Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Aaron Rodgers the back up
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
deathstar


Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 725
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pretty sure when Favre got to GB he sat down with MM and TT. MM is the one who handled it like a boss. He told Favre that if he wanted to stay in GB he'd have to compete for his job - Favre couldn't handle that and chose to leave.

I'm a big TT fan. I think he's taken our organization in the right directions. There were some sketchy things done in the aftermath of that meeting, though. Not the least of which was the hiring of Ari Fleischer. Check out this article if you haven't...

http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/66600162.html

Again - I love TT. I hope that Rodgers' transition is more graceful than Favre's, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 7256
Location: @_G_Tom
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh lord what have I done...

Favre retired! At that point, it Rodgers' team. If you go back to Favre at that point you lose Rodgers and all credibility. You never once heard a darn thing publicly from the Packers about the entire situation until they announced he was traded. Totally professionally done, no emotion involved. All the "Favre seen in Green Bay blah blah blah" was media driven. TT never showed his hand, never even showed his face. Anything otherwise would've hurt the situation. And more importantly, Ted made the right decision in the face of the biggest upheaval from fans possibly in sports history. That's why he's a BA.

Favre is my favorite Packer of all time, but TT is a cold blooded killer who eats difficult decisions for breakfast and drops deuces made of salary cap space. Chuck Norris calls him for love advice. The Most Interesting Man in the World drinks TT's backwash when he doesn't drink Dos Equis. Barack and Michelle don't have dinner together without Ted's approval, and Minnesota only got the Super Bowl because Ted agreed to make an appearance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GBPACKMAN4LIFE


Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Posts: 17918
Location: Spokane, WA
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deathstar wrote:
Pretty sure when Favre got to GB he sat down with MM and TT. MM is the one who handled it like a boss. He told Favre that if he wanted to stay in GB he'd have to compete for his job - Favre couldn't handle that and chose to leave.

I'm a big TT fan. I think he's taken our organization in the right directions. There were some sketchy things done in the aftermath of that meeting, though. Not the least of which was the hiring of Ari Fleischer. Check out this article if you haven't...

http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/66600162.html

Again - I love TT. I hope that Rodgers' transition is more graceful than Favre's, though.


I bet the tab button on Cliff Christl's computer -- who wrote the linked article -- is worn to a nub. That dude loves his one-sentence paragraphs.
_________________

Ernest Hemingway wrote:
My aim is to put down on paper what I see and what I feel in the best and simplest way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deathstar


Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 725
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Charisma - I think that believing the situation was handled professionally isn't realistic. Both parties have legitimate reasons for resentment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 7256
Location: @_G_Tom
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deathstar wrote:
Pretty sure when Favre got to GB he sat down with MM and TT. MM is the one who handled it like a boss. He told Favre that if he wanted to stay in GB he'd have to compete for his job - Favre couldn't handle that and chose to leave.

I'm a big TT fan. I think he's taken our organization in the right directions. There were some sketchy things done in the aftermath of that meeting, though. Not the least of which was the hiring of Ari Fleischer. Check out this article if you haven't...

http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/66600162.html

Again - I love TT. I hope that Rodgers' transition is more graceful than Favre's, though.

This article reminds me of a 9/11 conspiracy article. The only thing missing was at some point it should have had "COINCIDENCE??" written in huge font in rhetorical form.

Green Bay NEVER tried to discredit Favre. There was no conspiring to remove Favre from his position. He retired and set Green Bay down that path. He changed his mind, as he had every right to do so. He was upset like any 20 year veteran whos beaten himself up for an employer would be. The rest is the media being the media--if you haven't noticed Journalism is crap in todays society. The NFL is a business, and business decisions were made.

My favorite example of the media changing someones words for their own gain was when in response to Green Bay winning the Super Bowl, Favre said, "I'm surprised they didn't win it sooner" and the media portrayed it as if Brett said something BAD. That was a compliment. If Ron Wolf said that everyone would be saying how highly he must have thought about the previous years roster and how nice of him it was to say.

