PDA

View Full Version : Football ESPN: Farve asks to be unconditionally released from Green Bay


Kerberos
07-11-2008, 03:29 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3483521


HATTIESBURG, Miss. -- Three days after a conference call with Packers team officials in which quarterback Brett Favre emphatically expressed his desire to play in 2008, Favre on Friday formally asked by letter for his unconditional contractual release, sources close to Favre and the team said.
The letter was sent by Favre's agent, James "Bus" Cook, via overnight mail on Thursday and arrived at the Packers facility Friday morning.



Favre
Cook, on behalf of Favre, expressed a desire to have an amicable parting, as the Packers have been reluctant to embrace his return. Favre announced his retirement in early March.

Packers general manager Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy weren't available for comment Friday.

In a statement, the Packers said: "Brett earned and exercised the right to retire on his terms. We wanted him to return and welcomed him back on more than one occasion.

"Brett's press conference and subsequent conversations in the following weeks illustrated his commitment to retirement," the news release added. "The finality of his decision to retire was accepted by the organization. At that point, the Green Bay Packers made the commitment to move forward with our football team."

During a conference call on Tuesday that included Thompson, McCarthy, Favre and Cook, sources say that the quarterback stated emphatically that he wanted to play again.

Favre was reminded by the Packers' brass that he said publicly and privately in March that he wasn't 100 percent committed to football, sources said. Favre acknowledged his state of mind at the time, but added that he never felt he was 100 percent committed in March of previous years, either. Favre felt he had to make a decision to retire because the Packers were pressing him for an answer, a source said.


NFL.com Video

Highlights of the best moments from Brett Favre in 2007.



During the conference call on Tuesday, neither Thompson nor McCarthy was openly receptive or enthused about Favre's desire to unretire, the sources said, prompting Favre to direct Cook to request his release from the team. Favre has three years remaining on his contract at a total of $39 million. He currently is on the reserve-retired list.

Favre prefers a mutual parting rather than have to force the Packers' hand by writing a letter to request his reinstatement to the active 80-man roster. Under league policy, the team would have to comply or release him.

Cook's letter did suggest that Favre's accomplishments for the franchise merited the team honoring his request to be released, also asking that the action be taken "with no strings attached." Favre does not want to be traded, sources said, because he wants the freedom of choice to play for another franchise.

Favre has been in communication with McCarthy during the past month about his desire to play but until this week had not spoken with Thompson.

Favre did not wish to speak publicly about his situation when approached while working out Friday morning at a local high school in Hattiesburg. He appeared to be in excellent physical condition and threw the ball with ease, even throwing it 50 yards "on a rope" with high school receivers. He has been throwing and running with the team for more than a month.

Favre was relaxed and in a positive frame of mind, joking and telling stories about himself, former teammates and coaches. He planned to continue working out next week.

Bill Lundberg
07-11-2008, 03:31 PM
I was just listening to Fox radio and Jay Glazer reported that Favre approached the Packers about this in March. At that time the Packers were all for having him back, then after a weekend, he called back and changed his mind. Said he wanted to stay retired.

If I were the Packers I wouldn't release him, I'd keep him and let him back up Aaron Rodgers. I realize this won't be popular with many, but the team needs to move forward.

The Packers would be foolish to just outright release him.

markk
07-11-2008, 03:33 PM
i was hoping we wouldn't have to hear about him all season again...

eazyb81
07-11-2008, 03:34 PM
i was hoping we wouldn't have to hear about him all season again...

No shit, I could care less abou this. The dude has some issues.

Short Leash Hootie
07-11-2008, 03:34 PM
the Packers are in a lose/lose situation...they spent another high pick on a QB...they have a former 1st round pick at QB who they have been preparing to be QB this entire offseason...and then they have a legend who retired that now wants back in who defines the term 'fan favorite'...don't let him back, piss off every Green Bay Packers fan in the world...it's an interesting situation.

Fruit Ninja
07-11-2008, 03:35 PM
No shit, I could care less abou this. The dude has some issues.

He has 1 issue. He wants to play football still. He still likes the game.

You also cared enough to reply in a thread about Brett.

markk
07-11-2008, 03:36 PM
the Packers are in a lose/lose situation...they spent another high pick on a QB...they have a former 1st round pick at QB who they have been preparing to be QB this entire offseason...and then they have a legend who retired that now wants back in who defines the term 'fan favorite'...don't let him back, piss off every Green Bay Packers fan in the world...it's an interesting situation.

if you ask me, the fans shouldn't be angry with the team if they release him. Favre has been jerking them around for a couple offseasons in a row with his indecision. He ought to make up his damn mind for once and let the organization go in whatever direction it needs to go.

Chiefs Pantalones
07-11-2008, 03:38 PM
If we were close to big things I'd love to have him as our QB. I'd rather have Croyle get killed behind our line than one of the greats like Favre. Plus, I want all to see as to how terrible Croyle is, and be done with it after this season and draft a QB high.

I hope Favre gets a chance to get revenge against his soon-to-be former team.

Bill Lundberg
07-11-2008, 03:48 PM
Packers release statement:

Packers | Statement on Favre
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:07:58 -0700 The Green Bay Packers (http://www.kffl.com/team/17/nfl) made a statement Friday, July 11, regarding retired NFL (http://www.kffl.com/team/77/nfl) QB Brett Favre (http://www.kffl.com/player/764/nfl). "Brett earned and exercised the right to retire on his terms. We wanted him to return and welcomed him back on more than one occasion. Brett's press conference and subsequent conversations in the following weeks illustrated his commitment to retirement. The finality of his decision to retire was accepted by the organization. At that point, the Green Bay Packers (http://www.kffl.com/team/17/nfl) made the commitment to move forward with our football team. As a retired player, Brett has the option to apply for reinstatement with Commissioner Goodell. If that were to occur, he would become an active member of the Green Bay Packers (http://www.kffl.com/team/17/nfl). As always, the Packers (http://www.kffl.com/team/17/nfl) will do what's right and in the best interest of the team. As with all Packers (http://www.kffl.com/team/17/nfl) greats, Brett's legacy will always be celebrated by our fans and the organization, regardless of any change in his personal intentions. Brett and Deanna will always be a part of the Packers (http://www.kffl.com/team/17/nfl) family."

KCrockaholic
07-11-2008, 03:49 PM
the pack are doing the best thing for the pack...They're a young team, and they need to see what Aaron Rodgers has. hes been sitting on the bench for what 3 years now? he was a 1st round pick, and he rightfully deserves to have a shot at starting for this team.

on the other hand Favre cant let that child in himself go (no michael jackson reference) ...even if it means leaving GB for another team. i understand the guy has been playing football since he was like 8 years old, and his mind and body is telling him, that its time to go play football with the boys. He absolutely LOVES the game, and he obviously still has some skills left in him.

i think its best for both sides to split ways, let the Pack move on, and let Favre continue to play... the next question is where will Favre play? my first thought is either Minnesota, or Chicago. which would be a knife in the throat to Packer fans. but if he didnt end up in either of thoughs spots, then i could definiately see him back in Atlanta were his career began, Baltimore is an option, and Miami has a slim chance.

but the only team i have listed that has a chance at going to the superbowl would probably be Minnesota. and lets face it, Favre wants another championship! he wants a team thats in "win now mode". and Miami, Baltimore, Atlanta, and Chicago aren't in "win now mode". If Favre is willing to take the stake, and lace up for the Vikes, Minnesota could very well be in contention with Dallas for who represents the NFC in superbowl 43.

what do you guys think?

BigRedChief
07-11-2008, 04:27 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3483521

Three days after a conference call with Packers (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=gnb) team officials in which quarterback Brett Favre (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=1025) emphatically expressed his desire to play in 2008, Favre on Friday formally asked by letter for his unconditional contractual release, sources close to Favre and the team said.


The letter was sent by Favre's agent, James "Bus" Cook, via overnight mail on Thursday and arrived at the Packers facility Friday morning.

Cook, on behalf of Favre, expressed a desire to have an amicable parting, as the Packers have been reluctant to embrace his return. Favre announced his retirement in early March.


Packers general manager Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy weren't available for comment Friday.


In a statement, the Packers said: "Brett earned and exercised the right to retire on his terms. We wanted him to return and welcomed him back on more than one occasion.


"Brett's press conference and subsequent conversations in the following weeks illustrated his commitment to retirement," the news release added. "The finality of his decision to retire was accepted by the organization. At that point, the Green Bay Packers made the commitment to move forward with our football team."


<INLINE1>During a conference call on Tuesday that included Thompson, McCarthy, Favre and Cook, sources say that the quarterback stated emphatically that he wanted to play again.


Favre was reminded by the Packers' brass that he said publicly and privately in March that he wasn't 100 percent committed to football, sources said. Favre acknowledged his state of mind at the time, but added that he never felt he was 100 percent committed in March of previous years, either. Favre felt he had to make a decision to retire because the Packers were pressing him for an answer, a source said.




During the conference call on Tuesday, neither Thompson nor McCarthy was openly receptive or enthused about Favre's desire to unretire, the sources said, prompting Favre to direct Cook to request his release from the team. Favre has three years remaining on his contract at a total of $39 million. He currently is on the reserve-retired list.


Favre prefers a mutual parting rather than have to force the Packers' hand by writing a letter to request his reinstatement to the active 80-man roster. Under league policy, the team would have to comply or release him.


<INLINE2>Cook's letter did suggest that Favre's accomplishments for the franchise merited the team honoring his request to be released, also asking that the action be taken "with no strings attached." Favre does not want to be traded, sources said, because he wants the freedom of choice to play for another franchise.


Favre has been in communication with McCarthy during the past month about his desire to play but until this week had not spoken with Thompson.


Favre did not wish to speak publicly about his situation when approached while working out Friday morning at a local high school in Hattiesburg. He appeared to be in excellent physical condition and threw the ball with ease, even throwing it 50 yards "on a rope" with high school receivers. He has been throwing and running with the team for more than a month.

Favre was relaxed and in a positive frame of mind, joking and telling stories about himself, former teammates and coaches. He planned to continue working out next week.

Pestilence
07-11-2008, 04:30 PM
Brett Favre is the new Matt Jones!!!!

blaise
07-11-2008, 04:31 PM
I posted this in another thread, but I think the Bills would be a good fit for him.

Bowser
07-11-2008, 04:33 PM
I posted this in another thread, but I think the Bills would be a good fit for him.

Maybe, but Trent Edwards looks like he may turn into a decent pro.

