MoFo Fantasy Football 2009: Week 8

The Vikings and the Browns don't share a long-running rivalry (or a division, or a conference). The issue here is that Packer fans have outright called Brett Favre a traitor for defecting to the Vikings, and we can assume that's because they don't want Minnesota to have a valuable weapon to use against them in the division race - not least of which one they used to own.

So my point is, the Green Bay fans that want to turn this into a victim scenario should do well to remember that (a) this should be a friendly rivalry, and (b) they've enjoyed far more sustained success than their rival. I'm not asking Packer fans to be happy about it, or to cheer for Minnesota's success. I'm just asking them to stop being so petty and childish.

Snubbing Rodgers by being a good quarterback? By being the senior quarterback? (Nevermind the opportunity for geriatric Favre jokes, please.) I'm not sure that's even fair. Unless he routinely stuffs the guy in his locker, I can't see how Favre has hurt Rodgers. I know you're getting at the fact that he should have stepped aside because of his age, and let the new guy come in. And he did (for four months, at least). But this is a machisimo sport, and you can't expect a player like Brett Favre to just wither and die. I mean, *wink wink* it's obvious he can still play.

Keeping them on pins and needles for a few years, you mean. The threat of retirement isn't anything new in the NFL, a league that uses up players and discards them in favor of the newer and the better. If Green Bay thought they had a dying dinosaur on their hands and wanted to move on, they should have. I rather think it's nice that they kept giving him the start, and like you said, Favre left a 13-3 team - a team that reached the NFC Championship game, no less. It's not like they were struggling to figure out the future of the organization. They knew Rodgers was the guy.

Okay, you can blame the guy for retiring prematurely. You can blame him for being indecisive. You can blame him for looking at other opportunities. Disputes like these happen in the NFL, and yes, they suck. But it's clear that Thompson and McCarthy were looking past Favre toward the future, and in all fairness, Packer fans ought to point their aggression where aggression is due. I'm not saying they were wrong to do so; rather, the contrary. But if Favre wanted to continue playing and McCarthy wanted him to ride pine, I'd say Favre is entitled to move on. And since he was unsure whether or not he'd be able to start (much less on a good team), I can understand his apprehension and subsequent behavior. But Packer fans want to act like he was trying to stick it to them. That's ridiculous.

I never said they shouldn't be reacting at all. I just think they're embarrassing themselves by whining about it all the way into Week 8. Christ, they act like the Packers had nothing to do with his departure. In earnest, I believe Green Bay wanted to start Rodgers and hoard Favre. You don't just dump a guy like that, even at his age. But you can't expect him to just roll over and ride the bench out of team loyalty. He should be entitled to continue his career.

Sure, the funeral is silly. But I think this whole fiasco has shown a deep-seeded enmity in the Packers fanbase - one that Aaron Rodgers ought to heed while he can. And I know you'll say, "Well, that's probably true of every team's fans." Maybe. But that doesn't mean it isn't still childish and unfounded.

I don't know, maybe he went in and asked for one more year. Maybe he tried to appeal to McCarthy's sensitivity. That seems likely, since it wasn't long after he unretired for the first time that he started asking for an unconditional release from Green Bay. If he knew he still wouldn't be starting, why wouldn't he ask to be let go?

See, this sounds to me like he was reverent of the organization enough to keep the argument out of the public. After all, he can't fault them for looking ahead. But he had to explain why he returned to find that he was unwelcome. He said that he understood Green Bay's decision to forge ahead with Rodgers, but believed that the team ought to give him an opportunity to play elsewhere. I'm not sure how making that public to entice other teams who might want to pick him up was irrational.

And I agree with you. Green Bay needed to take Rodgers, and eventually, there would come a time when they wanted to make the switch. But it sounds like Favre understood this and attempted to step aside and retire. But he's a competitor, and like any man seeing his best years behind him, wanted one more shot, or the chance to play somewhere else. Fault him for that if you like, but I can't. The man can still play.

I think you're jumping to conclusions. There's no way of knowing that Favre "refused" to help Rodgers along. Favre has the reputation for taking players under his wing, so in all likelihood, Rodgers' successes as a starter are in some way a result of his apprenticeship under Favre.

The number one reason Green Bay fans are glad that Brett is gone is:

We like our divas to be female.