Don't be a sheep.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
deathstar


Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 725
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand you may not mean it, but that sheep comment isn't called for. In this instance it also seems to be hypocritical. Labeling the assertions in this article conspiracy theories is a pretty large logical leap - how did you get there?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 7256
Location: @_G_Tom
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deathstar wrote:
Charisma - I think that believing the situation was handled professionally isn't realistic. Both parties have legitimate reasons for resentment.

I'm the biggest Favre homer you'll find, but I never saw Green Bay handle any of that wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 7256
Location: @_G_Tom
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deathstar wrote:
I understand you may not mean it, but that sheep comment isn't called for. In this instance it also seems to be hypocritical. Labeling the assertions in this article conspiracy theories is a pretty large logical leap - how did you get there?

Not calling YOU a sheep, I'm just saying you gotta realize Journalists now aren't worried about getting the facts right. They are worried about getting clicks and $.

Will get to the article being bad when I get home from this graduation party.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
svp


Joined: 11 Sep 2011
Posts: 1110
Location: I took a football shaped pill and felt better.
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The guy at the gym, who picks up the towels in the locker room, then washes them, then dries them, then folds them, then puts them out in a neat stack in the locker room, he said, and I quote: " It doesn't matter(about Farvre) if the Packers win."
_________________
svp wrote:
Who cares?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chocshake11


Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 11
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

persiandud wrote:
when were we convinced he was an elite QB?


Long time reader but very few posts to my resume. Felt I had to add my 2 cents to this one. For me the moment I knew Rodgers was the real deal was the touchdown pass against the Vikings week 1 in his first season as the starter. As a long time quarterback (playing some at a D2 school), the accuracy and off balanced throw he made was PERFECT! I was in awe at the accuracy and the awkward position he threw from. That was when I knew. Seems like a basic play but that throw was magical to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwT7V5RiHTM
(It's the first TD throw in the video)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deathstar


Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 725
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chocshake11 wrote:
persiandud wrote:
when were we convinced he was an elite QB?


Long time reader but very few posts to my resume. Felt I had to add my 2 cents to this one. For me the moment I knew Rodgers was the real deal was the touchdown pass against the Vikings week 1 in his first season as the starter. As a long time quarterback (playing some at a D2 school), the accuracy and off balanced throw he made was PERFECT! I was in awe at the accuracy and the awkward position he threw from. That was when I knew. Seems like a basic play but that throw was magical to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwT7V5RiHTM
(It's the first TD throw in the video)


That's what came to my mind as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 7256
Location: @_G_Tom
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

deathstar wrote:
I understand you may not mean it, but that sheep comment isn't called for. In this instance it also seems to be hypocritical. Labeling the assertions in this article conspiracy theories is a pretty large logical leap - how did you get there?

Aright, I had to copy and paste the entire article in order to discuss this properly. Hope no mods have a problem with that. Also, sorry Denver fans who wanted Brock talk.

"As saturated as the coverage was of the Brett Favre soap opera over the summer of 2008, there was one story that begged to be investigated that never was."
Like to hear another reporters opinion of why this is the only article investigating this story if it "begged" to be so when every single angle of Favre v. Packers was beaten to hell and why this writer waited 15 months to bring this to print. My guess: Favre v. Packers was a financial boom both locally and nationally, and this writer is going back to that Well here.

"Why did the Green Bay Packers with its large public relations staff find it necessary to retain the services of Ari Fleischer as a PR consultant?"
I get the feeling you are going to tell me. Also curious what Ari Fleischer DID.

Why would the Packers pay someone who had been at the center of the politics-of-personal-destruction scene in Washington - isn't that the modus operandi on both sides? - to wage a PR battle at the expense of maybe the greatest player in the franchise's long, storied history, not to mention one who was also putting $1 million a year into the team's coffers just through jersey sales in its pro shop?
I think I know where you are going with this, but..

"Was it all done to smear Favre's name?"
Wait, what? Is that a rhetorical question?

"Draw your own conclusions."
Aww crap, THAT is as close to rhetorical as it gets.