Skip Towne
07-11-2008, 04:52 PM
Green Bay's biggest rival would be a good fit as well.

blueballs
07-11-2008, 05:16 PM
I'm so sick of his whinny ass
I'm wanting to see him fail
and miserably

Thig Lyfe
07-11-2008, 05:31 PM
SIGN 'EM CARL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the Talking Can
07-11-2008, 05:33 PM
asking to be released is bush league...

imo, he's been planning this scenario since last year when they wouldn't sign Moss...

he could play 2-3 more years for a warm weather team - like Miami....but no way in hell the Packers should be expected to give away a hall of fame QB...I'd laugh his ass off of the phone...

ask for 2nd, that's reasonable for the buzz he'd bring....

pill popping drama queen

Kerberos
07-11-2008, 05:43 PM
It does make a nice question of WHERE he might end up next season? Vikes? Falcons? Jets?

I think we all agree he would have way too much class and smarts to play for Greasy Al Davis.

blueballs
07-11-2008, 05:45 PM
**** Favre Forever

Dayze
07-11-2008, 05:46 PM
Carl is busy pressing the "Aged QB Veteran to Give Fans Hope" speed-dial button. Hopefully Brett doesn't answer the call.

mcan
07-11-2008, 05:51 PM
They can't just let him go for nothing. Take him off the retired list and field offers from interested teams. You should get at least a 3rd round pick. I would hope that ANY team looking for a QB would jump at that, then give Brett the option as to which of the interested teams he wants to go. Or just let him play another year in Green Bay.

Mecca
07-11-2008, 06:01 PM
Just so you guys know the Green Bay reporter dude that was on ESPN news things he's coming here...

the Talking Can
07-11-2008, 06:03 PM
Just so you guys know the Green Bay reporter dude that was on ESPN news things he's coming here...

if that were true, it would mean that a) Farve is a god damn retard and b) everything we been sold about rebuilding is a lie....


so, it could happen....

Frazod
07-11-2008, 06:04 PM
Just so you guys know the Green Bay reporter dude that was on ESPN news things he's coming here...

F#ck him. Let him delay the development of somebody else's quarterback.

Mecca
07-11-2008, 06:05 PM
He said KC and Baltimore were the 2 most talked about teams up there and KC is a team he could possibly get in the playoffs right now and the weather isn't that bad.....his words.

kstater
07-11-2008, 06:07 PM
Just so you guys know the Green Bay reporter dude that was on ESPN news things he's coming here...

Sweet, so the Chiefs have a chance to go 6-10

InChiefsHell
07-11-2008, 06:07 PM
Just so you guys know the Green Bay reporter dude that was on ESPN news things he's coming here...

Oh for crap's sake..:banghead:

Direckshun
07-11-2008, 06:07 PM
Just so you guys know the Green Bay reporter dude that was on ESPN news things he's coming here...
:banghead:

tk13
07-11-2008, 06:09 PM
Unfortunately KC probably makes as much sense as anybody else. I think Herm is hardheaded enough to resist, Carl on the other hand... haha...

Skip Towne
07-11-2008, 06:09 PM
Just so you guys know the Green Bay reporter dude that was on ESPN news things he's coming here...

No thanks

siberian khatru
07-11-2008, 06:12 PM
Just so you guys know the Green Bay reporter dude that was on ESPN news things he's coming here...

One of them is on drugs.

Mecca
07-11-2008, 06:13 PM
It does sound like a classic Chiefs thing to do.

pikesome
07-11-2008, 06:16 PM
It does sound like a classic Chiefs thing to do.

Number 12,567 thing I wish Mecca was wrong about.

OnTheWarpath58
07-11-2008, 06:17 PM
He'd make Minnesota an instant contender.

Mecca
07-11-2008, 06:18 PM
He'd make Minnesota an instant contender.

They in no way shape or form are going to let him end up in their division, the guy from GB sure made it sound like if he was gone it would only be to an AFC team, and one they weren't playing this year.

Fruit Ninja
07-11-2008, 06:29 PM
If he's coming here then Croyle is on the outs and we will have to draft another qb next year to "groom". I don't want him to come here as much of a fan of his as i am. WE are in full rebuild mode, lets just see it through.

Mecca
07-11-2008, 06:31 PM
We're probably going to have to draft another QB either way, the issue I have with it is giving up a high pick for him and then winning 7 games and picking in the middle of the round.

blueballs
07-11-2008, 06:31 PM
Just so you guys know the Green Bay reporter dude that was on ESPN news things he's coming here...

is this the guy

Thig Lyfe
07-11-2008, 06:41 PM
F#ck him. Let him delay the development of somebody else's quarterback.

We need a stopgap before we draft Tebow!!!!!!!

Herzig
07-11-2008, 06:44 PM
We need a stopgap before we draft Tebow!!!!!!!

Drafting Tebow is a nightmare scenario. Dude is never going to be a great pro QB.

Kerberos
07-11-2008, 06:47 PM
I for one would rather keep what we have. If we had a ripe team ready to WIN NOW or (God Forbid) we still had Marty coaching, Favre might be viable option.


How many good year/years can he actually have left in the tank? Especially if he has to learn a whole new offense?

Smed1065
07-11-2008, 06:49 PM
GB wont release him because they figure he would go to Minny, for sure.

Thig Lyfe
07-11-2008, 06:50 PM
Drafting Tebow is a nightmare scenario. Dude is never going to be a great pro QB.

And that will prevent Carl from drafting him how?

blueballs
07-11-2008, 06:54 PM
Gruden may lure Favre to Tampa yet

7-11
The player rep for free agent Eddie Kennison says his client is "very interested in being a Buc and has made that clear."

More competition at flanker in Tampa Bay wouldn't hurt. "He would love to play for Jon Gruden," the agent said. Kennison, coming off a season ruined by a torn hamstring, worked out for the Bucs in May and passed a physical. Perhaps he'll get a call from the team in training camp.

FAX
07-11-2008, 07:02 PM
the Packers are in a lose/lose situation...they spent another high pick on a QB...they have a former 1st round pick at QB who they have been preparing to be QB this entire offseason...and then they have a legend who retired that now wants back in who defines the term 'fan favorite'...don't let him back, piss off every Green Bay Packers fan in the world...it's an interesting situation.

I guess I don't understand why the Pack wouldn't just release him. I've asked this question before, would the Packers incur a financial penalty by releasing him? If not, what other reason might they have to roadblock his return to football?

FAX

FAX
07-11-2008, 07:05 PM
asking to be released is bush league...

imo, he's been planning this scenario since last year when they wouldn't sign Moss...

he could play 2-3 more years for a warm weather team - like Miami....but no way in hell the Packers should be expected to give away a hall of fame QB...I'd laugh his ass off of the phone...

ask for 2nd, that's reasonable for the buzz he'd bring....

pill popping drama queen

Ah ... so, rather than release him, the Packers would be better off taking him back and trading him?

FAX

Adept Havelock
07-11-2008, 07:07 PM
Drafting Tebow is a nightmare scenario. Dude is never going to be a great pro QB.

Yep. It'd be the Ryan Sims pick all over again.

Mecca
07-11-2008, 07:07 PM
Ah ... so, rather than release him, the Packers would be better off taking him back and trading him?

FAX

Something is better than nothing...they also avoid him going to say Minnesota that way.

mcan
07-11-2008, 07:10 PM
Are you guys insane?


If he wants to come here and we can get him for a 3rd rounder or less, then I'm on board. None of our quarterbacks have shown any kind ability at all. A terrible quarterback hampers the development of the entire team, including the defense. (offense goes 3 and out too much so none of these young players ever have a chance to contribute, the defense is always tired)

Would you have rather NOT had Montana here in '93? Going 13-3 and getting to the AFC Championship was amazing. I'd take that again in a heartbeat over 3-13 and losing to the freaking JETS. I think too many people around here think that "rebuilding" means that you have to try and suck.

the Talking Can
07-11-2008, 07:17 PM
Ah ... so, rather than release him, the Packers would be better off taking him back and trading him?

FAX

get a pick and control where he goes.....

DeezNutz
07-11-2008, 07:19 PM
If Favre were to come to KC, Jaws would have to be hooked up to an IV drip to ensure that he wouldn't lose too much fluid.

MegaMustache
07-11-2008, 07:25 PM
I'm not a huge fan of Favre but by all means sign him. Give him a shot and see how good we can be and if he blows then draft time tebow next year. you can rebuild a team but you still need veteran leadership. croyle is not the answer, he's gotten more of a chance than most qb rookies and he hasn't won a game. sign favre. it's a good idea.

tk13
07-11-2008, 07:28 PM
If Favre were to come to KC, Jaws would have to be hooked up to an IV drip to ensure that he wouldn't lose too much fluid.
It would also ensure that Madden demands every flex game for Sunday Night Football includes the Chiefs.

BigRedChief
07-11-2008, 07:32 PM
This Farve to the Chiefs had better be BS. Because if they have decided that Croyle may not be the QOTF then they should have drafted one in the 2nd round.

DeezNutz
07-11-2008, 07:33 PM
It would also ensure that Madden demands every flex game for Sunday Night Football includes the Chiefs.

That's true. I'm not in favor of acquiring Favre--it would be best to take our lumps now and develop/find our own QB--but the increased media coverage would be kind of cool. :shrug:

blueballs
07-11-2008, 07:35 PM
if you think Herm would want Favre slinging it in to harms way
you don't watch the Chiefs
he'd slap Curl's face and sling it midst sack

Friendo
07-11-2008, 07:38 PM
if you think Herm would want Favre slinging it in to harms way
you don't watch the Chiefs
he'd slap Curl's face and sling it

good point--there's talk of him coming to the Panthers too, but Fox would like that about as much as Herm.

Bill Lundberg
07-11-2008, 07:42 PM
I guess I don't understand why the Pack wouldn't just release him. I've asked this question before, would the Packers incur a financial penalty by releasing him? If not, what other reason might they have to roadblock his return to football?

FAX

I would say Mr. Fax it is because they do not want him going to a team in their division. The Bears and Vikings are a good QB away from being contenders. If they release him they may have to face him 2 or 3 times in a season. If they instead TRADE his rights, they can send him to the AFC and get something for him in return.

FAX
07-11-2008, 07:44 PM
get a pick and control where he goes.....

Makes sense. So, the question is; why would the Pack try to convince him to remain retired? They shouldn't have too much trouble getting some value for him. It seems that their best approach is to avoid a conflict at this point.

FAX

DeezNutz
07-11-2008, 07:49 PM
Makes sense. So, the question is; why would the Pack try to convince him to remain retired? They shouldn't have too much trouble getting some value for him. It seems that their best approach is to avoid a conflict at this point.

FAX

Could be a PR thing, a desire by a proud organization not to see one of its all-time greats in a different uniform. He's aging and the organization would like to move on, but they would still like to keep #4 as their best public spokesman.

DaneMcCloud
07-11-2008, 07:53 PM
With LJ, the rebuilt offensive line, Tony Gonzalez & Dwayne Bowe and Chan Gailey, I'd say that Brett Favre would instantly catapult the Chiefs into contenders, at least for the division title, if not more.