-- Frank Caliendo as David Letterman

We like our divas to throw four touchdown passes against Green Bay.

Sleezy......



...you're my hero!

You are an awful human being.

Well, I like you. Green Bay fans are usually more profane when they insult me.

Wow, Sleezy I love ya, but you are completely off base here buddy. You are using all of your substantial level headedness here to try and assess a situation that has no bearing in a calm and level headed world. Football is the closest thing to war that we can muster without actually shooting people on the field of battle. People like yourself who try and come in and tell another teams fans how petty and childish they are being will only fuel the rivalry.

Surely you realize this. A fun little rivalry? Please. Green Bay/Minnesota is one of the oldest rivalries around. Perhaps and likely, it's not one of the more heated rivalries but things like this really tend to warm it up. You're completely missing it if you don't see this.

And what is this stuff about there's no way of knowing if Favre refused to help Rodgers and yet somehow Favre has a reputation for taking players under his wing? How can you arbitrarily dismiss one supposed rumor and then turn around and start another one in the same sentence? You live in Minnesota? Ask Tavares Jackson or Sage Rosenfels if he feels like "Favre took him under his wing" after they were all set to start the season and then Mr. Favre shows up right before the season started and took the job from them.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

You're lucky I respect Movie Forums' rules.

Anyway, yeah, the rivalry isn't cute and sweet. It really doesn't make any sense for someone to say (maybe not you) that the Packer fans should be glad and be happy for Favre. It is a complete contradicition, actually.

No true Packer fan would ever cheer for the Vikings.

Oh, I'm not saying that at all. The reference to snubbing comes from a quote floating around that Favre, when asked about mentoring Rodgers, apparently responded with something like "Why should I be a mentor to anybody? I’m not the coach." Rodgers also stated in an interview on the Michael Irvin show that he'd called Brett and never heard back; Favre say he didn't get a call, but didn't deny that he'd never made an attempt to reach out to him, either.

Obviously we don't know exactly what went down, but the bits and pieces we have seem to point to the relationship being a bit icier than you'd want it to be. Frankly, I think anything other than total support and a willing imparting of knowledge and experience is pretty petty.

Well, let's not generalize about Packer fans. I don't know that we can even say that most of them "want to act" that way. I presume that's based on a handful of incidents, at most.

As for trying to stick it to them...Favre let slip in an interview with Peter King that "Part of me coming back last year, yeah, was to stick it to Ted Thompson." He made some weird attempt to make it sound like he didn't mean this, but then in the course of explaining himself sorta reiterated it. He said it "wasn't about revenge to begin with." The emphasis is my own. I dunno if this qualifies as wanting to "stick it to them," but it certainly points in that general direction, so I don't think we can call the idea ridiculous by a long shot.

Of course. And if he wants to do that, he should be upfront about it and be able to come to his decisions without making things difficult for the Packers, letting it affect his relationship with guys like Rodgers, etc.

I really don't know how we'd go about determining just how all Packer fans feel, here. You certainly can't draw conclusions about them as a whole based on scattered incidents like that one, which may not have been entirely serious, anyway.

But really, this isn't a discussion about whether or not every Packer fan's reaction is justified, or at least it shouldn't be. As I said before, you can point to plenty of fans overreacting, I'm sure. Nobody's defending them, that I can see. I'm just defending the ones that are a little peeved at how he handled everything; I think they've got good reason to be. If you want to keep pointing out that some of them are being silly about it, that's fine, but it's not really germane to the point I'm trying to make.

Sure. But the thing about him playing for Minnesota is that it's simultaneously reasonable for him to do it, and reasonable for Packer fans to be kinda pissed about it.

As for reverence for the organization...eek, that's just about the least likely explanations, given what transpired later. If he was "reverent" of the Packers, that reverence sure bit the dust quickly.

I don't think we have much evidence to suggest that this is how it happened. We're arguing about a fabricated possibility which has Brett Favre being pressured out, panicking, and retiring for no good reason. But that's the nicest possible explanation of what took place, and it's at odds with Favre's own retirement announcement.

Favre's own words are the firmest evidence we have, really, and Favre said that this wasn't about the team, and that he just didn't want to play any more. It's entirely possible that this was, well, a lie to save face or try to be a good soldier or something, but we don't have much reason to believe that. More likely, I think, is that he made a rash decision and then let his competitiveness get the better of him.