"The Packers' association with Fleischer was first reported as a note in some state newspapers on July 31, 2008."
Link? Even Bleacher Report will link to its evidence and I don't really understand WHY a newspaper would note that but okay.

"Three days later, coach Mike McCarthy confirmed that Fleischer, who had served as White House press secretary under George W. Bush, had been hired as a consultant for the next month and said the arrangement had been made well before that."
For what? Please tell me. I'm sure Ari has a ton of PR knowledge to throw at Green Bay's staff. Probably does some awesome lectures about PR work.

"When exactly remains unclear, or at least it's uncertain as to when the Packers started relying on Fleischer's advice with regard to the Favre situation."
Well that just confusing. In one breath you say what he did is unclear, and then you told me Green Bay relied on him for the Favre situation. Who connected those dots? Couldn't it just be that the Packers wanted to have a top notch PR guy around talking to current PR people about his experiences? Regardless of political stance, you have to figure this guy has seen some stuff.

"In an article about Ari Fleischer Sports Communications that appeared in The Washington Post three months ago, it stated that Fleischer had reached an agreement with the Packers in May 2008, to speak to the team three months later."
Speak to what team? The players or the Packers PR team? And that's phrased as though he just spoke with them once, not over a larger time span. Is this just one of those lecture deals that a PR department all listens to with a one time payment or something more long term?

"On the evening of June 25, 2008, McCarthy, just after arriving in Door County for a vacation with his family, received what apparently was the phone call from Favre informing him that he planned to play again."
Apparently? Was it Brett telling MM he was going to play again or was it not? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

"Less than three weeks later, the Packers went on the offensive and provided a detailed timeline about their discussions with Favre during the off-season. The obvious intent was to show how Favre had vacillated throughout the previous four months."
How so? Did they speak out publicly? Was there a press release? Why not provide a link?

"But what was most interesting was that it was a totally out of character move by a franchise that had guarded all personnel matters as state secrets since Ted Thompson had become general manager in 2005."
I agree they are very secretive. Probably makes a reporters job hard. All those Free Agencies with nothing to write about must be tough. That secretiveness is great for the team, bad for fans who want inside scoops.

"Four days later, after it became known that Favre was going to seek reinstatement as a player and force the Packers' hand, the team remained on the offensive.

A story was leaked that the Packers had filed a tampering charge against the Minnesota Vikings, a charge that the NFL later decided was unfounded."
A story was leaked by whom? Certainly not the secretive Packers. Did the NFL ever say this a legitimate? Has anything other than rumor ever given this credence?

"On July 31, Fleischer followed through on what McCarthy called his "long time ago" booking and spoke to the full team.

On Aug. 3, McCarthy admitted that Fleischer was on the payroll. No doubt, he didn't come cheap. The Post reported in its recent article that someone with Fleischer's experience would typically receive $30,000 for a month's work as a consultant and $10,000 for a single appearance."
Again, very vague about what Ari actually did. Was it a single appearance or a month of consulting?

"By the time Favre was traded on Aug. 6, or soon thereafter, he was starting to lose the PR battle and being trashed by numerous columnists and others in the media, many of whom had never or almost never set foot in the Packers' locker room.

The theme offered by Favre's critics was almost always the same: That he had become a diva (a word that curiously kept popping up), and that he was a self-absorbed ingrate for being wishy-washy and dragging out his decision."
How typical, media members with little to no information making assumptions and writing articles that are pure opinion.

"One of those who was most critical was Allen Barra of The Wall Street Journal, a publication that editorially was pro-Bush and one with which Fleischer might have had some influence.
Might, but is a man who worked for the President going to pull strings over a football player? This is another instance of someone saying something might have happened and then assuming it did without any proof--and that's their argument.

"While it was apparent from the article that Barra had little insight or knowledge about the Packers or their history, he certainly didn't mince words.

He compared Favre to a "prima donna," although veteran defensive tackle Ryan Pickett had said during the 2007 season that he had never played with a better teammate than Favre, and other players held Favre in similar respect.

