Thread: Favre draws ire of ex-Packers

[size=13pt]Favre draws ire of ex-Packers[/size]

Updated: October 1, 2009, 5:01 PM ET

ESPN.com news services


How do ex-Green Bay Packers who played on the team's Super Bowl winners feel about Brett Favre donning the purple and gold of the archrival Minnesota Vikings and facing his former team?

Pissed off Packer fans?
I love it!

Now a good beat down, especially one where Brett looks great and Rodgers looks horrible, will help to turn Packer fans ire toward the Packer FO.
;D

I don't understand the "hatred" or ill will towards Favre from the Cheeseheads, we the franchise made a choice. Maybe the choice was a bit forced by Brett, with his "will he" or "won't he" indecisiveness.

But in the end, the Packers made a choice in which they felt was in the best interest of the Packers. The rest is inconsequential to the discussion, the whole Favre promised to play only for the Packers or what not. Or that he is a traitor for picking the Vikings...

Fact is, we traded him to another franchise, basically nullifying any verbal commitments Brett may have made. We gave up any rights to a relationship with Brett the moment we decided to relinquish his contractual rights.. don't like that he is a Viking, to freaking bad.

Crying over spilled milk is all it amounts to, if your riled up about it, take it up with the Packers, we traded him.

Personally, yes I would have liked him to retire a Packer, but it didn't work out that way. And we the Packers, had a choice in that event. Deal with it.

"pack93z" wrote:

I don't understand the "hatred" or ill will towards Favre from the Cheeseheads, we the franchise made a choice. Maybe the choice was a bit forced by Brett, will he or won't he indecisiveness.

But in the end, the Packers made a choice in which they felt was in the best interest of the Packers. The rest is inconsequential to the discussion, the whole Favre promised to play only for the Packers or what not. Or that he is a traitor for picking the Vikings...

Fact is, we traded him to another franchise, basically nullifying any verbal commitments Brett may have made. We gave up any rights to a relationship with Brett the moment we decided to relinquish his contractual rights.. don't like that he is a Viking, to freaking bad.

Crying over spilled milk is all it amounts to, if your riled up about it, take it up with the Packers, we traded him.

Personally, yes I would have liked him to retire a Packer, but it didn't work out that way. And we the Packers, had a choice in that event. Deal with it.

I hear what you are saying and I totally agree.
The funny thing is there are a lot of Viking fans that feel the same way.
We have to realize it is the nature of the business now.
It is what it is.

"pack93z" wrote:

I don't understand the "hatred" or ill will towards Favre from the Cheeseheads, we the franchise made a choice. Maybe the choice was a bit forced by Brett, will he or won't he indecisiveness.

But in the end, the Packers made a choice in which they felt was in the best interest of the Packers. The rest is inconsequential to the discussion, the whole Favre promised to play only for the Packers or what not. Or that he is a traitor for picking the Vikings...

Fact is, we traded him to another franchise, basically nullifying any verbal commitments Brett may have made. We gave up any rights to a relationship with Brett the moment we decided to relinquish his contractual rights.. don't like that he is a Viking, to freaking bad.

Crying over spilled milk is all it amounts to, if your riled up about it, take it up with the Packers, we traded him.

Personally, yes I would have liked him to retire a Packer, but it didn't work out that way. And we the Packers, had a choice in that event. Deal with it.

+1

It's a business.
GB made a good business decision.
Favre has made a good buisness decision.
So far it looks like the Vikes have made a good business decision.

Loyalty is not $$$. No team is loyal to a player, if they don't perform to their expectations/$$$, they are let go.

If you ask me, Favre gave GB too much loyalty, I'm sure he could have made lots more $$$ if he would have gone FA much earlier, rather than continue to sign extensions with the Pack.

Need I remind Packer fans of the 16 yrs before Favre came to GB?
I'm sure a good # of Packer fans grew up with Favre and were too young to remember what the Pack was like before Favre.
The previous 16yrs before Favre the Pack won 40% of their games, the 16 yrs with Favre 65%.

Stop whinning about Favre's "disloyalty" and start praying Rodgers can even come close to what Favre did for the Pack.

"gagarr" wrote:

"pack93z" wrote:

I don't understand the "hatred" or ill will towards Favre from the Cheeseheads, we the franchise made a choice. Maybe the choice was a bit forced by Brett, will he or won't he indecisiveness.

