Gee, what a shock. Pawn it off long enough to miss OTAs, mini camps maybe even some training camp. What kind of contract will he be looking for? 2 years, $25 million, along the lines of what Warner got?
And guess whose article from the Pioneer Press they're quoting?
Charlie "Shooter" Walters. Don't count your chickens yet......
http://www.twincities.com/spor...95589?nclick_check=1
Charlie "Shooter" Walters. Don't count your chickens yet......
http://www.twincities.com/spor...95589?nclick_check=1
I see your point Blueshound but I think the best solution was to ship Favre out and be done with it. Packers got best offer from Jets, they took it and moved on, again.
Good luck with the surgery Brett, see you on Mon Oct 5th in the Humptey Dome!
Good luck with the surgery Brett, see you on Mon Oct 5th in the Humptey Dome!
The Packer's were the ones looking toward a future quarterback and influencing Farve to retire early if even if because he woffled. If Farve still has play in him why not play somewhere else - I mean he can't play for the Packer's - so, there is no betrayal here - the man still has some football in him - and if there was any disloyalty it was the Packer's on account of future business venture's - play on Farve. Most the country enjoyed the Packer's because of Farve not the Packer's - so, if Farve can play most of us are still interested in seeing how it works out. If Farve extends his legacy it only compliments the good quarterback that the Packer's had for so many years - if he can play let him still play where he can - if he can't play in Packer land then he can play somewhere else. In reality there is no problem with that.
Link didn't work, maybe this will.
I fixed it already
I fixed it already
The Vikings won 10 games without a QB last season, so unless TOG gets them to the Super Bowl, his season with Minnesota would be a failure. And since TOG has been a dreadful postseason QB for the past 10 years, the odds of him leading a Brad Childress-coached team to the big game are very, very long.
Some people don't think TOG will return to Green Bay while Ted Thompson is still around. If that's the case, here's hoping that TT is our GM for another 20 years!
Some people don't think TOG will return to Green Bay while Ted Thompson is still around. If that's the case, here's hoping that TT is our GM for another 20 years!
quote:Originally posted by Monroe:
if there was any disloyalty it was the Packer's on account of future business venture's - play on Farve.
What do you mean "on account of future business venture's"? Are you talking about the marketing deal? That's the only future business deal that was discussed but I cannot fathom how that would represent disloyalty in any way, shape, manner or form.
quote:Originally posted by Hipp:quote:Originally posted by Monroe:
if there was any disloyalty it was the Packer's on account of future business venture's - play on Farve.
What do you mean "on account of future business venture's"? Are you talking about the marketing deal? That's the only future business deal that was discussed but I cannot fathom how that would represent disloyalty in any way, shape, manner or form.
I mean Rodgers, I see nothing wrong with treating everyone as a business
quote:Originally posted by Monroe:
The Packer's were the ones looking toward a future quarterback and influencing Farve to retire early if even if because he woffled.
Is English your first language?
Looking forward? You mean draft the BPA?
Monroe,
Teams draft QB's. Teams do when they have a starting QB who thinks of retiring every friggen year.
Monroe,
Teams draft QB's. Teams do when they have a starting QB who thinks of retiring every friggen year.
Hey I thought they should have moved on without him, I just don't see why GB owes him or he owes GB anything
The question is what's more important to him: Is it his legacy or an attempt at revenge?
I think we may have an answer.
I think we may have an answer.
Now I know where Madonna get's her outfit ideas.
Here we go again. 
By Ed Werder
ESPN.com
Archive
Contrary to reports, Brett Favre does not have an appointment with Dr. James Andrews on Tuesday and doesn't consider surgery on his partially torn biceps tendon to be imminent, according to a source.
By Ed Werder
ESPN.com
Archive
Contrary to reports, Brett Favre does not have an appointment with Dr. James Andrews on Tuesday and doesn't consider surgery on his partially torn biceps tendon to be imminent, according to a source.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Monroe:
Most the country enjoyed the Packer's because of Farve not the Packer's
NOT TRUE-- You seem to be forgetting that there was a Green Bay Packers team BEFORE Favre and there is a Green Bay Packer team AFTER Favre!! I was a Packer fan long before any one heard of Favre. Yes, he was a great draw and a great benefit for the Packers BUT he was not the whole team. Nor is he bigger than the team. The Packers have always had widespread fan base even with TOG!!!
Most the country enjoyed the Packer's because of Farve not the Packer's
NOT TRUE-- You seem to be forgetting that there was a Green Bay Packers team BEFORE Favre and there is a Green Bay Packer team AFTER Favre!! I was a Packer fan long before any one heard of Favre. Yes, he was a great draw and a great benefit for the Packers BUT he was not the whole team. Nor is he bigger than the team. The Packers have always had widespread fan base even with TOG!!!
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
Here we go again.
By Ed Werder
ESPN.com
Archive
Contrary to reports, Brett Favre does not have an appointment with Dr. James Andrews on Tuesday and doesn't consider surgery on his partially torn biceps tendon to be imminent, according to a source.
"Gotta keep my name in the news.....GOTTA KEEP MY NAME IN THE NEWS!!!" - Brett Favre
quote:The Packers have always had widespread fan base even with TOG!!!