I know that's not popular around here because everyone seems to think that rebuilding means excessive losses while playing young players across the board, but I'd welcome him in a heartbeat.

What Brodie Croyle would learn behind Brett Favre would be invaluable. And maybe some of Favre's invincibility would rub off on Croyle.

He certainly needs something to help him make it through a season uninjured.

DeezNutz
07-11-2008, 07:57 PM
With LJ, the rebuilt offensive line, Tony Gonzalez & Dwayne Bowe and Chan Gailey, I'd say that Brett Favre would instantly catapult the Chiefs into contenders, at least for the division title, if not more.

I know that's not popular around here because everyone seems to think that rebuilding means excessive losses while playing young players across the board, but I'd welcome him in a heartbeat.

What Brodie Croyle would learn behind Brett Favre would be invaluable. And maybe some of Favre's invincibility would rub off on Croyle.

He certainly needs something to help him make it through a season uninjured.

I like winning, too, and perhaps Favre could be a real asset to Croyle. However, I'm more skeptical about how good the O-line is going to be this year. Don't get me wrong, I think we have better players, but it might take awhile for them to develop.

If Favre were to play for the Chiefs, I have visions of him flinging a lot of wayward ducks as he's being wrapped up by multiple defenders. The team would probably win more games, but I'd think it would be another 8-8, 9-7 type year. Not real great.

little jacob
07-11-2008, 08:13 PM
We were this close, THIS CLOSE to finally getting the rebuild this team has needed for more than a decade....

THIS CLOSE to finally at least TRYING to develop a young QB...

But you know what, judging by all those annoying phone calls I am getting, they aren't selling too many tickets, and you know what the only thing Carl cares about is.

It's as good as done.

Kansas City must have been the site of a satanist temple or something because there's no way we deserve to have our hopes turn into a pillar of salt year in and year out. Except lately it doesn't even take until training camp starts.

crazycoffey
07-11-2008, 08:14 PM
someone remind brett how this negotiating tactic worked out for Barry Sanders....

OnTheWarpath58
07-11-2008, 08:15 PM
Favre can't come here.

Tyler Thigpen already wears #4.

crazycoffey
07-11-2008, 08:21 PM
Are you guys insane?
...... I think too many people around here think that "rebuilding" means that you have to try and suck.

yes there are many insane people here.
"rebuilding" also must mean we can't have a look at any veteran players, apparently....

DaneMcCloud
07-11-2008, 08:24 PM
We were this close, THIS CLOSE to finally getting the rebuild this team has needed for more than a decade....

THIS CLOSE to finally at least TRYING to develop a young QB...

But you know what, judging by all those annoying phone calls I am getting, they aren't selling too many tickets, and you know what the only thing Carl cares about is.

It's as good as done.

Kansas City must have been the site of a satanist temple or something because there's no way we deserve to have our hopes turn into a pillar of salt year in and year out. Except lately it doesn't even take until training camp starts.

In 1993, the Chiefs had a nucleus of young players. Will Shields, Dave Szott, Derrick Thomas, Tim Grunhard, Willie Davis and Neil Smith. Should the Chiefs have not traded for Joe Montana and just started Matt Blundin, because the team was rebuilding?

One player, especially a HOF QB who was in the NFC Championship game in January and put up career numbers, won't stop the rebuild.

But he may take the team much further than anyone could anticipate.

Much like Joe Montana in 1993.

BigRock
07-11-2008, 08:25 PM
Favre can't come here.

Tyler Thigpen already wears #4.

THREAD OVER

Skip Towne
07-11-2008, 08:25 PM
someone remind brett how this negotiating tactic worked out for Barry Sanders....

Sanders tried to come back?

crazycoffey
07-11-2008, 08:31 PM
Sanders tried to come back?


yes, he asked if he could be released from the lions after he retired, IIRC...

OnTheWarpath58
07-11-2008, 08:32 PM
yes, he asked if he could be released from the lions after he retired, IIRC...

Are you at the lake?

Or here in town?

crazycoffey
07-11-2008, 08:34 PM
Are you at the lake?

Or here in town?


I'm back. Have drill tomorrow (and Sunday) and then work at the bar tomorrow night 530.
thinking about going up to see JR at CJ's if a few, if you need a shot to help you sleep:evil:

Spott
07-11-2008, 08:35 PM
I think Favre would rather work as that guy who picks up dead animals off the road than being a QB behind our OL.

OnTheWarpath58
07-11-2008, 08:38 PM
I'm back. Have drill tomorrow (and Sunday) and then work at the bar tomorrow night 530.
thinking about going up to see JR at CJ's if a few, if you need a shot to help you sleep:evil:


What time does your shift end tomorrow night?

The wife and I may come up for dinner...

crazycoffey
07-11-2008, 08:40 PM
What time does your shift end tomorrow night?

The wife and I may come up for dinner...


I don't know, last week I was the first off and only stayed on the clock for 2 hours, this sat should be better than the 5th, probably be on the door until 1030 or 1130 if the band is good, but that's going to be the latest I'm sure.

come on up, stay if the band sounds good and I'll join you when I get done. Maybe JR can come up too, if you and the Mrs. don't mind....

little jacob
07-11-2008, 08:42 PM
I think Favre would rather work as that guy who picks up dead animals off the road than being a QB behind our OL.

rather than someone picking his dead carcass up from behind our line I guess. hah.


maybe i overreacted a little bit earlier, but i still think this is the wrong decision for a forward looking franchise.

this team has nothing in common with the chiefs in 92 or 93, we don't have a nucleus of great young players, we don't have a suffocating defense with pro bowlers all over the place. we had the most atrocious offense in the league last year and we had a bottom third defense... marginal at best.

not the right decision

OnTheWarpath58
07-11-2008, 08:43 PM
I don't know, last week I was the first off and only stayed on the clock for 2 hours, this sat should be better than the 5th, probably be on the door until 1030 or 1130 if the band is good, but that's going to be the latest I'm sure.

come on up, stay if the band sounds good and I'll join you when I get done. Maybe JR can come up too, if you and the Mrs. don't mind....

Sounds good, if I can talk her into staying out that late...

LMAO

crazycoffey
07-11-2008, 08:46 PM
rather than someone picking his dead carcass up from behind our line I guess. hah.


maybe i overreacted a little bit earlier, but i still think this is the wrong decision for a forward looking franchise.

this team has nothing in common with the chiefs in 92 or 93, we don't have a nucleus of great young players, we don't have a suffocating defense with pro bowlers all over the place. we had the most atrocious offense in the league last year and we had a bottom third defense... marginal at best.

not the right decision


hindsight is always 20/20, could the same thing be said back then of the young players in 92/93 that ended up being great? How do we know that this team doesn't compare to that team?

End of the day, Brett could have more positive than negative to offer ANY team he went to, if he comes back. If we got him and it made sense financially and/or pick compensation wise, I'd be all for it. Why not?

I suppose you wouldn't want to play a gym Basketball pick up game with Michael Jordan because he's lost a step or two?

crazycoffey
07-11-2008, 08:48 PM
Sounds good, if I can talk her into staying out that late...

LMAO


Alright, work your magic!
or just bribe her, I guess.... :)

hey, BTW, we talked about taking you up on your offer this friday, but the week was quick with the trip to the lake and she had to work tonight. We are going to come over soon though, mark it down.

little jacob
07-11-2008, 08:50 PM
hindsight is always 20/20, could the same thing be said back then of the young players in 92/93 that ended up being great? How do we know that this team doesn't compare to that team?

End of the day, Brett could have more positive than negative to offer ANY team he went to, if he comes back. If we got him and it made sense financially and/or pick compensation wise, I'd be all for it. Why not?

I suppose you wouldn't want to play a gym Basketball pick up game with Michael Jordan because he's lost a step or two?

i still say all that assuming favre will play at a high level like last year, and not like the two years before that.

and i wouldn't sign michael jordan to an NBA team that I owned, today.

the only scenario I guess is if I'm carl peterson and i'm positive that croyle is not the guy for the future, and we only didn't draft a qb because there wasn't one that presented value we liked during the draft, and we plan on going another direction after this year already.

but i still don't like it...croyle hasn't been put in a position to succeed yet. we ought to at least give him this season behind a supposedly improved offensive line.

crazycoffey
07-11-2008, 08:55 PM
i still say all that assuming favre will play at a high level like last year, and not like the two years before that.

and i wouldn't sign michael jordan to an NBA team that I owned, today.

the only scenario I guess is if I'm carl peterson and i'm positive that croyle is not the guy for the future, and we only didn't draft a qb because there wasn't one that presented value we liked during the draft, and we plan on going another direction after this year already.

but i still don't like it...croyle hasn't been put in a position to succeed yet. we ought to at least give him this season behind a supposedly improved offensive line.

I guess I'm saying, that Brodie can learn from Brett, and who says brett starts the whole year? Plus the line has to learn to be good, tell me they wouldn't be stroked to block for Brett, that's a good learning curve.

I want Brodie to start, and find out if he's good, I guess having this scenerio would change that a little, but I also don't think that hurts his development. How can he feel bad about being benched for Brett? Last year he was put behind Huard, that hurts....

little jacob
07-11-2008, 09:00 PM
I guess I'm saying, that Brodie can learn from Brett, and who says brett starts the whole year? Plus the line has to learn to be good, tell me they wouldn't be stroked to block for Brett, that's a good learning curve.

I want Brodie to start, and find out if he's good, I guess having this scenerio would change that a little, but I also don't think that hurts his development. How can he feel bad about being benched for Brett? Last year he was put behind Huard, that hurts....

they wouldn't bring favre in to hold a clipboard... he wouldn't come here for that either i don't think.

we want him to not play afraid, like there's someone right behind him itching to put their helmet on. we need to tell croyle, the job is yours for this whole season, now go out there and win football games.

crazycoffey
07-11-2008, 09:04 PM
they wouldn't bring favre in to hold a clipboard... he wouldn't come here for that either i don't think.

we want him to not play afraid, like there's someone right behind him itching to put their helmet on. we need to tell croyle, the job is yours for this whole season, now go out there and win football games.

I wasn't saying to hold a clipboard, but if the season is tanking, he wouldn't keep starting, IMO. training, film room time, field experience - telling Brodie what was happening the way he saw it, that would be the experience for BC. that's all worse case scenerio. Best case it's a repeat of experience and youth gelling to make a playoff contender like with Joe.

how does this overall positive not outweigh any negatives? Provided, of course that we aren't overpaying for this experience...

jjchieffan
07-11-2008, 09:25 PM
Just so you guys know the Green Bay reporter dude that was on ESPN news things he's coming here...