But in the end, the Packers made a choice in which they felt was in the best interest of the Packers. The rest is inconsequential to the discussion, the whole Favre promised to play only for the Packers or what not. Or that he is a traitor for picking the Vikings...

Fact is, we traded him to another franchise, basically nullifying any verbal commitments Brett may have made. We gave up any rights to a relationship with Brett the moment we decided to relinquish his contractual rights.. don't like that he is a Viking, to freaking bad.

Crying over spilled milk is all it amounts to, if your riled up about it, take it up with the Packers, we traded him.

Personally, yes I would have liked him to retire a Packer, but it didn't work out that way. And we the Packers, had a choice in that event. Deal with it.

+1

It's a business.
GB made a good business decision.
Favre has made a good buisness decision.
So far it looks like the Vikes have made a good business decision.

Loyalty is not $$$. No team is loyal to a player, if they don't perform to their expectations/$$$, they are let go.

If you ask me, Favre gave GB too much loyalty, I'm sure he could have made lots more $$$ if he would have gone FA much earlier, rather than continue to sign extensions with the Pack.

Need I remind Packer fans of the 16 yrs before Favre came to GB?
I'm sure a good # of Packer fans grew up with Favre and were too young to remember what the Pack was like before Favre.
The previous 16yrs before Favre the Pack won 40% of their games, the 16 yrs with Favre 65%.

Stop whinning about Favre's "disloyalty" and start praying Rodgers can even come close to what Favre did for the Pack.

Packers average record post lombardi,pre-favre: 6-10
Packers average record with Favre: 9-7
Packers average record post Favre: 6-10

coincidence?

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

Packers average record post lombardi,pre-favre: 6-10
Packers average record with Favre: 9-7
Packers average record post Favre: 6-10

coincidence?

So we are going to base a post Favre average on one season and use it as proof the Brett was the only reason we were a above .500 team?

That would be like me saying Brett was responsible alone for the 05 season and 4 wins... same type of injury riddled season.

I don't pretend to discount Brett accomplishments and importance to the Packers, but him leaving last season was not the reason we finished with 6 wins. I will refrain from excuses, because they are just that excuses.

"pack93z" wrote:

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

Packers average record post lombardi,pre-favre: 6-10
Packers average record with Favre: 9-7
Packers average record post Favre: 6-10

coincidence?

So we are going to base a post Favre average on one season and use it as proof the Brett was the only reason we were a above .500 team?

That would be like me saying Brett was responsible alone for the 05 season and 4 wins... same type of injury riddled season.

I don't pretend to discount Brett accomplishments and importance to the Packers, but him leaving last season was not the reason we finished with 6 wins. I will refrain from excuses, because they are just that excuses.

that post was mainly just poking fun.
Obviously we can't base it on 1 season.

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

"pack93z" wrote:

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

Packers average record post lombardi,pre-favre: 6-10
Packers average record with Favre: 9-7
Packers average record post Favre: 6-10

coincidence?

So we are going to base a post Favre average on one season and use it as proof the Brett was the only reason we were a above .500 team?

That would be like me saying Brett was responsible alone for the 05 season and 4 wins... same type of injury riddled season.

I don't pretend to discount Brett accomplishments and importance to the Packers, but him leaving last season was not the reason we finished with 6 wins. I will refrain from excuses, because they are just that excuses.

that post was mainly just poking fun.
Obviously we can't base it on 1 season.

The post Favre record is useless, but the pre-Favre is totally justified.

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

"pack93z" wrote:

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

Packers average record post lombardi,pre-favre: 6-10
Packers average record with Favre: 9-7
Packers average record post Favre: 6-10

coincidence?

So we are going to base a post Favre average on one season and use it as proof the Brett was the only reason we were a above .500 team?

That would be like me saying Brett was responsible alone for the 05 season and 4 wins... same type of injury riddled season.

I don't pretend to discount Brett accomplishments and importance to the Packers, but him leaving last season was not the reason we finished with 6 wins. I will refrain from excuses, because they are just that excuses.

that post was mainly just poking fun.
Obviously we can't base it on 1 season.

Of course we can. The Packers are horrible.