While that's true and continues to be true, what you have in some cases is people that have been born in the mid to late 80's. All they have known their entire lives is Brett Favre at QB for the Packers.
I think this is most of the "ball-washers" that we see & hear.
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
"Gotta keep my name in the news.....GOTTA KEEP MY NAME IN THE NEWS!!!" - Brett Favre
You're assuming Charley Walters needs an actual source to write a story.
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
While that's true and continues to be true, what you have in some cases is people that have been born in the mid to late 80's. All they have known their entire lives is Brett Favre at QB for the Packers.
That would be my son, who doesn't post here. I gave him a quick history lesson on past Packer QBs. I told him that GB would move on with someon else and could do well. He knows about team work and all of that, so just a reminder about along those lines was all that was needed. After all that, he told me that "it will be strange" to see someone else play QB for the Packers. So I understand some of what those people are going through.
quote:"Gotta keep my name in the news.....GOTTA KEEP MY NAME IN THE NEWS!!!" - Brett Favre
Now, I don't necessarily believe that is the case. In fact, it's moreso the other way around...with media outlets saying, "Gotta keep Favre's name in the news." Favre speculation draws readers, listeners, and viewers. That's why every time there's a little nugget of information to report, true or untrue, it warrants near wall-to-wall coverage.
Don't get me wrong, I think Brett enjoys the spotlight...however, much of the offseason stuff is a media (ESPN) creation.
I don't care for the blame the media card either, and certainly people on both sides of every argument love to play it. But you can't act like there hasn't been a lot of way too aggressive reporting on this issue, either. A good example is that New York Post story linked to above. It states flatly "Favre will have surgery," but it gets its info entirely from the star tribune article which only says "Favre will meet with Andrews to discuss surgery." (And even that is being questioned now.) It's not hard to blame the media when you've got an example of an outlet, in this case the New York Post (no surprise there), actually misreporting the facts. Their only source doesn't even say what they claim it does.
I think it's a combo of the past TOG and the media. After the on again, off again retirement hoopla now the media jumps on any little thing and reports it using a label like "credible source" or "close source" even though the whole story may be speculation. Every media outlet wants to be the first to break any new story so facts don't always enter in the reporting.
I have to agree with Packy. I think it's a combination of the two.
TOG wants to stay in the limelight for as long as possible, and the media wants to keep him there.
TOG wants to stay in the limelight for as long as possible, and the media wants to keep him there.
quote:Originally posted by Mr.Yuck:
I have to agree with Packy. I think it's a combination of the two.
TOG wants to stay in the limelight for as long as possible, and the media wants to keep him there.
30 pages of Posts maybe sufficient evidence to indicate it doesn't end with the Media and TOG. It's a three-way symbiotic relationship.
quote:Originally posted by Max:
I don't care for the blame the media card either, and certainly people on both sides of every argument love to play it. But you can't act like there hasn't been a lot of way too aggressive reporting on this issue, either. A good example is that New York Post story linked to above. It states flatly "Favre will have surgery," but it gets its info entirely from the star tribune article which only says "Favre will meet with Andrews to discuss surgery." (And even that is being questioned now.) It's not hard to blame the media when you've got an example of an outlet, in this case the New York Post (no surprise there), actually misreporting the facts. Their only source doesn't even say what they claim it does.
Rofl, nicely done, Max. You hate to blame the media and then proceed to blame the media.
I'm going to make this short and simple: The media can not create interest. If they started pumping out stories about something nobody cared about, people would yawn and move on with their life. But if they put "Brett Favre" on something, the rating meters start to spin and 30 page forum threads are generated based on nothing more than Brett Favre being released from the Jets while he remains retired. It's not the media's fault that people are eating this up and asking for more. They don't have that much power.
Personally, I think all these contradictory reports are the story. Favre's need for attention and inability to make a decision are the fuel for them. And that's what this is all about. If you think some of the more tabloid leaning media outlets are "too aggressive" in their "reporting" it is only because they have an audience for it.
quote:Originally posted by Schaap:quote:Originally posted by Mr.Yuck:
I have to agree with Packy. I think it's a combination of the two.
TOG wants to stay in the limelight for as long as possible, and the media wants to keep him there.
30 pages of Posts maybe sufficient evidence to indicate it doesn't end with the Media and TOG. It's a three-way symbiotic relationship.
Should be enough evidence for anyone.
Yes, Hipp, I'm blaming the media, but not for "creating hype" but rather for getting the story wrong. It's one thing to claim they're trying to generate interest where none exists, which is not what I'm saying. I'm saying -- and providing a concrete example of -- that they're taking an actual story and fabricating additional elements in order to be the first one to report something. So yeah, I can and will blame the media for that, especially when it's right there on the printed page (or screen).
When I say "blaming the media" is bad, it's the idea that people wouldn't be talking about stuff if the news wasn't reporting it. There's a difference. I'm criticizing a lack of accuracy, not a presence of hype. Your post doesn't have anything to do with my criticism.