I won't believe it until I hear it from WPI. I bet Claythan will be saying, we knew about this weeks ago. This is the shocking news Nick Athan was talking about.LMAO

Baconeater
07-11-2008, 09:27 PM
I wasn't saying to hold a clipboard, but if the season is tanking, he wouldn't keep starting, IMO. training, film room time, field experience - telling Brodie what was happening the way he saw it, that would be the experience for BC. that's all worse case scenerio. Best case it's a repeat of experience and youth gelling to make a playoff contender like with Joe.

how does this overall positive not outweigh any negatives? Provided, of course that we aren't overpaying for this experience...

Favre isn't going to come back to be a mentor either.

blueballs
07-11-2008, 09:33 PM
Favre won't be able to keep his mouth shut
he can only walk on the water in Green Bay
he's closer to cancer than mentor

dirk digler
07-11-2008, 09:45 PM
There is no way in hell Favre would come here and play. If he is going to go somewhere it would be to a team that was really close to going to the SB.

crazycoffey
07-11-2008, 09:45 PM
There is no way in hell Favre would come here and play. If he is going to go somewhere it would be to a team that was really close to going to the SB.


exactly, this whole thread is MOOT!!!!11!!

dirk digler
07-11-2008, 09:48 PM
exactly, this whole thread is MOOT!!!!11!!

It appears the Vikes are his top choice and the Packers can't do much about it if they release him. If he did join the Vikes I might have to reconsider about going up to River Falls this year, I hadn't planned on going.

Baconeater
07-11-2008, 09:49 PM
There is no way in hell Favre would come here and play. If he is going to go somewhere it would be to a team that was really close to going to the SB.
I agree, I can't see him going somewhere to just have a mediocre season, and that's what is going to make this interesting, the teams that appear that QB is the only missing piece are in GB's division.

RedNeckRaider
07-11-2008, 09:54 PM
I agree, I can't see him going somewhere to just have a mediocre season, and that's what is going to make this interesting, the teams that appear that QB is the only missing piece are in GB's division.

No way they let him go to the Vikings

crazycoffey
07-11-2008, 09:55 PM
If he plays anywhere besides GB, it will be from a trade, not a release, so sorry for you vikes fans....

Baconeater
07-11-2008, 10:00 PM
If he plays anywhere besides GB, it will be from a trade, not a release, so sorry for you vikes fans....

Yeah, there's no way they'll let that happen, but either them or the Bears seems to make the most sense. From what I've heard IF Green Bay trades him it will be only to an AFC team, and I can't think of one that would be a solid candidate.

DT58HOF
07-11-2008, 10:09 PM
We need a stopgap before we draft Tebow!!!!!!!

thats not what we need, a college QB that will be a backup for a few years and by year 6 out of the league or playing DB, no i think i'll pass on Tebow!

crazycoffey
07-11-2008, 10:09 PM
Yeah, there's no way they'll let that happen, but either them or the Bears seems to make the most sense. From what I've heard IF Green Bay trades him it will be only to an AFC team, and I can't think of one that would be a solid candidate.


that's where the speculation of us came in.....

Guru
07-11-2008, 10:17 PM
Damn, what an idiot!!! Doesn't he realize he is the coverboy for Madden this year?

Baconeater
07-11-2008, 10:18 PM
that's where the speculation of us came in.....
Well, start ****ing speculating then!

crazycoffey
07-11-2008, 10:19 PM
Well, start ****ing speculating then!


well, I'm already done now....

Mecca
07-12-2008, 12:22 AM
The thing is he'd play for GB, he's just trying to force their hand because their GM is basically refusing to talk to him.

Pablo
07-12-2008, 12:53 AM
Haha..it would be pretty ignorant, and comical if he came here. Just imagine all the Chiefs fans wearing a Favre jersey to the game, because "GB's always been my second favorite team".

KcMizzou
07-12-2008, 01:08 AM
Haha..it would be pretty ignorant, and comical if he came here. Just imagine all the Chiefs fans wearing a Favre jersey to the game, because "GB's always been my second favorite team".**groan**

Guru
07-12-2008, 01:14 AM
Haha..it would be pretty ignorant, and comical if he came here. Just imagine all the Chiefs fans wearing a Favre jersey to the game, because "GB's always been my second favorite team".

Carl? Is that you?

Smed1065
07-12-2008, 01:14 AM
Haha..it would be pretty ignorant, and comical if he came here. Just imagine all the Chiefs fans wearing a Favre jersey to the game, because "GB's always been my second favorite team".

Until last year, anyway.

:p

SBK
07-12-2008, 01:35 AM
Perhaps we could trade for him then gouge the piss out of the Vikings for him?

When I first read this I was 100% against the idea of signing him, but, I could see how it would be a good thing too.

Chiefs Pantalones
07-12-2008, 01:41 AM
With LJ, the rebuilt offensive line, Tony Gonzalez & Dwayne Bowe and Chan Gailey, I'd say that Brett Favre would instantly catapult the Chiefs into contenders, at least for the division title, if not more.

I know that's not popular around here because everyone seems to think that rebuilding means excessive losses while playing young players across the board, but I'd welcome him in a heartbeat.

What Brodie Croyle would learn behind Brett Favre would be invaluable. And maybe some of Favre's invincibility would rub off on Croyle.

He certainly needs something to help him make it through a season uninjured.

Couldn't agree more. Nice post, DMC! :toast:

beach tribe
07-12-2008, 02:04 AM
Just so you guys know the Green Bay reporter dude that was on ESPN news things he's coming here...

I have never been the one to audaciously say that that this event, or that event, certainly will, or won't happen, but I can say this......Brett Farve will NEVER take a snap, as the starting QB, for the Chiefs.

You know this as well.

You are a very knowledgeable guy............and quite the parasite of the less enlightened.

beach tribe
07-12-2008, 02:16 AM
Couldn't agree more. Nice post, DMC! :toast:

Holy Shit. I guess I should have read on before replying to an old post.(I'm Drunk)

If you think that this team will benefit AT ALL from BF taking Brodie's snaps so we can go 10- 6. Then jump the **** off the rebuild train.

WHAT? Players learn from playing. Not from riding pine.
That's why Brett won't be playing for the packers this year.

They are a young team moving forward. Trying to build a champion.

I believe, and for god sake, pray, that we are as smart as they are.

I have always hated Herm, until I saw what he was doing here. Yea, he's a gameday moron, and I think his player evaluation skills, are overestimated, but he's trying to build this team, the way that the CHAMPIONS are built, and for that he earns my respect. Brett farve sets this team back. Period.

DaneMcCloud
07-12-2008, 02:21 AM
Holy Shit. I guess I should have read on before replying to an old post.(I'm Drunk)

Rebuilding doesn't mean that the Chiefs are automatically reduced to expansion franchise status.

The Chiefs are in rebuild mode though one player (a HOF player at that) won't change the fact that they are rebuilding.

And I'd really like ONE ****ING PERSON to tell me why Brodie Croyle deserves to be the UNCHALLENGED QB of the Chiefs.

Because IMO, he hasn't earned that right.

Or is it just because he's young? If so, that's a pitiful way to run a franchise. Rebuild or not.

beach tribe
07-12-2008, 02:34 AM
Rebuilding doesn't mean that the Chiefs are automatically reduced to expansion franchise status.

The Chiefs are in rebuild mode though one player (a HOF player at that) won't change the fact that they are rebuilding.

And I'd really like ONE ****ING PERSON to tell me why Brodie Croyle deserves to be the UNCHALLENGED QB of the Chiefs.

Because IMO, he hasn't earned that right.

Or is it just because he's young? If so, that's a pitiful way to run a franchise. Rebuild or not.

No Dane, is does not mean we are completely hopeless, but if you think that 1 player puts us in contention for the SB, you are sadly mistaken.

Brodie has earned shit, but what happens after we go 10-6 with Brett for 1 or 2 more years? Do we then see if Brodie can play? Or do we search for a QB a season or two LATER, in turn, setting us back 1 to three seasons, later putting us in the same position we are in right now?
Have we not done that shit for 20 yrs?

pikesome
07-12-2008, 05:23 AM
No Dane, is does not mean we are completely hopeless, but if you think that 1 player puts us in contention for the SB, you are sadly mistaken.

Brodie has earned shit, but what happens after we go 10-6 with Brett for 1 or 2 more years? Do we then see if Brodie can play? Or do we search for a QB a season or two LATER, in turn, setting us back 1 to three seasons, later putting us in the same position we are in right now?
Have we not done that shit for 20 yrs?

:thumb:
What I wanted to say with out all the expletives that kept finding there way in to my post.

Getting Farve = What we've been doing.

And that sucks.

cardken
07-12-2008, 05:36 AM
Get Farve in a trade from Packers, then immediately trade him for Jarad Allen back from Minnesota everybody gets what they want.LMAO Kidding of course.

cardken
07-12-2008, 06:10 AM
No way are the Packers going to let him walk ,they will trade him and only to an AFC team. Minnesota would be the obvious best choice for Farve as that is the one position they are weak at and the offense could'nt be any easier because as of right now it's set up for Tamarus Jackson, he's horrible and basicly a Rookie. I have mixed felings about a K.C. /Farve deal. I would do it for no more than a 3rd round pick for next two years, and only a two year deal. As the Chiefs organization has to move forward with it's rebuild. Croyle is probaly not the QBOTF for the Chiefs and the organizations faith in that will be reflected if they do sign Farve. That being said, maybe Croyle could learn from Farve, not that Farve is coming to be a mentor, but he may observe a little more from watching Farve vs. watching Huard. And in that time maybe the Chiefs would stumble across a better QBOTF option in the future two drafts? I hate that Arowhead has become the "Tar Pits" for Aging QB's to get there last "hoorahs", but it might bring about some wins and experiance for a very young roster, losses are demoralizing for young players and their fans. An "improved" offensive line, Larry Johnson in the backfield, Dwyane Bowe as a number 1 target, and an experianced TE in T. Gong, might surprise a few people.

the Talking Can
07-12-2008, 06:42 AM
let's go 8-8 with Bret!!

woo-hoo!!

milkman
07-12-2008, 07:45 AM
In 1993, the Chiefs had a nucleus of young players. Will Shields, Dave Szott, Derrick Thomas, Tim Grunhard, Willie Davis and Neil Smith. Should the Chiefs have not traded for Joe Montana and just started Matt Blundin, because the team was rebuilding?

One player, especially a HOF QB who was in the NFC Championship game in January and put up career numbers, won't stop the rebuild.

But he may take the team much further than anyone could anticipate.

Much like Joe Montana in 1993.

I would rather have signed Steve Buerlein than trade for Joe Montana in that offseason.

Like you said, there was a nucleus of young players, but Joe Montan only had two years left.

We ended up looking for a QB for years after Montana retired.

