him.

While I understand the indignation many are feeling about Favre's flippity-floppiness, that's for us to stew about, not Ted. His job is to solve it. His statements on Saturday caused a little bit of concern, in which he implied that Favre would not be traded or released, that he is a Green Bay Packer, and that he would not necessarily be the starter.

A good hard line, but Thompson followed it up with his own tentativeness.

The interview, reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, portrayed a confused Thompson not quite sure what to make of Favre's latest change of heart regarding his playing status.

"We have to go with what's real," Thompson told the Journal Sentinel. "We don't know what the options are right now. We'll talk about it internally. It's all guess work.

"This is a very difficult spot we're in. It's a very volatile situation and we don't have all the answers yet."

Thompson admitted that it's possible that Favre could return to the Packers roster this year, but affirmed that Aaron Rodgers is the club's starting quarterback for 2008. link

If you're going to take a hard line in this situation, perhaps sounding confused and put-upon will help you in the short-term, p.r.-wise. But in the long-term, Thompson may find this particular interview one he wishes he could take back. Why would you say you don't know? Why would you say this is difficult? Why would you say that you're not sure what to do?

If you are going to be defined as "The Packers", I sure hope "The Packers" know what the heck they are doing. No, this isn't easy.

Actually, it is. You decide whether you want this guy as your quarterback, or at least on your roster. Then, if you want him, you tell him so, and if necessary, tell him you'd like him to redo his contract so we can afford him (after all, its the love of the game that is bringing him back) and that he will have to compete for the job. Or, if you want, tell him the starting job is his.

If you don't, you let him know that. You also let him know that there will be strings attached to anything he wants to do to leave Green Bay.

And, you should already know this answer. You should have had this answer in your head from the moment he first indicated to James Campen that he was really fighting with whether or not to come back. You shouldn't be surprised or confused.

So, Favre (or so I like to think, Bus Cook) laid down his cards and Thompson has called his bluff. We fans are all wrestling with the thoughts of Favre playing for us next year, to Rodgers whining and leaving the team, to Favre playing for the Vikings.

None of which has happened yet. No, it hasn't been pretty, and both sides certainly could have handled it better, but until there is really some finality to all of this, maybe we should all settle down and see how it shakes out before we castrate the quarterback or the general manager.

But, in the end, we're all Packer fans. Right?

Thoughts On Favre's Purported Request

And so, ESPN has again broke the first news that Favre has requested an outright release, again citing their favorite source, "sources close to the organization".

Oh, wait....no name again? Anyone starting to think perhaps Ted Thompson and Mark Murphy need to start cracking down on anyone in their employ who talks to any of the media?

Anyway, I'm going under the assumption this might be true, but certainly, we don't know much about it other than what is being cited from sources that can't give their names.

My thoughts:

* If this is true, Favre is requesting to bypass the "Thompson As Bad Guy" route, in which he would make some sort of public request to rejoin his team, and be rebuffed. Yes, this puts the black hat and mustache on Favre to a degree, but for those who feel that Favre's itch would be the downfall of Thompson, it certainly makes the decision a lot easier for TT.

* If this is true, Favre has apparently been given the strong impression that his services as quarterback are no longer desired in Green Bay. This is quite a statement to be made, because if you read the media from any market other than Green Bay, most of the writers for the other teams are stunned that the Packers are rebuffing his desire.

I don't know if that is accurate, but there is certainly a grain of truth in it. The Packers are going without a single start amongst their quarterbacks this season. While I am in the camp of Favre staying retired for his benefit and the Packers' benefit, I do find it odd that there seems to be no effort to consider him as a player in 2008.

* Favre's 12.5 million dollar cap salary is prohibitive to nearly any other team that would want to play him, other than perhaps Tampa Bay. Asking for a release is an easy way for Favre to negotiate his own salary, either with the Packers or with other teams. It is possible that Favre could get a $3 million, one-year contract with a team, including the Packers. If the Packers maintain his rights and try to trade him, they will have a hard time to get a team with the ability or desire to take on a three-year contract that takes a pretty big chunk of the cap.

* Where (and when) does Favre want to go? I used to opine a couple seasons ago when it seemed that Thompson wanted to go a different direction that Favre would "retire" and do a Keith Jackson, waiting for a contending team to have a quarterback go down mid-season and looking for someone to step in and take over. Is there a thought that Favre wants to go through training camp again, something he is reputed for not really liking?

Could one of those teams be the Packers, as he is probably considering that both Brohm and Rodgers come with injury histories and the Packers may be willing to take Favre on if there is no one else around (just not for $12.5 million).

* How does Favre look in purple? It's a tremendous statement that a team that had so much open despise for a player would bring him and celebrate him as a hero, while the team that had him would revile him beyond belief.

But, the truth is out there. The Vikings have a team in place (on paper) and just need a quarterback to finish the puzzle. The Packers have had Favre attempt more and more passes in recent years, compensating for a lack of a running game and a poor offensive line.

What kind of statement would it make if the Vikings did make a Super Bowl with Favre, while the Packers struggle with Rodgers? This is an uncomfortable situation, but you must admit, an intriguing one. There are people who have claimed Thompson has held Favre back from another championship in his draft-only approach, and those who claim that Favre's salary and ego have interfered with Thompson's ability to put the team together than he wants.

This could settle that argument once and for all, and perhaps not with the Packers coming out spotless. Of course, the Packers could go 13-3 again and Favre could falter. That's why they play the game.

* It is interesting that you have all these people who say that Favre is washed up, not a part of the future, a hindrance to a young quarterback, and has declining skills. If all that is true, why are the same fans so scared to have Favre go to a division rival? If he really were that much of a liability, wouldn't our defense have a field day playing against him?

* I don't think anyone wants to see Favre's career end like this, but he wouldn't be the first great quarterback to finish with another team. Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana, and Joe Namath all put in a forgettable swan song in different colors. It isn't what we want to see as Packer fans, and we do have to question what Favre's motivation is for this. Money? Most of us would guess he has plenty of that, as well as commercial opportunities to keep him in "green and gold" for the rest of his career. Records? He has them all. It really does come down to the love of the game and wanting a championship.

However, the waffling of his retirement speech really makes you question that love of the game and desire. I don't think he's going to follow through.

* Anyone who thinks TT is in a tough spot is nuts. He is the GM of this team, and this is what he gets paid to do. It is his job to plan for any contingency, from injury to personnel issues. For some odd reason, he has more salary cap space than he would need to re-sign Favre, but is loathe to do it. This is a conscious decision by Thompson to want to move forward without Favre. He may well come out smelling like a rose, hoisting a Lombardi trophy, and we will all celebrate him for it.

He may also end up looking like a fool. But, just as Favre has no place blaming Thompson for his decision to retire, Thompson has no place blaming Favre for any difficulties he has along the way. That's his job, he makes those decisions, and lives by them. If his drafts aren't any indication that he doesn't take fan backlash into consideration while moving forward with his plan, than you can bet the Favre backlash won't either.