When I say "blaming the media" is bad, it's the idea that people wouldn't be talking about stuff if the news wasn't reporting it. There's a difference. I'm criticizing a lack of accuracy, not a presence of hype. Your post doesn't have anything to do with my criticism.
quote:Originally posted by Max:
Yes, Hipp, I'm blaming the media, but not for "creating hype" but rather for getting the story wrong. It's one thing to claim they're trying to generate interest where none exists, which is not what I'm saying. I'm saying -- and providing a concrete example of -- that they're taking an actual story and fabricating additional elements in order to be the first one to report something. So yeah, I can and will blame the media for that, especially when it's right there on the printed page (or screen).
How do you know the story was wrong? Favre changes his tune more often than some people change their underwear and has more leaks than the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. At the time these people put pixels to file, what they type might be 100% accurate. And 5 minutes after it is published, it's outdated because the Waffler has had a change of heart and starts blabbing to someone else. And the public keeps on clicking.
The Post said the Pioneer Press reported that Favre would have surgery and sign with the Vikings.
Go to the Pioneer Press, and the story says only that he would meet with Andrews to discuss the possibility of surgery.
Even if we assume the Pioneer Press story is 100 percent accurate, it sure looks like the Post misread it and misreported it.
I guess you could say the Pioneer Press changed its story from what the Post initially referenced, but I think shoddy "journalism" on the part of the Post is more likely.
Of course, they were referencing the report of a shoddy journalist in "Shooter," so maybe that's to be expected.
Go to the Pioneer Press, and the story says only that he would meet with Andrews to discuss the possibility of surgery.
Even if we assume the Pioneer Press story is 100 percent accurate, it sure looks like the Post misread it and misreported it.
I guess you could say the Pioneer Press changed its story from what the Post initially referenced, but I think shoddy "journalism" on the part of the Post is more likely.
Of course, they were referencing the report of a shoddy journalist in "Shooter," so maybe that's to be expected.
I used to love Brett Favre. Now I don't even like him. What a sad, unforeseen situation that is.
If he really wanted to come back because he loves the game he'd come back with the Jets. If I were the Jets, I'd be pissed (although maybe they figure they have a better chance without him). Coming back just to stick it to the Packers and all of their fans is a stupid ass reason to come back. He's just another egomaniac...
If he really wanted to come back because he loves the game he'd come back with the Jets. If I were the Jets, I'd be pissed (although maybe they figure they have a better chance without him). Coming back just to stick it to the Packers and all of their fans is a stupid ass reason to come back. He's just another egomaniac...
My point is that the information we receive is part of a greater "media mix" that we chose to interact with. I think some people read conflicting reports, assume both are true, and then reason that the reports are different because "Brett changed his mind", when in fact it's piss poor journalism as referenced by the previous posts citing examples of misrepresenting the known facts of the story.
My problem with the reporting related to Brett Favre this offseaon is that it's based so much on hearsay, rumors, and republishing those rumors that someone else wrote.
A fake, but not entirely off base example: On ABC's Nightly News, they cited an ESPN.com article that says Yahoo!Sports is reporting that Brett Favre might possibly consider to think about having surgery to come back.
That kind of reporting would get you an F in journalism school.
Yes, I hate the too-often used phrase "blame the media". However, piss poor journalism is at an all time high.
I work in this business...I see it all the time.
My problem with the reporting related to Brett Favre this offseaon is that it's based so much on hearsay, rumors, and republishing those rumors that someone else wrote.
A fake, but not entirely off base example: On ABC's Nightly News, they cited an ESPN.com article that says Yahoo!Sports is reporting that Brett Favre might possibly consider to think about having surgery to come back.
That kind of reporting would get you an F in journalism school.
Yes, I hate the too-often used phrase "blame the media". However, piss poor journalism is at an all time high.
I work in this business...I see it all the time.
quote:I work in this business...I see it all the time.
I See you've had quite enough of this fiasco.
quote:Originally posted by Schaap:
30 pages of Posts maybe sufficient evidence to indicate it doesn't end with the Media and TOG. It's a three-way symbiotic relationship.
Couldn't agree more. Anytime I check in at X's 4, the only thing anyone seems to be ranting about is Brett Favre.
I just wonder what BPG thinks of this whole Brett to the Vikes thing?
quote:Originally posted by Majkowski2Query:
However, piss poor journalism is at an all time high.
I work in this business...I see it all the time.
That's really got little to do with this story. This story is just a symptom of that particular problem.
isn't poor journalism a large part of the story?
You can't have sensationalism without ationali
You can't have sensationalism without ationali
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
While that's true and continues to be true, what you have in some cases is people that have been born in the mid to late 80's. All they have known their entire lives is Brett Favre at QB for the Packers.
I think this is most of the "ball-washers" that we see & hear.
That may explain some of it, but the worst offenders I've seen on other forums all been middle aged people (Or older). There are dozens of old fart Favre lovers (Some of the worst I've ever seen at that) over on Scout.com's Packer forum. It was my primary Packer forum years ago before I discovered X4, and now I can't read it at all. I think the biggest problem group are fairweather fans of all ages who aren't quite ready to give up on the Packers and/or find a new team.