Buerlein wasn't a great QB, but he was better than GrBac an Bono.
He wouldn't have lead the team to the '93 AFC Championship, but he would have done more with that '95 and '97 teams.

I will always believe that trading for Montana was shortsighted and a longterm mistake.

milkman
07-12-2008, 07:50 AM
i still say all that assuming favre will play at a high level like last year, and not like the two years before that.

I guess it's just an amazing coincidence that Favre sucked in the two previous years when his O-Line sucked, and his level of play jumped up when an overall young O-Line came together and gelled last year.

milkman
07-12-2008, 07:58 AM
If we were close to big things I'd love to have him as our QB. I'd rather have Croyle get killed behind our line than one of the greats like Favre. Plus, I want all to see as to how terrible Croyle is, and be done with it after this season and draft a QB high.

I hope Favre gets a chance to get revenge against his soon-to-be former team.

Yeah, you want everyone to see just how terrible Croyle is, because you are a freakin' genious(cps) that already knows.

I don't know if Croyle is going to be good, mediocre, or just suck ass.

What I do know is that no one can know, and anyone that claims they do is a dumbass.

milkman
07-12-2008, 08:00 AM
Number 12,567 thing I wish Mecca was wrong about.

Just for shits and giggles, can you list the other 12,566 things?

milkman
07-12-2008, 08:02 AM
Personally I would rather Favre stay with the Pack, and trade for Rogers if/when he demands a trade cause he wants a chance to play.

RedNeckRaider
07-12-2008, 08:19 AM
Personally I would rather Favre stay with the Pack, and trade for Rogers if/when he demands a trade cause he wants a chance to play.

You know that kid has a picture of Favre on the wall of his garage with several darts stuck in it LMAO

BigRedChief
07-12-2008, 08:35 AM
I would rather have signed Steve Buerlein than trade for Joe Montana in that offseason.

I will always believe that trading for Montana was shortsighted and a longterm mistake.
You are frikking nuts. 60% of Montana was better then Buerlein. Remind me what Steve did?

We had the best QB of all time on our team and I firmly and always will believe that if he didn't get hurt in Buffalo we would have won the Super Bowl that year.

Buehler445
07-12-2008, 09:06 AM
Count me as NOT on the Favre bandwagon. I can't believe how many people are.

milkman
07-12-2008, 09:14 AM
You are frikking nuts. 60% of Montana was better then Buerlein. Remind me what Steve did?

We had the best QB of all time on our team and I firmly and always will believe that if he didn't get hurt in Buffalo we would have won the Super Bowl that year.

I didn't say that Buerlein was as good as Montana.

But he was far younger, and he did have some good seasons with Carolina.
He could have been the starter for years.
Trading for Montana mean't we had a good QB for two years, and crap for the next 8.

And, it doesn't really make one damn bit of difference what you believe.
I believe that Buffalo was one of the best teams in the league at that time at holding a lead late in games, and don't believe that we would have won, and it doesn't make one damn bit of difference what I believe.

What happened, happened.

Hell, trading for a QB that was aging and coming off of serious injury, we should have expected to see him get injured, and should be surprised that he held up as long as he did.

milkman
07-12-2008, 09:16 AM
You know that kid has a picture of Favre on the wall of his garage with several darts stuck in it LMAO


He probably has a pic in his toilet bowl.

King_Chief_Fan
07-12-2008, 09:16 AM
Count me as NOT on the Favre bandwagon. I can't believe how many people are.

I agree

I doubt KC is on Favre's radar. That may cause him to stay retired.

the Talking Can
07-12-2008, 09:25 AM
Personally I would rather Favre stay with the Pack, and trade for Rogers if/when he demands a trade cause he wants a chance to play.

amen brother


you have the force

blueballs
07-12-2008, 09:35 AM
Count me as NOT on the Favre bandwagon. I can't believe how many people are.


So much for this place letting the young learn on the job
game days will be overflowing with stupid all season long
-nothing will change just more of it

Mecca
07-12-2008, 10:33 AM
It's not so much Favre that bothers me, it's giving up picks in rebuilding...if you do this you fully acknowledge that you are also drafting a QB high next year because you believe Croyle is nothing more than a backup and you have Favre for likely 2 years at best.

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 10:37 AM
It's not so much Favre that bothers me, it's giving up picks in rebuilding...


Exactly.

We should be looking to stockpile picks like we did this past offseason.

Another 10-12 picks should be the goal by April 2009.

Mecca
07-12-2008, 10:39 AM
Exactly.

We should be looking to stockpile picks like we did this past offseason.

Another 10-12 picks should be the goal by April 2009.

If you can tell me how that's remotely possible, I'd love to know.

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 10:44 AM
If you can tell me how that's remotely possible, I'd love to know.

Well, we already have 8.

One in each round, plus the pick Tampa still owes us.

12 is probably a bit optimistic, but we could get to 10.

Mecca
07-12-2008, 10:48 AM
I don't really think we have anything to trade, unless you're big on 6th and 7th round picks, about the only other option to getting more picks is going to be trading down in the draft which if this team does have a top 3 pick will be very difficult.

milkman
07-12-2008, 10:51 AM
Well, we already have 8.

One in each round, plus the pick Tampa still owes us.

12 is probably a bit optimistic, but we could get to 10.

We've managed to trade some stiffs in the past to get some low round draft picks.

Ron Edwards would be a good candidate this season if anyone has a need for a stiff in the middle of their defense.

I'm guessing we're holding on to Wesley in hopes that someone during TC or preseason decides they have a need there.

DaneMcCloud
07-12-2008, 11:04 AM
I would rather have signed Steve Buerlein than trade for Joe Montana in that offseason.

Like you said, there was a nucleus of young players, but Joe Montan only had two years left.

We ended up looking for a QB for years after Montana retired.

Buerlein wasn't a great QB, but he was better than GrBac an Bono.
He wouldn't have lead the team to the '93 AFC Championship, but he would have done more with that '95 and '97 teams.

I will always believe that trading for Montana was shortsighted and a longterm mistake.

I get that. Totally.

But my point in this thread is that while the Chiefs are rebuilding, having Brett Favre certainly can't hurt the Chiefs and it certainly won't stop this team from acquiring young players in the 2009 draft.

The only person it affects is Brodie Croyle and let's be realistic: Croyle doesn't bring to the field what Favre could bring. And this team has enough talent now that with Favre at QB, they could surprise us all.

But I don't think it's gonna happen. It's just fun to discuss.

little jacob
07-12-2008, 11:06 AM
amen brother


you have the force

yeah, definitely. if we need more help at qb let's get their promising young talent not their gray-haired castoff

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 11:13 AM
We've managed to trade some stiffs in the past to get some low round draft picks.

Ron Edwards would be a good candidate this season if anyone has a need for a stiff in the middle of their defense.

I'm guessing we're holding on to Wesley in hopes that someone during TC or preseason decides they have a need there.

Edwards and Wesley were the guys that came to mind for me as well.

And call me crazy, but depending on how certain guys perform in camp, I wouldn't be shocked to see Nap Harris or Surtain moved to a desperate team.

dirk digler
07-12-2008, 11:27 AM
I agree, I can't see him going somewhere to just have a mediocre season, and that's what is going to make this interesting, the teams that appear that QB is the only missing piece are in GB's division.

Yep and the Vikes are the perfect fit.

Mecca
07-12-2008, 11:29 AM
Yep and the Vikes are the perfect fit.

No way in hell they allow him to end up there....

dirk digler
07-12-2008, 11:31 AM
No way in hell they allow him to end up there....

They can't do anything about it. If they release him he is fair game and no team is going to trade for him so the choices are play him, sit him on the bench, or release him.

milkman
07-12-2008, 11:32 AM
I get that. Totally.

But my point in this thread is that while the Chiefs are rebuilding, having Brett Favre certainly can't hurt the Chiefs and it certainly won't stop this team from acquiring young players in the 2009 draft.

The only person it affects is Brodie Croyle and let's be realistic: Croyle doesn't bring to the field what Favre could bring. And this team has enough talent now that with Favre at QB, they could surprise us all.

But I don't think it's gonna happen. It's just fun to discuss.

But it does hurt.

If Favre came to KC, we still won't know what Croyle might be capable of.

We can all sit here and speculate and opine, but until we see Croyle behind a credible line with a decent running game, speculation and opinion is all it is.

So, in a year or two, when this team is ready to compete, we won't know if we have a QB that can lead us.

Mecca
07-12-2008, 11:33 AM
They can't do anything about it. If they release him he is fair game and no team is going to trade for him so the choices are play him, sit him on the bench, or release him.

I don't believe there is any way they just release him.

milkman
07-12-2008, 11:34 AM
Edwards and Wesley were the guys that came to mind for me as well.

And call me crazy, but depending on how certain guys perform in camp, I wouldn't be shocked to see Nap Harris or Surtain moved to a desperate team.

I can see Harris, but unless someone other than Flowers and Carr (if they even do) steps up, then I can't see the Chiefs moving Surtain.

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 11:35 AM
They can't do anything about it. If they release him he is fair game and no team is going to trade for him so the choices are play him, sit him on the bench, or release him.


They won't outright release him.

Period.

The ONLY way the Packers release him is if there is a signed agreement in place that prohibits him from signing with Minnesota.

And honestly, I'm not even sure the players union would allow that...

dirk digler
07-12-2008, 11:36 AM
They won't outright release him.

Period.

The ONLY way the Packers release him is if there is a signed agreement in place that prohibits him from signing with Minnesota.

And honestly, I'm not even sure the players union would allow that...

Nope they can't it is against the CBA so the Packers are in a very tough spot here.

DeezNutz
07-12-2008, 11:36 AM
Personally I would rather Favre stay with the Pack, and trade for Rogers if/when he demands a trade cause he wants a chance to play.

I would welcome this.

Sully
07-12-2008, 11:44 AM
A) Not gonna happen.
B) I don't want it to happen. Even with Favre, we are not a Super Bowl team, which is what we should be building toward. Could we sneak into a playoff spot, and maybe even win a game? Yeah. But what about next year. We will have shit another possible good draft pick down our leg, and postponed one more year finding out if Croyle is good or not (I don't think he's going to be good enough).
C) I love Favre. He was always fun to watch. But I loved Michael Jordan, too... and it was sad to see him drag his career out too long. Walk away, Brett. You are a Hall of Famer, you own Green Bay, you are an icon. Don't tarnish that.

chiefs1111
07-12-2008, 11:45 AM
Well just came across espn news that the Packers said they will not grant Brett Farve his request to be released

Buehler445
07-12-2008, 11:53 AM
Edwards and Wesley were the guys that came to mind for me as well.

And call me crazy, but depending on how certain guys perform in camp, I wouldn't be shocked to see Nap Harris or Surtain moved to a desperate team.

