Phoney Favre-agedonn Has Bitten The Dust!

"No expense spared by team in Favre PR war" was posted on the J/S website Oct. 28, 2009. It is the most important piece of reporting since Ted Thompson traded Brett Favre to the Vikings. In it we learn that Ari Fleischer was not hired by Thompson but at the behest of a member(s) of the Packer Executive Committee. The buck stops with Mark Murphy, but the push to hire Fleischer came from elsewhere. And Fleisher was likely responsable for the anti-Favre slur that divided Packerdom.

Christl writes: "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." Christl notes that Allen Barra of The Wall Street Journal, a publication that editorially was pro-Bush and one with which Fleischer might have had some influence disseminated those talking points in his reporting.

While embracing the ends - dumping Favre - Christl questions the means noting the historical inverse relationship between involvement in football operations by members of the Executive Committee and the Packers winning football games. That's going to be something to watch for in the future. Further down the page, Christl writes "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".

Christl then uses the record of Packer precedence as a wrecking ball against the Fleischer / Barra premise that Favre's "diva" behavior was that of a "a self-absorbed ingrate" citing similar behavior by Don Hutson who retired and unretired a number of times. Want to excommunicate Favre? To be consistent, you also have call Don Hutson & Forrest Gregg divas.

As McGinn has reported, Favre's future with the Packers was decided in January & February when Thompson & McCarthy were silent on Favre's return. They punted and pinned Favre into a corner. Favre's 13-3 record and the NFC runner-up status were not going to stand in the way of Aaron Rodgers no matter how many "Favre 4-ever" signs appeared at Lambeau. It's an open question if a Super Bowl victory and an MVP award could have thwarted the Rodger's timetable. Playing with out Thompson's & McCarthy's support would have been the real "diva" move.

Note: More on this by Andrew Brandt in the National Football Post:
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-difficult-parting-of-Favre-and-the-Packers.html

That's way I'm wearing the Green & Gold #4 tomorrow. That is the most ambivalent statement I can make. If the Vikings win, there is less of a chance these teams will meet again in the playoffs. That would be fine with me. On the other hand, if the Packers win it will advance the inevitable demise of a good but not great Super Bowl pretender of a Vikings team. Sure they have a shot, but it's a long shot because one season with any QB probably isn't enough to develop playoff chemistry. The close the Vikings come, the more likely they are to want Favre back to try again.

In 2007 it was "Favre 4-ever"
In 2008, it was "Favre 4-get-her" (Trying to forget the look on Deanna' face at that press conference.)
In 2009, it's "Favre-whatever"
4-2010, we have to look at the Vikings free agent situation.
4-2011, we may well be saying "he's still going he really does love to play!"

On the upside, Favre playing the Packers while commentators wonder aloud if Rodgers is holding on to the ball too long, may yield a wider spread understand among Packer fans of what made Brett a great QB. It's not just a strong arm, awareness in the pocket, ability to throw accurately off his back foot and use the recoil to avoid tripping over and falling under blitzers. Favre will throw to a spot and trust his receiver to beat coverage and get the ball. Doing that means accepting interceptions and the resulting criticism.

"Game managers" don't make those throws. "Gunslingers" can only win making those throws selectively to talented receivers they know and trust. That's what we saw in 2007 and in 1996-97. Let's watch Brett play for the Vikings and make sure we know and we remember traits of a great QB. That will help us be good Packer fans and good team owners long after Brett and Aaron are done playing and the ESPN hype has long been forgotten.

I'm not inferring Aaron Rodgers is a game manager. Fortunately, he is way better than that. But I did joust with some Packer fans who want him to be just that in the Sportsbubbler chat rooms last year. That bad idea is certainly out there.

As Ron Wolf might put it, if we were a fart in the wind in 1997, we are a total gasser in 2009.

Those wondering what there is to do in Green Bay on a Friday night read this:
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Biggs-Police-nab-man-who-stole-Aaron-Rodgers-Dr-sign.html