I'm unaware of Favre's reputation for taking players under his wing; how's this known?

And this is some kind of rational argument you're making?

Lol. Football is a game people play. You're putting way too much into it. Maybe you like it that way, or you've been conditioned over the years to take football so seriously, but either way, it's pointless and ridiculous. There's quite a difference between being a fan, and being a fanatic. The latter is reserved for Little League dads who scream in the faces of umpires while their kids stand around and giggle.

The rivalry is going to burn happily whether I say something or not. That's what happens when something like this continues for so long. If I really concerned myself with fueling the rivalry, then I just wouldn't bother saying anything at all. (Don't get excited. I don't. )

Oh, come on. Don't come in here all high-horse on me. You're better than this. If I didn't understand that it's a heated rivalry, then I wouldn't be in here complaining about Green Bay fans who have been whining since August. Fans on both sides are spirited, enthusiastic, and - yes - completely irrational. I'm not a moron. And you're not, either. Forget your inclination to take up arms over a rivalry that was forged before you or I even cared about football, and recognize that I'm no different than you, and that I've got all the same care and devotion to my team as you do yours.

I want to beat the Packers every year, because they're trouble for my Vikes, and that's where my enmity ends. For that, you can say I'm not a "true" fan all you like. I really don't care.

Well, here's an article about Jets WR Dustin Keller's gratitude for Favre's guidance. And he seems to be taking a liking to Percy Harvin in Minnesota. I don't know, maybe he's just got a thing for players who don't wear green and gold.

Look, this isn't Unsolved Mysteries. If he's a prick, he's a prick. I really don't care. Who isn't in the NFL? He's been Green Bay's golden boy since the early 90s, and he's been damn-near deified up there (at least until Favre-gate this past year). If you want to trash him now, go ahead. All I know is, my team is 7-1, and I've got Favre to thank in part for that.

Now don't you go talking to me about these two quarterbacks. Jackson and Rosenfels are a far cry from Aaron Rodgers. They've only got four or five years of real experience between them, and Jackson's time with the Vikings has been rocky at best. He got his shot last season, and Brad Childress was right to bench him in favor of Gus Frerotte, a 16-year veteran that could still outshine him.

Any Vikings fan - and Brad Childress himself - would argue that these two quarterbacks were not ready to compete for a starting position, much less lead this very capable team to a Super Bowl season. So you're crazy if you think Favre did any swooping in to steal the job. He's a phenomenal West Coast quarterback, and Childress studied under Mike Holmgren. I can't think of a better reason why he shouldn't have started.

Lol, lucky me. I don't know how I'd even cope.

It's a good thing I never said that Packer fans should be happy for Favre, then. What was your point again?

You're right. And I'm saying the "true" Packer fans are the ones with their heads up their asses. Not because they're Packer fans, but because they're crying foul like JFK's been shot. I don't expect them to cheer for Minnesota. I don't cheer for Green Bay. But good lord, there are WAY more important things to get bent out of shape over. One of my best friends is a Packer fan, and although we josh each other now and then, we've never crossed one word over the rivalry.

It's pointless to fuel hatred and lose friends over something that, in the grand scheme of things, is hardly important. The Green Bay Packers aren't feeding your kids, and the Minnesota Vikings certainly aren't emptying your bank accounts. Lighten. Up.

Okay, fine. So he didn't want to mentor his replacement and expedite his exit from Green Bay. He must have known when Rodgers was drafted that the stage was set. Can you blame the guy? How does stonewalling one player negate an entire career of stellar play for the Pack? I know that's not what you're suggesting, but McCarthy has never denied telling Favre that he was getting benched. Given everything he's done for the team, you don't just tell him he's on second-string duty while forbidding him to play elsewhere.

And what'ya know? Here's a Packer fan who agrees with me.

Sure, I'm not one to generalize. But let's just say this. I saw more "Die Favre Die" signs in the crowd during last Sunday's telecast, and Packer fans have been quite vocal about their discontent that Favre jumped ship. Actually, it was kinda nice at the end of the game to see some Packer fans supporting him: "We Miss U Brett" and "Thank You 4 the Memories"

Why wouldn't he want to stick it to Ted Thompson? If he was given an ultimatum - which seems likely - prior to his first retirement, then I can understand his frustration at wanting to find another team and having
Thompson refuse to release him. Wouldn't you agree?