I think everyone that wants Wesley knows we are releasing him. I don't think we can get much out of Edwards, but whatever it is, sign my ass up, I want it.

Who were you thinking would have to step up to move Harris?

I was kinda hoping we could move Pollard if Morgan steps up and we could get some nice picks for him, but I guess we'll have to see.

The only other candidate for movement would maybe be Brian Waters if he starts to decline, but I seriously doubt that one.

I'd like to move Surtain, but given the youth, I doubt it, unless someone younger gets cut and we pick him up to compete.

Buck
07-12-2008, 12:14 PM
Im a lazy ****, so Im not reading the thread.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3484473

Packers GM, coach say team won't release Favre despite request

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- The Green Bay Packers' general manager and coach say they don't plan to grant Brett Favre's request for his release.

GM Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy told The Associated Press on Saturday that the star quarterback was welcome to rejoin the team but would have to be a backup.

It was their first public comments since Favre demanded his release this week. Favre held a tearful news conference to announce his retirement March 6.

Thompson and McCarthy did not want to discuss a possible trade. Thompson said he had not received any inquiries as of Saturday morning.

On Friday, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported Favre had requested an unconditional release from the Packers via letter, seeking an amicable parting, attributing sources close to the player and team.

Neither Thompson nor McCarthy had expressed optimism Tuesday concerning a possible return during a conference call with Favre and his agent, James Cook, according to the sources.

Favre, who was placed on the reserve-retired list in late April, has three years and $39 million left on his contract with the Packers.

To be reinstated, Favre must apply to commisssioner Roger Goodell. That would force the Packers to activate the 16-year veteran.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

milkman
07-12-2008, 12:25 PM
I think everyone that wants Wesley knows we are releasing him. I don't think we can get much out of Edwards, but whatever it is, sign my ass up, I want it.

Who were you thinking would have to step up to move Harris?

I was kinda hoping we could move Pollard if Morgan steps up and we could get some nice picks for him, but I guess we'll have to see.

The only other candidate for movement would maybe be Brian Waters if he starts to decline, but I seriously doubt that one.

I'd like to move Surtain, but given the youth, I doubt it, unless someone younger gets cut and we pick him up to compete.

Reports from OTAs was that Pat Thomas was pushing Harris.

dirk digler
07-12-2008, 12:30 PM
If I was Favre I would show up and be a backup and get paid $12 million this year. That is not a bad gig.

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 12:31 PM
Reports from OTAs was that Pat Thomas was pushing Harris.

:clap:

PBJ

:toast:

:grovel:

:rockon:

DaneMcCloud
07-12-2008, 12:33 PM
But it does hurt.

If Favre came to KC, we still won't know what Croyle might be capable of.

We can all sit here and speculate and opine, but until we see Croyle behind a credible line with a decent running game, speculation and opinion is all it is.

So, in a year or two, when this team is ready to compete, we won't know if we have a QB that can lead us.

While that may be true, if Croyle turns out to be another Matt Blundin, then the Chiefs could miss an opportunity to compete much sooner, rather than wasting 2 years of TG & LJ.

I'm just playing devil's advocate.

milkman
07-12-2008, 12:48 PM
While that may be true, if Croyle turns out to be another Matt Blundin, then the Chiefs could miss an opportunity to compete much sooner, rather than wasting 2 years of TG & LJ.

I'm just playing devil's advocate.

In the end, I don't expect either to be a part of this team when the Chiefs are ready to compete, so we're essentially wasting them for two years anyway.

We need to find out now if Croyle is our QB.

If we wait for two years, then we could theoretically be at least 5 years away from getting a QB that could be the final piece to an actual SB contender.

All we are really doing if we were to acquire Favre is making a push back to mediocrity.

We've done mediocrity, thank you.

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 12:48 PM
While that may be true, if Croyle turns out to be another Matt Blundin, then the Chiefs could miss an opportunity to compete much sooner, rather than wasting 2 years of TG & LJ.

I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Yeah, another 2 years would suck, when you consider we've already wasted 11 and 5 seasons respectively of Tony and LJ.

:p


The key word in your post is "compete."

**** competing. I want a CHAMPIONSHIP.

Brett Favre is one of my all-time favorite players in NFL history, but he's not the missing piece for a Lombardi Trophy in the next 2 years.

If you want to go 8-8 this year, then maybe 9-7 or 10-6 in 2009 - make the playoffs and get crushed by Indy, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, SD, etc - then by all means - we should make a run at getting Favre.

Then, in 2010, we have to start this shit ALL OVER AGAIN.

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 12:49 PM
In the end, I don't expect either to be a part of this team when the Chiefs are ready to compete, so we're essentially wasting them for two years anyway.

We need to find out now if Croyle is our QB.

If we wait for two years, then we could theoretically be at least 5 years away from getting a QB that could be the final piece to an actual SB contender.

All we are really doing if we were to acquire Favre is making a push back to mediocrity.

We've done mediocrity, thank you.

FFS, we do this a LOT. And I'm always the one that posts 2nd.

:banghead:

DaneMcCloud
07-12-2008, 01:10 PM
Yeah, another 2 years would suck, when you consider we've already wasted 11 and 5 seasons respectively of Tony and LJ.

:p


The key word in your post is "compete."

**** competing. I want a CHAMPIONSHIP.

Brett Favre is one of my all-time favorite players in NFL history, but he's not the missing piece for a Lombardi Trophy in the next 2 years.

If you want to go 8-8 this year, then maybe 9-7 or 10-6 in 2009 - make the playoffs and get crushed by Indy, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, SD, etc - then by all means - we should make a run at getting Favre.

Then, in 2010, we have to start this shit ALL OVER AGAIN.

No offense but it seems that too many people around here equate rebuilding with not only losing but with "grooming" a QB.

While it would be "nice" if KC could draft a successful Super Bowl winning QB, I think it would be a major mistake (much like Baltimore) to have every other piece in place BUT a QB, yet insist on drafting and "grooming" one (i.e., Kyle Boller).

If this team is built correctly (offensive line, defensive line, RB and perimeter players) but the QB isn't on the roster, go grab one in free-agency.

It's not a crime to compete.

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 01:13 PM
No offense but it seems that too many people around here equate rebuilding with not only losing but with "grooming" a QB.

While it would be "nice" if KC could draft a successful Super Bowl winning QB, I think it would be a major mistake (much like Baltimore) to have every other piece in place BUT a QB, yet insist on drafting and "grooming" one (i.e., Kyle Boller).

If this team is built correctly (offensive line, defensive line, RB and perimeter players) but the QB isn't on the roster, go grab one in free-agency.

It's not a crime to compete.

No one is saying that it is.

But to think that this team will legitimately compete with or without a stud QB is insane.

Now, I do agree that IF, in several years, all the pieces of the puzzle are in place except the QB, then you go out and get one.

But now is not the time, IMO.

Subterranean Alien
07-12-2008, 01:17 PM
Favre can't play forever, so I don't blame GB for moving on. However, their aloofness(?) about one of the best quarterbacks ever is pretty uncomfortable. What a media storm. I'm sure the Packers are loving that mess.

DaneMcCloud
07-12-2008, 01:20 PM
No one is saying that it is.

But to think that this team will legitimately compete with or without a stud QB is insane.

Now, I do agree that IF, in several years, all the pieces of the puzzle are in place except the QB, then you go out and get one.

But now is not the time, IMO.

Any run of the mill QB? No way. Not now.

Brett Favre? I certainly think it would be worthwhile, with a roster that includes a healthy LJ, D-Bowe, TG, Brian Waters & Brandon Albert.

If you'll recall, the Chiefs of 1993 didn't exactly have a world-beater at left or right tackle. But they did have solid players in Grunhard, Szott & rookie Will Shields. Our current WR corp is much stronger than in '93, as our the RB and TE.

All I'm saying here is that if there's an opportunity for Brett Favre to play for the Chiefs the next two seasons at a reasonable price (i.e. draft choices or possibly free-agency), I think there's enough talent on this roster to compete and possibly surprise. The AFCW, outside of the Chargers, is not strong.

And personally, I think it would be fun to see what Favre could bring to the Chiefs and would rather "waste" two years with him than "waste" two years with Croyle (who personally hasn't shown me the ability to compete at a high level or stay healthy - offensive line issues aside).

Bash away, sports fans! :evil:

RustShack
07-12-2008, 01:37 PM
Tell the Giants and Steelers you have to go into the playoffs as the #1 team to win it all.

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 02:47 PM
Tell the Giants and Steelers you have to go into the playoffs as the #1 team to win it all.

No, but you have to at least be the 6th in your Conference, and the addition of Favre, and Favre alone, doesn't make this team one of the Top 6 that make the playoffs, IMO.

In 2005 and 2006, with no offensive line, Favre threw for a combined 38 TD's and 47 INT's.

He had the lowest completion percentage of his career in 2006. (56%)

IMO, there's a direct correlation between those stats and the poor OL play - something that he'd be dealing with in KC as well.

Tribal Warfare
07-12-2008, 03:03 PM
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJ4dh7TkvXFMpdKZU9rITbou7jtwD91SELTG0


GM, coach: Packers don't plan to release Favre

By CHRIS JENKINS 3 hours ago

GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) The Green Bay Packers' general manager and coach say they don't plan to grant Brett Favre's request for his release.

GM Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy told The Associated Press on Saturday that the star quarterback was welcome to rejoin the team but would have to be a backup.

It was their first public comments since Favre demanded his release this week. Favre held a tearful news conference to announce his retirement March 6.

Thompson and McCarthy did not want to discuss a possible trade. Thompson said he had not received any inquiries as of Saturday morning.

blueballs
07-12-2008, 03:07 PM
C'mon Dan Snyder
Jerry Jones is out Snydering you

BigRedChief
07-12-2008, 03:28 PM
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJ4dh7TkvXFMpdKZU9rITbou7jtwD91SELTG0


GM, coach: Packers don't plan to release Favre

By CHRIS JENKINS 3 hours ago

GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) The Green Bay Packers' general manager and coach say they don't plan to grant Brett Favre's request for his release.

GM Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy told The Associated Press on Saturday that the star quarterback was welcome to rejoin the team but would have to be a backup.

It was their first public comments since Favre demanded his release this week. Favre held a tearful news conference to announce his retirement March 6.

Thompson and McCarthy did not want to discuss a possible trade. Thompson said he had not received any inquiries as of Saturday morning.
Your welcome to come back as the backup in Green Bay?LMAO

milkman
07-12-2008, 03:37 PM
No offense but it seems that too many people around here equate rebuilding with not only losing but with "grooming" a QB.

While it would be "nice" if KC could draft a successful Super Bowl winning QB, I think it would be a major mistake (much like Baltimore) to have every other piece in place BUT a QB, yet insist on drafting and "grooming" one (i.e., Kyle Boller).