Barra wrote that Favre had put the Packers "through hell" by not making up his mind about retirement, apparently ignorant of the fact that even if Favre was an over-the-top waffler, he didn't compare to two other Packers greats.

Don Hutson considered retirement and reported to camp late in 1939, and he then announced his retirement before the 1943, '44 and '45 seasons, only to play again. Forrest Gregg retired and unretired four times during his career.

Barra also labeled Favre "probably the most overrated quarterback" in the modern NFL and argued that Bart Starr had a much better career.

Again, Barra probably had no clue that the only two assistant coaches from the Lombardi era who were still employed as scouts by the Packers when Favre was playing said there was no comparison between Favre and Starr, that Favre was that much better.

And Lombardi himself harbored reservations about Starr to the point that he tried to trade him to Dallas in the midst of his nine-year run as coach.

Lombardi also told former associates in Green Bay after his one year in Washington that Sonny Jurgensen was a far better quarterback than Starr."
Irrelevent opinion from a media member. Snore. This entire section is based off the premise that the Packers conspired to lead a PR war against Favre. That they went to Ari and he pulled strings to get anti-Favre articles written in national papers. Despite the fact that the writer stated the media as a whole, being 90% talking heads with no experience covering the Packers, as the writer says, have gone after Favre for no reason other than his indecisiveness and they are themselves tired of talking about Favre, but they can't and won't stop. If Favre mows his grass reporters are jumping the fence trying to get a syllable from his lips that they can spin to sell papers.

"In Green Bay, meanwhile, there was ample evidence that members of the Packer organization were spreading a similar theme in conversations with friends and others."
Evidence so ample he can't provide one shred of it that's from the team. He's again making vague statements, backing none of it up with sources, and moving the narrative of "Packers tried to assassinate Favre's character to win a PR battle".

"This much about the Packers' decision to retain Fleischer as the Favre saga unfolded has been verified by several sources connected to the team.

It was a decision made by an executive committee that has become increasingly more involved and not by Thompson or others in the football operation.

And the decision was made as panic spread through the top of the organization over concern that the Favre matter could be devastating to the franchise's brand name."
I have no doubt the executive committee was having a very hard time handling the Favre situation because they are to some degree politicians. They are elected officials from the people who are most furious over the entire situation--the fans. And aren't those officials just business oriented fans who are making sure what is done is in the organizations best interest?

"Members of the board of directors were informed of the decision but given few details. One board member said the group was left with the distinct impression that it was a subject it shouldn't talk about.

While some people on the board said they were becoming ever more wary of the growing influence of certain executive committee members - notably John Bergstrom and Carl Kuehne - at the expense of the administration, no board member offered any evidence that the reason for hiring Fleischer was to discredit Favre."
They were probably told not to speak about it because it offered no help to the situation. Nothing good could come from a Board member discussing a private manner publicly.

"At the same time, some team and league sources said it was evident that that turned out to be an end result."
Green Bay didn't have to do anything to discredit Favre. The media was doing that all on their own. They could have put out a big press release every day that just said "We love Brett" and the media would have continued to try to drive a wedge in the relationship between Favre and TT everyday with no real sources to back it up.

"So as Favre prepares to return to Lambeau Field for the first time as a member of the Minnesota Vikings, if he's seeking revenge, maybe the executive committee and not Thompson should be his target.

And maybe Packer fans everywhere should be more contemplative and concerned than overly emotional about what has transpired in the last 15 months.

And here's why: If it wasn't former president Bob Harlan's greatest strength, it was one of his top three, and that was his uncanny ability to keep the other executive committee members at bay.

And history tells us that since 1923, when the Packers were first incorporated, that when the executive committee is strongest, the team usually is weakest and vice versa."
So history also shows that if the Packers had their ducks in a row, the Executive Board should be told to shut up. Bravo for them being told so.

"Make no mistake about it. The decision to hire Fleischer overlapped into football operations."
Except it didn't. His involvement changed nothing on the field. Favre never played for Green Bay again.

"All Thompson and his staff would have had to do is state their case - that dumping an aging Favre and going with a younger quarterback was a sound decision - and the history of the league would have backed their argument."
So now were assuming if Favre didn't retire he would have been dumped?