And the thing about sticking it to Green Bay: I'm not one to cry media, but sportscasters like a good story, and that's been the order of the day for both match-ups. He might have been thinking in his head, "Gotta screw those Packers but good," but he certainly didn't play - or interact with his former players - like a guy with a vendetta.

Anyway, my comment about the fans still holds up. He might have wanted to stick it to the fans also, but come on, do we really believe that?

But Chris, I don't think you're seeing how this goes both ways. It's likely that Favre wasn't even considering retirement when Thompson and McCarthy informed him that his days as starter were numbered. So Favre retired. But you can't fault him for wanting to return, and Thompson stood by Rodgers and yet refused to release Favre. So the Packers are just as much to blame for stonewalling Favre as the other way around.

Okay, but if we're in the business of making distinctions now, I'd have to argue that there's a big difference between "kinda pissed" and flat-out murderous. "Kinda pissed" I can handle, and even understand. But you're also supposing a lot about why they're pissed. Sure, Favre-gate was silly and confusing. But Packer management had no intentions of starting Favre to begin with anyway. I think Packer fans are far and away more outraged that he went to Minnesota.

Again, it flows both ways. I think things were not quite right to begin with when McCarthy came in. There was certainly a mutual respect for past successes, but Favre wanted to play and the Packers wanted him off the field so they could move on with Rodgers. That was bound to come to a head. And that's what kills me about how fans have reacted: all this talk about loyalty and treason, but football is a business, and the Packers wanted Favre riding bench.

Sure, any one of these scenarios could be true. But I can't help but think that the one you're suggesting, in which Favre's behavior was rash and completely unprovoked, is contingent on the belief that he should just take the bench (like a good soldier) or retire quietly, which really isn't fair. If it isn't contingent on that, however, then the suggestion becomes that the Packers never had any intention of benching him, and he just went crazy, which I doubt very seriously was the case.

And if we're hanging our laundry on Brett's actual words, he told an interviewer in 2008 that he felt pressured by Green Bay to make a decision. Curious that both Thompson and McCarthy counter with "We always wanted Brett back," but declined to say whether that meant as the team's starter. Frankly, I can't see how it was anything other than Green Bay telling Favre that he was taking a seat, and subsequently refusing his request to play elsewhere. But hey, apples and oranges.

See my cheeky comment above. He's certainly taken to receivers in recent years, and even throughout this whole fiasco, you haven't heard ill word one about Favre from any former or current Packer players (other than Rodgers, of course). So I would think that counts for something. No? Okay, fine.

Sure is, too much for ya huh? I listen to guys like you on the radio, day in and day out. Always gotta be the voice of reason. It's cool with me. I don't particularly like Green Bay or Minnesota, I'm just not a big fan of the Favre.

I'm putting way too much into it? Seriously? If its pointless and ridiculous, why have you even bothered to respond to this thread in the first place? Your team is 7-1 is why and you're here to gloat a little. And how is there a difference between a fan and a fanatic? Fan is short for fanatic after all. Now if you want to say there's a difference between a fan and a casual fan or bandwagon guy then we'd be in complete agreement.

Guess we'll just have to disagree here. I see it one way and you the other, no biggie.

Not on a high horse buddy, just calling it like I see it. Whether you care to admit it or not your comments are stirring up emotions that could have just as easily been left lying. I know you know that. I'm not here to tell you what kind of fan you are. You obviously pay attention. If as you say, you only want to beat the Packers every year then Yes, that seems a little strange to me. Do I live and die by the Seahawks every move? Of course not, but I am very interested in every little detail and I pay attention rigorously to most of the things that go on with the team on a day to day basis. Most of your comments below lead me to believe that you have much more than a passing interest in your team and you certainly don't mind kicking a little dirt in the "childish" Packer fans faces. So, yeah, you're a "fan" whether you want to be or not.

I'm not much for google article wars. You win that round. I just don't have enough time to go searching for dispariging Brett Favre articles. I'm sure there out there but in the end its just not that big a deal to me.

And there we have it.

Right, I never said either of those two were great or even able to carry Favre's dirty undies around in a glad bag. I was merely illustrating a point.