If this team is built correctly (offensive line, defensive line, RB and perimeter players) but the QB isn't on the roster, go grab one in free-agency.

It's not a crime to compete.

You are absolutely right.
Rebuilding a team and grooming a QB are separate projects.

However, if you have a QB that can be groomed potentially, and you go out and sign or trade for a HoF free agent QB while in the process of rebuilding, then you've stunted that kid's potential growth and not allowed your team to find out if he's a guy that can lead your team to where it wants to go.

Then you are stuck looking for a QB in free agency.

How'd that work out for the Chiefs after Montana retired again?

BWillie
07-12-2008, 03:37 PM
Yeah, another 2 years would suck, when you consider we've already wasted 11 and 5 seasons respectively of Tony and LJ.

:p


The key word in your post is "compete."

**** competing. I want a CHAMPIONSHIP.

Brett Favre is one of my all-time favorite players in NFL history, but he's not the missing piece for a Lombardi Trophy in the next 2 years.

If you want to go 8-8 this year, then maybe 9-7 or 10-6 in 2009 - make the playoffs and get crushed by Indy, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, SD, etc - then by all means - we should make a run at getting Favre.

Then, in 2010, we have to start this shit ALL OVER AGAIN.

I like going 9-7. It's fun. Even years we went 13-3 and 11-5 and didn't get to Super Bowl it was still fun. Championship is more fun, but I'd rather be a NFL icon of always being in the thick of it than being like the Marlins or something. Sucking for 10 years, then winning the World Series. I swear, Marlins are going to make a run at it probably next year or the next. Sign everybody they can, win the World Series. Then go back to their 17 million dollar payroll.

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 03:40 PM
I like going 9-7. It's fun. Even years we went 13-3 and 11-5 and didn't get to Super Bowl it was still fun. Championship is more fun, but I'd rather be a NFL icon of always being in the thick of it than being like the Marlins or something. Sucking for 10 years, then winning the World Series. I swear, Marlins are going to make a run at it probably next year or the next. Sign everybody they can, win the World Series. Then go back to their 17 million dollar payroll.

With 2 World Championships to show for it.

I'd be perfectly content with sucking for 9 years if it meant on the 10th, we won a SB.

Rinse and repeat...5 Lombardi's over 50 years? It's not the Patriots, but I could manage.

milkman
07-12-2008, 03:43 PM
With 2 World Championships to show for it.

I'd be perfectly content with sucking for 9 years if it meant on the 10th, we won a SB.

Rinse and repeat...5 Lombardi's over 50 years? It's not the Patriots, but I could manage.

At this point. I'd take 2 over 40 years.

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 03:46 PM
At this point. I'd take 2 over 40 years.

Me too.

One before I die will be just fine.

DaneMcCloud
07-12-2008, 03:48 PM
You are absolutely right.
Rebuilding a team and grooming a QB are separate projects.

However, if you have a QB that can be groomed potentially, and you go out and sign or trade for a HoF free agent QB while in the process of rebuilding, then you've stunted that kid's potential growth and not allowed your team to find out if he's a guy that can lead your team to where it wants to go.

Then you are stuck looking for a QB in free agency.

How'd that work out for the Chiefs after Montana retired again?

Case 1: Joe Montana>2nd Round QB Matt Blundin

Case 2: Brett Favre>3rd Round QB Brodie Croyle

What's the difference?

In 1993, the Chiefs would have been lucky to win 8 games with Blundin (Lucky).

In 2008, The Chiefs will be lucky to win 8 games with Croyle (Lucky).

In 1993, the Chiefs behind Joe Montana were one game and one QB injury from going to the Super Bowl.

In 2008 With Brett Favre at the helm???

What I'm trying to convey (and maybe not so clearly) is that I'm not advocating that the Chiefs acquire Brett Favre. But OTOH, if they did acquire him, the Chiefs may have a season unlike any other in the past 15 years.

I'd happily take that over possibly "stunting" Croyle's so-called "development" for a year.

milkman
07-12-2008, 03:54 PM
Case 1: Joe Montana>2nd Round QB Matt Blundin

Case 2: Brett Favre>3rd Round QB Brodie Croyle

What's the difference?

In 1993, the Chiefs would have been lucky to win 8 games with Blundin (Lucky).

In 2008, The Chiefs will be lucky to win 8 games with Croyle (Lucky).

In 1993, the Chiefs behind Joe Montana were one game and one QB injury from going to the Super Bowl.

In 2008???

What I'm trying to convey (and maybe not so clearly) is that while I'm not advocating that the Chiefs acquire Brett Favre but if they did so, the Chiefs may have a season unlike any other in the past 15 years.

I'd happily take that over possibly "stunting" Croyle's so-called "development" for a year.

Who cares if they are better at this point in their careers.

In '95 and '97, with a decent QB we might have made some noise in the playoffs, but because we had suckasses like Bono and Grbac, we went out with whimpers.

Signing aging vet QBs is not in the best interest of a team that has potential to be competitive for years to come.

It's shortsighted.

beach tribe
07-12-2008, 03:55 PM
Case 1: Joe Montana>2nd Round QB Matt Blundin

Case 2: Brett Favre>3rd Round QB Brodie Croyle

What's the difference?

In 1993, the Chiefs would have been lucky to win 8 games with Blundin (Lucky).

In 2008, The Chiefs will be lucky to win 8 games with Croyle (Lucky).

In 1993, the Chiefs behind Joe Montana were one game and one QB injury from going to the Super Bowl.

In 2008???

What I'm trying to convey (and maybe not so clearly) is that while I'm not advocating that the Chiefs acquire Brett Favre but if they did so, the Chiefs may have a season unlike any other in the past 15 years.

I'd happily take that over possibly "stunting" Croyle's so-called "development" for a year.

The difference is the kiiler O-line we had then, and one of the most feared defenses in the league.

This team has neither of those, and without them, neither Brett Farve, Joe Montana, or Jesus could even sniff the SB with this team.

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 03:56 PM
The difference is the kiiler O-line we had then, and one of the most feared defenses in the league.

This team has neither of those, and without them, neither Brett Farve, Joe Montana, or Jesus could even sniff the SB with this team.

QFT.

BigRock
07-12-2008, 04:00 PM
Brodie's "development" would be the only real reason I'd want to see the Chiefs sign Favre. For one thing, they'd probably hit it off like long lost brothers. You know if there had been a Hard Knocks of the Packers in Favre's first season there, there'd have been a scene with a young, hot Deanna asking Brett if he had packed his huntin' tapes.

For at least a year, Brodie would get to be at this HOF QB's side through their meetings and everything. Assuming they got along, and they surely would, Farve would probably be invaluable as a mentor.

And then when Favre leaves, Brodie gets the billing of the young QB who was mentored by Brett Favre. A title Aaron Rodgers really hasn't gotten. And when Brodie throws picks, everyone will be like "Well, that's just the Brett Favre gunslinger in him". John Madden will tell us how the pick was everyone's fault except Brodie's. And before you know it, Brodie's doing cameos in a Ben Stiller move.

COME ON DOWN, BRETT FAVRE

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 04:03 PM
Brodie's "development" would be the only real reason I'd want to see the Chiefs sign Favre. For one thing, they'd probably hit it off like long lost brothers. You know if there had been a Hard Knocks of the Packers in Favre's first season there, there'd have been a scene with a young, hot Deanna asking Brett if he had packed his huntin' tapes.

For at least a year, Brodie would get to be at this HOF QB's side through their meetings and everything. Assuming they got along, and they surely would, Farve would probably be invaluable as a mentor.

And then when Favre leaves, Brodie gets the billing of the young QB who was mentored by Brett Favre. A title Aaron Rodgers really hasn't gotten. And when Brodie throws picks, everyone will be like "Well, that's just the Brett Favre gunslinger in him". John Madden will tell us how the pick was everyone's fault except Brodie's. And before you know it, Brodie's doing cameos in a Ben Stiller move.

COME ON DOWN, BRETT FAVRE


LMAO

You changed my mind.

blueballs
07-12-2008, 04:04 PM
Brodie not feeling resentment
would put him just behind Jesus
on the human perfection scale

DaneMcCloud
07-12-2008, 04:12 PM
The difference is the kiiler O-line we had then, and one of the most feared defenses in the league.

This team has neither of those, and without them, neither Brett Farve, Joe Montana, or Jesus could even sniff the SB with this team.

I disagree that O-line in 1993 was "killer". Szott & Grunhard were solid players but not spectacular. Shields was a 3rd round rookie (Albert, anyone?). Ricky Siglar and a worn out John Alt were hardly feared.

And the current offensive perimeter players (D-Bowe & Gonzalez) plus the running backs (LJ, Smith & Charles) are far superior to Allen and Harvey Williams.

The defense, OTOH, was outstanding but while this year's Chiefs defense probably won't be in the top 5, it should be in the top 12.

I guess I'm just not as down on the personnel of the 2008 Chiefs team as most.

Except for QB.

King_Chief_Fan
07-12-2008, 04:17 PM
Brodie's "development" would be the only real reason I'd want to see the Chiefs sign Favre. For one thing, they'd probably hit it off like long lost brothers. You know if there had been a Hard Knocks of the Packers in Favre's first season there, there'd have been a scene with a young, hot Deanna asking Brett if he had packed his huntin' tapes.

For at least a year, Brodie would get to be at this HOF QB's side through their meetings and everything. Assuming they got along, and they surely would, Farve would probably be invaluable as a mentor.

And then when Favre leaves, Brodie gets the billing of the young QB who was mentored by Brett Favre. A title Aaron Rodgers really hasn't gotten. And when Brodie throws picks, everyone will be like "Well, that's just the Brett Favre gunslinger in him". John Madden will tell us how the pick was everyone's fault except Brodie's. And before you know it, Brodie's doing cameos in a Ben Stiller move.

COME ON DOWN, BRETT FAVRE
another year on the bench waiting......we all suspect he isn't crap, I don't want to wait another year to be proven right.........or wrong. We need to sign draft picks not a 38 year old qb

DaneMcCloud
07-12-2008, 04:20 PM
Who cares if they are better at this point in their careers.

In '95 and '97, with a decent QB we might have made some noise in the playoffs, but because we had suckasses like Bono and Grbac, we went out with whimpers.

Signing aging vet QBs is not in the best interest of a team that has potential to be competitive for years to come.

It's shortsighted.

Again, no offense, but that's all speculation. Grbac WAS a "decent" QB. He just wasn't great (and in all fairness, I absolutely hated that mouth-breathing idiot). But Blundin was drafted in 1993 and theoretically should have been ready to take over the team in 1995.

Additionally, signing a HOF QB such as Brett Favre isn't the same as signing an "aging vet", something for which I'm absolutely, unequivocally against and am not advocating.