This article contradicts itself multiple times, very vaguely uses "sources", provides no links to any of what he's assuming the reader already knows, and commits serious leaps from known fact to his own interpretations.

Ari Fleischer may have consulted the Packers, and I'm betting his advice was, Ted, tell no one anything. Mike, tell no one anything. Executive Board, tell no one anything. Aaron, not a negative word. Nothing good can come from more news articles with quotes coming out. Hold on to your pants, the media will be trying to dig and dig and dig and the less is said the less reporting there will be and the less heat will be on the organization. That's the best you can do.

And this is why Ted Thompson was a total badass. He kept his mouth shut when a nation of reporters wanted words to come out. Even as fans were angry as any sports fan can be over the most beloved player in franchise and possibly league history, he did nothing and protected Aaron and let him prosper. He was hated by the public and didn't try to defend himself, just went about his business and built a World Champion. Badass.


TL;DR This articles sucks and neither Favre nor the Packers are to blame. Just circumstance, the media, and the fans.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Skypilot


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 835
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCPackers_08 wrote:
Sandybaby716 wrote:
Rodgers looked lost his rookie season, it seemed hopeless his second season, but in his third season, when we saw him in the preseason and limited game action, he was a completely different player. Going into his first season as a starter, we were all mostly comfortable (although there were a lot of Favre fans hoping he'd fail; ugly divorce) with Aaron as the starter.


This pretty much sums it up.


Yep. Rodgers turned pro after his junior season at Cal, and it didn't help that he received such a hostile reception from the insecure Favre in 2005. By 2007, Rodgers was ready to be the starter as the Dallas game illustrated. All three NFL North teams as well as many others passed on Rodgers in the draft, the Vikings, twice. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pugger


Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 8628
Location: N. Fort Myers, FL
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stockholder wrote:
HawaiiFan808 wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
ChaRisMa wrote:
Support was everything for Rodgers. He had a QB Guru Head Coach. A GM that handled the Favre situation like a TOTAL BADASS.

He had his GM and his HC completely committed and tied to him and all the physical skills. If he's got that, I'd like his chances.

If Elway and Fox screw him over, neglect him, and don't show support, forget it. No QB can be the franchise that way. Elway may hedge the bet with a high draft pick, we took Brian "Bomb" Brohm in the 2nd the year Rodgers took over. Brohm sucked and Rodgers was signed to an extension mid season (which was a STEAL).

Rodgers had NO support from Favre early on. Had NO reps other than the Scout team. Had little fan support as well. I wouldn't thoroughly believe Manning runs "his" offense and that hurts Brock. Favre was pretty unique in how he ran the offense too. Brock has to be Brock.

Do not judge Brock on the Preseason. Trust what Fox says.

What does the Fox say?


That certainly isn't the term that comes to my mind when I consider the way Ted bungled the Favre situation. Laughing


What should have TT done then, in your opinion.
This was talked about not letting farve Compete. It would have never been a PR mess either. I never saw such character assassination of a NFL player legend. He should have had his release! Period. If you tell a guy he can't play. Release Him. Any reason is not justified! Draft pick or not. Management tried to point out that it was all about Farve. This was all about TT. Winning was second to their desires. I'm glad Rodgers worked out. For Rodgers and the Packer Fans. But lets get one thing in here about this legend. He said it Best---"We have had communication," Favre said. "Not that it's really anybody else's business with all due respect. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Green Bay, and it's not about me. It's not necessarily about them. It's about the fans and respect. When the time is right. They're going to have things to do. They have a season to play. They have to get ready, and I don't want to be a distraction for them." To error is Human, to forgive is divine. The Packer organization needs to make this right. Even if it takes giving Farve Money.


You don't act like the Jets and just give away an asset. Period. If we just let him go we don't have Clay.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 7256
Location: @_G_Tom
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You never cut a HOF QB when everyone can see he's valuable, especially when he's the missing piece to a division rival. You trade him out of the division and hopefully the conference. The Jets were stupid to cut him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group