And by the way, if you think you'll not be going through the same headaches that Green Bay went through for a few years, you may be in for a surprise. I think its very likely that Favre will retire and un-retire at least for one or two more seasons. It seems like no big deal now when you're sitting at 7-1 but how about next year when he says, "Awww shucks. I'm just not sure if I want to play next year, y'all go ahead on wothout me." and then a week and a half before the season he comes crawling back again, because all he really wanted was to skip all the training camps and team meetings and the wondeful training table dinners. No big deal now, sure. But what if you guys don't get that Superbowl win I'm sure you're already thinking about? And you team starts making plans for life after Favre... sort of like Green Bay did a few years ago, yeah?

You may very well be on here bitching about the guy in a year or two. We'll wait for ya.

What do you have against him? You just think he's a pain because you're tired of hearing on the radio about whether or not he's retiring this week? I really want to know.

You're not following. I said it's pointless and ridiculous to get bent out of shape over this stuff. If you'll kindly re-read my first posts, you'll see that they're calm, sensible, and dotted with smileys. Thanks for coming in and making it personal.

See, this is what pisses me off. Who are you to say that I'm gloating? You've got some nerve to take what I've posted thus far and suppose something like that. You might be used to having to defend yourself like this with your buddies, but I could care less about flaunting my team's record. All I wanted to do was argue a little bit about how goofy this whole Favre thing has gotten, and insert a glib remark or two with a *wink wink, nudge nudge* (you know, for the people who can laugh about it).

We can argue semantics if you want, but I really don't think every season ticket holder in Minnesota and Green Bay (which I would call "fans") are as crazy and war-hungry as you've described.

Right, so I'm just supposed to keep quiet while other members lambast Favre and the Vikings, so nobody gets "mad." Sure. I'll do that.

So you're only here to tell me how I think and why I post?

Thanks for being wrong about that. I was worried you had me pegged.

No more than Packer fans mind kicking a little dirt in our faces (like our good friend WBadger was doing before I got here).

You can call that gloating if you want, but I think you're just too defensive. Is it wrong to be happy about my team's record? Is it wrong to indicate so on these boards? Why is my post automatically a gloating one? If any Packer fans were injured by my comments, then they're salting their own wounds. That wasn't gloating, and I'll let you know when it is.

Which was?

I never said I did. I'm not Minnesota's General Manager. We've signed Favre for two years, but if he doesn't like where he is, he'll up and move on. I know this. I just want to win a Super Bowl, and if he can help us, all the better.

Wow, that was wonderfully lucid. And by "lucid," I mean that it ignored everything we know or can logically suppose about his departure from Green Bay. Obviously, Favre was a selfish brat and Green Bay was the innocent wittle team that just wanted to see him play. Yeah.

Like I said, I'm not the general manager. Brett Favre is old, whether he wants to face it or not. Right now, he can play. Eventually, he won't. At whatever point Minnesota decides to move on, I'll support them. And because I'm not a hypocrite, I'll hope that they let Favre pursue other career interests... even if it's *gasp* back to the starting job at Green Bay.

Have fun waiting.

Me thinks all this Favre talk deserves all the benefits of having its own thread.

Wow! When MoFos get going on a debate there is one common factor, and thats the post length can be measured in feet or inches.

So....if it had to be done all differently lets say GB drafts Rodgers, Favre trains him (This is just so rare in todays world, but I guess Favre has to be everthing all the time or hes not a good man), and then retires. Then he changes his mind and says "Trade me!" Green Bay would still have had a conniption. Sure he could have been smoother, but it wouldnt have mattered.

In reality he could not have given them any more than what he did nor should he have. It was and is Rodgers time there now. IF GB had said "Ok Brett we'll bench Rodgers for you to start" Then there would be real fuel for Favre detractors. Brett would have been more selfish then by staying. The real world isnt simple like the media wants us to believe. The point is Favres detractors are judging him waaaay too harshly.

Favre is a legend, and not a statistical one. Hes a legend for starting every football game no matter what, and giving 100% no matter what. Everytime, and all the time. Hes been an upfront guy to a heartless media, and that was even when he was tarnishing his own legacy with his GB departure or admitting painkiller addiction soon after winning the super bowl. I wasnt always a Favre fan, but as the years continued, and continued to roll on he took my respect.

I am a true football fan. Ive suffered many long years being a Raiders and Buccaneers fan. People can like Star Trek without being a Trekkie. People can like Green Bay, and like Brett Favre still too. Theyre right to.

So...Fred Davis... Seems like a cool guy and stuff...



Let the Fred Davis days begin!

__________________

If he knew when Rodgers was drafted that the "stage was set," you'd think he'd have figured out otherwise when they benched him for three years so Brett could keep playing. We can talk about ultimatums and 'writing on the wall' and everything, but the fact remains that they sat Rodgers (a #1 draft pick) for a really long time.

I'm not sure what you mean by "McCarthy has never denied telling Favre that he was getting benched." McCarthy hasn't denied being a unicorn, either, as far as I know. Unless we have evidence to suggest that this happened -- and even if we did, Favre's behavior was still irrational -- then we have to assume he didn't.

Well, the angriest people are almost unfailingly the loudest and noticable. I don't think any firm conclusions about Packer fans in general can be drawn from it.

I'd agree that he'd have reason to want to stick it to Thompson if that happened, but I don't agree that an ultimatum "seems likely" at all. But it's kind of moot, anyway, because the point in question was about whether or not it was "ridiculous" for Packer fans to think he was out to get them. I think the language involved (which, let's not forget, is your own) is overstating things a bit, but it's far from ridiculous given what Favre's said.

Probably not, but I don't think the distinction between sticking it to the fans of the team and sticking it to the team is a very meaningful one, either.

As for playing with a vendetta; I really don't know how this would be measured. He didn't get into any outright fights, if that's what you mean. I will readily concede the point that he did not stab Donald Driver.

You're still operating under the assumption that this actually happened, though; that he was flat-out told "you're going to be a backup now." You seem to be basing this entire stance on something that I don't believe we have any evidence for. Correct me if I'm wrong, or am missing some crucial fact, of course.

Let's have some evidence of this. You've started with the theory that the Packers wanted him to move on, and now it's morphed into something you're treating like an established fact. It's certainly plausible, but is there anything to prove it?

Also, isn't this continued assumption kind of at odds with what you said before about how they'd never bench someone like Favre?

Why? They sat Rodgers for three freakin' years! Favre retired and unretired twice in back-to-back seasons, said the team wasn't why he retired, then contradicted himself, then said he wanted to get back at his old team, then tried to deny it but ended up reiterating it. His behavior has been erratic pretty much the whole time. I don't think this makes him "crazy," but it's a clear pattern of rash decision-making and rash words. Why would it be hard to believe that he simply hasn't been thinking things through? It seems far more likely than the alternative.

There are two things I'd say in response:

1) He said he was "pressured" to "make a decision." That's not the same thing as being threatened with benching. It's not even the same thing as being issued an ultimatum, really. Though I should point out that if the ultimatum was "hey, you need to decide whether or not you're playing so we can make decisions about the roster and our future," then it's a perfectly reasonable one.

2) He said the exact opposite when he retired. And given how often he's gone back on other things over the last few years, I don't see a compelling reason to pick this one statement over any other. Unless, maybe, the guy happens to be your team's QB these days.

I kid, I kid.

Heh; yeah, I don't think that counts for a lot, personally. Most football players know that getting a reputation for being a diva, or complaining, can end your career in a hurry. The really great talents can get away with it at times, to be sure, but a lot of guys can't afford to get that kind of reputation.

A fine point was made earlier; shall I move this Favretastic discussion off into its own threads?

I think Favre would agree to having his own thread, I mean it would be the Favre thing to do.

I didn't see a Favre-specific thread, so I'll post my answer here. Once we've got a Favre thread, I'll portage over.

Well, the Packers weren't really in dire need of starting a rookie quarterback right off the bat, either. The fact that Rodgers was benched for three years may have been due to poor performance at practice, or even the looming issue of confronting Favre about stepping down. There's no way of knowing, really.

I guess I feel like the fact that Favre knew he was getting into retirement age, and that the Packers took a promising QB in the first round, he could pretty much bet that the Packers were looking forward. My guess is that Green Bay hoped Favre would either concede to grooming Rodgers to replace him, or retire soon (thus negating the issue altogether). There's no telling.

I'm not sure that we do. In a court of law, yes, we can't consider what someone doesn't say. But you and I both know that team organizations, their representatives, and their players are usually extremely guarded when it comes to the press. If Favre was right - that McCarthy did pressure Favre into choosing the bench or retirement - then it doesn't surprise me that McCarthy hasn't confirmed or denied it. A confirmation would condemn him; a denial would be lying.

Conversely, if McCarthy didn't pressure Favre in this way, then you'd think he and Ted Thompson would want to set the public record straight. And yet, all we got was, "We wanted him back." A perfectly vague and conveniently innocent answer. Maybe they never had any intention of benching him, and maybe Favre lied. We'll never know. All I can say is, I feel like Green Bay had more motivation to bench him than Brett Favre did to unprovokingly call out his own (successful) team.

I'm not sure I'm trying to draw any. I'm just pointing out that they seem to be the flagship voice on this issue at the moment.

Like I said, maybe Favre does want to stick it to the fans, but he's never indicated any enmity toward fans whatsoever. Given the recent treatment he's received from countless, he could very well have lashed out in reproach. But to my knowledge, he has never spoken ill of fans.

My original comment was that Packer fans have acted like Favre is out to harm them personally by switching teams, which I believe stems only from frustration that he has. You brought up his comments about Ted Thompson, which has nothing to do with fans.

I believe it is. The fans didn't refuse to release him.

Okay, let's go to the extreme with this. Of course, he didn't stab anybody. Now let's come back down to the realm of actual possibility. Favre could have ignored Packer players, trainers, coaches, and staff. But he didn't. Favre could have bantered with fans and gloated about his plans to bury Green Bay, but he didn't. Favre could have come out gunslingling and showboating, but he didn't. You can say, "Well, that doesn't mean he wasn't thinking it." But given how much hype the 2009 Vike/Pack matchups have garnered from media and fans, the actual result looked hardly like the face-off people wanted.

Sure, he have no evidence. But we can bandy like this all day. If this were a lawsuit, I'd have no case. For the sake of purely hypothetical discussion, however, I feel like it's valuable to point out that (a) Favre claimed he felt pressured to make a decision about staying or leaving, and (b) McCarthy and Thompson indicated that they were committed to Rodgers.

To me, that looks pretty strongly that Favre knew he was getting benched if he stayed; opted to retire and preserve his legacy (and his good relations with the team in public); un-retired soon after because he realized he wasn't ready in his heart to retire, and wanted to prove he could still play. I don't have blood spatter on the wall, but I've got what seems to me is the most logical truth.

Again, at this stage, anything is plausible. I guess I just feel like someone who exhibits wishy-washy behavior isn't necessarily guilty, and more than likely acted based on more complicated circumstances than just "oh, I felt like being a goober today."

I never said Green Bay wouldn't bench Favre. I just said that you don't bench a future Hall of Famer like Favre, as a general rule. Obviously, you can, and I believe the Packers knew it was time for Rodgers to step up and Favre - if he chose to remain a Packer - to step aside. I just think it's something a team shouldn't do.

Well, to be fair, Rodgers was a rookie, and there have been plenty of good draft prospects ride pine for years before they finally got a breakout or left the league altogether.

I'm not denying that his behavior has been rash, but I can't concede that he didn't have a reason. We might not have hard evidence, but given human nature and the few things we know about this whole fiasco, I think it's far more likely that Favre was acted upon. Maybe he was an insufferable jerk for years, but to my knowledge, he's never had that reputation.

Why does that seem more likely? Because he's confused about where he wants his career to go? Because dymentia is setting in? I'm not sure I understand what possible motivation he'd have to retire after a stellar season, then unretire, then retire, then unretire, unless there were other mitigating factors. Brett Favre is no Michael Jordan.

And I agree - the Packers should be able to do that. And apparently, so does Favre. He said he understood the team's desire to look forward. But I can't imagine this would have even been an issue if Favre knew he still had the starting job. I can't see him retiring unless he knew he was out.

It's tough to go on, agreed. But I'd rather analyze what he says rather than ignore it because it's inadmissable in court.

By that same token, I don't think the players who garner these reputations are particularly good at mitigating their behavior for very long. If Favre is a diva, he's been a sleeping one, and that hardly ever happens - if ever.