Finally, signing Brett Favre in no way, shape or form is going to hamper the "potential" of this team to become competitive in the future.

DaneMcCloud
07-12-2008, 04:22 PM
another year on the bench waiting......we all suspect he isn't crap, I don't want to wait another year to be proven right.........or wrong. We need to sign draft picks not a 38 year old qb

Speak for yourself.

I don't think Brodie Croyle will amount to anything for the Chiefs or in the NFL due to his past performances and history of injury.

I hope I'm proven wrong. But if the guy can't prove that he can play this year, it's on to the next.

And I don't think it'll be a rookie QB. It'll be a veteran "placeholder".

beach tribe
07-12-2008, 04:24 PM
I disagree that O-line in 1993 was "killer". Szott & Grunhard were solid players but not spectacular. Shields was a 3rd round rookie (Albert, anyone?). Ricky Siglar and a worn out John Alt were hardly feared.

And the current offensive perimeter players (D-Bowe & Gonzalez) plus the running backs (LJ, Smith & Charles) are far superior to Allen and Harvey Williams.

The defense, OTOH, was outstanding but while this year's Chiefs defense probably won't be in the top 5, it should be in the top 12.

I guess I'm just not as down on the personnel of the 2008 Chiefs team as most.

Except for QB.

I'm not down on them, I have some pretty high hopes for this team, but they are not even close to the early 90s team....yet. I'll have to see how this draft class turns out, and how the O line comes together, before I can realistically start considering SB hopes. No matter who the QB is.

There are too many ?? to be giving anything up for guy who might get fitted for a pine suit, if he plays behind our o line.

I think next season though, we should be able to consider something like this, if Brodie bombs, and the rest of our guys pan out. We could pick up a Vet, and draft a QBOTF.

RustShack
07-12-2008, 04:32 PM
David Carr was being groomed on a building team with no Oline, he turned out great didn't he?

beach tribe
07-12-2008, 04:34 PM
David Carr was being groomed on a building team with no Oline, he turned out great didn't he?

No QBs have success with horrible O lines. Not rookies, not veterans, not legends.

milkman
07-12-2008, 04:35 PM
Again, no offense, but that's all speculation. Grbac WAS a "decent" QB. He just wasn't great (and in all fairness, I absolutely hated that mouth-breathing idiot). But Blundin was drafted in 1993 and theoretically should have been ready to take over the team in 1995.

Additionally, signing a HOF QB such as Brett Favre isn't the same as signing an "aging vet", something for which I'm absolutely, unequivocally against and am not advocating.

Finally, signing Brett Favre in no way, shape or form is going to hamper the "potential" of this team to become competitive in the future.

GrBac had talent, but he was "mouth breathing idiot" which is exactly why he sucked ass.

HoF or not, Favre is still an aging vet.

Finally, if signing Brett Favre now means we have to wait two years to find out if Croyle can play whne we have the ooportunity to find out now, then it absolutely hampers this team's potential to become competitive in the near future.

If we find out in two years that Brodie isn't the answer rather than now, then we'll be right back where were were after Montana's retirement.

We'll be a real QB away from actually being competitive rather than pretenders, and by the time we do actually find a QB,just like last time, we may not have an actual competeitive team.

RustShack
07-12-2008, 04:35 PM
But its harder to groom a QB with no line.

milkman
07-12-2008, 04:39 PM
David Carr was being groomed on a building team with no Oline, he turned out great didn't he?

No QBs have success with horrible O lines. Not rookies, not veterans, not legends.

David Carr was never going to amount to anything.

He had a propensity for holding onto the ball too long, locked onto one receiver, and couldn't read defenses.

It's no coincidence that the Texans O-Line, which was essentially the same last year as the year before, gave up far fewer sacks with a different QB.

David Carr made his O-Line look far worse than it actually was.

beach tribe
07-12-2008, 04:43 PM
David Carr was never going to amount to anything.

He had a propensity for holding onto the ball too long, locked onto one receiver, and couldn't read defenses.

It's no coincidence that the Texans O-Line, which was essentially the same last year as the year before, gave up far fewer sacks with a different QB.

David Carr made his O-Line look far worse than it actually was.

I agree with everything you just said, and the point stands.

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 04:44 PM
David Carr was never going to amount to anything.

He had a propensity for holding onto the ball too long, locked onto one receiver, and couldn't read defenses.

It's no coincidence that the Texans O-Line, which was essentially the same last year as the year before, gave up far fewer sacks with a different QB.

David Carr made his O-Line look far worse than it actually was.


That sounds familiar.

Damon Huard made the 2007 offensive line look worse than it really was.

DaneMcCloud
07-12-2008, 04:49 PM
GrBac had talent, but he was "mouth breathing idiot" which is exactly why he sucked ass.

HoF or not, Favre is still an aging vet.

Finally, if signing Brett Favre now means we have to wait two years to find out if Croyle can play whne we have the ooportunity to find out now, then it absolutely hampers this team's potential to become competitive in the near future.

If we find out in two years that Brodie isn't the answer rather than now, then we'll be right back where were were after Montana's retirement.

We'll be a real QB away from actually being competitive rather than pretenders, and by the time we do actually find a QB,just like last time, we may not have an actual competeitive team.

Whether or not Croyle is the "answer" for the Chiefs, they'll need to draft a QB in the 2009 draft for at least two reasons:

1. Croyle's inability to stay healthy
2. Croyle will be an RFA after the 2009 season.

So the Chiefs, regardless of whether it's Brodie Croyle or Brett Favre under center in 2008, will still absolutely need to select a QB in the first two rounds of the 2009 NFL draft.

RustShack
07-12-2008, 04:52 PM
Croyle is still alive after last year, he will be fine this year too. Theres other small QB's in the NFL who do just fine, look at Cullpepper, hes huge, but he has injury problems too.

DaneMcCloud
07-12-2008, 04:57 PM
Croyle is still alive after last year, he will be fine this year too. Theres other small QB's in the NFL who do just fine, look at Cullpepper, hes huge, but he has injury problems too.

Dude, seriously?

Culpepper was a completely different QB before he tore his ACL.

Croyle has torn BOTH of his ACL's.

Furthermore, Croyle did not "make it" through last season. He missed several games due to injury (kidney) and was unavailable for training camp in 2006 due to a shoulder injury.

I "hope" Croyle can stay healthy but it doesn't appear likely.

RustShack
07-12-2008, 05:05 PM
He missed two games for freak accident reasons, and reasons that he COULD have played if were still in contention. Green had injury problems, but I'm glad we let him be our QB anyways.

chiefs1111
07-12-2008, 05:06 PM
Dude, seriously?

Culpepper was a completely different QB before he tore his ACL.

Croyle has torn BOTH of his ACL's.

Furthermore, Croyle did not "make it" through last season. He missed several games due to injury (kidney) and was unavailable for training camp in 2006 due to a shoulder injury.

I "hope" Croyle can stay healthy but it doesn't appear likely.

I agree. I really don't think he can make it through a whole 16 game season. Every time he gets hit I cringe a little. Also from pictures ive seen of him during off season workout's,It doesn't look like he's been in the weight room at all.

RustShack
07-12-2008, 05:07 PM
He should have got got hurt a lot worse than what he did behind that line last year, he will be better off behind this years line. Oh and he will actually have a RB threat to help him out, and a compitent OC.

KCrockaholic
07-12-2008, 05:38 PM
That sounds familiar.

Damon Huard made the 2007 offensive line look worse than it really was.

Huard perfected the "phantom sack" which probably helped our O-line achieve that 55 sacks that tied for most in the NFL.

although Croyle played much less that Huard, Croyle only was sacked like 17 times. Our O-line very much sucked last year, but i truely believe with this new offensive gameplan, Albert, and Croyle under center, this o-line will look much better especially compared to last year.

KCrockaholic
07-12-2008, 05:39 PM
He should have got got hurt a lot worse than what he did behind that line last year, he will be better off behind this years line. Oh and he will actually have a RB threat to help him out, and a compitent OC.

i agree 100%

OnTheWarpath58
07-12-2008, 05:48 PM
Huard perfected the "phantom sack" which probably helped our O-line achieve that 55 sacks that tied for most in the NFL.

although Croyle played much less that Huard, Croyle only was sacked like 17 times. Our O-line very much sucked last year, but i truely believe with this new offensive gameplan, Albert, and Croyle under center, this o-line will look much better especially compared to last year.

There's a way to offset the difference in playing time, and it's figuring the number of times each was sacked per attempt.

Huard was sacked every 9.22 attempts, while playing behind an offensive line that consisted of mostly starters for each game.

Croyle was sacked every 13.17 attempts, playing behind backups, for the most part.

Hell, even if they played behind the EXACT same 5 linemen, this is a rather large differential.

RustShack
07-12-2008, 06:05 PM
McIntosh-Waters-Wiegman-Welborne-Terry
Albert-Waters-Niswanger-insertnamehere-McIntosh

Now based on how we play, Every single Oline position has been upgraded exept for LG, but we has the same Pro Bowl player there. You could say Weigmann is a lot better than Niswanger, which in other systems he is, but for our new style of football he isn't. We also got rid of our Oline coach who has had terrible lines everywhere hes went so I don't know why we hired him in the first place. Our OC knows how to call plays to help make players look better, and calls plays based on the talent we have, not R2P2. Croyle having some playing experience, along with Bowe will help out a lot also. Croyle finally being able to play with Larry Johnson will have a huge impact as well.

StcChief
07-12-2008, 06:15 PM
Farve is NOT coming here

BWillie
07-12-2008, 06:31 PM
Farve is NOT coming here

Exactly. At this point in his career Farvra just wants to win. He knows if he comes to KC he might give us 2 more wins. Big deal. We'll go 5-11 instead of 3-13

milkman
07-13-2008, 05:19 AM
Farve is NOT coming here

I think we all agree, though I can't speak for everyone,

But it's a football topic, and makes for a good debate.

milkman
07-13-2008, 05:24 AM
Whether or not Croyle is the "answer" for the Chiefs, they'll need to draft a QB in the 2009 draft for at least two reasons:

1. Croyle's inability to stay healthy
2. Croyle will be an RFA after the 2009 season.

So the Chiefs, regardless of whether it's Brodie Croyle or Brett Favre under center in 2008, will still absolutely need to select a QB in the first two rounds of the 2009 NFL draft.

Whether we draft a QB in '09 is irrelevant.

We can find out about Croyle now, and if he does show that he's the guy, then we won't have to wait for 3 more years for that QB that we draft next year to get it.

Bringing a 400 year old QB to a team that has about as much chance of competing for the SB in the next couple of years as I do of winning the Lotto doesn't make any sense.

There isn't any real reward.

BigMeatballDave
07-13-2008, 07:16 AM
Are you guys insane?


If he wants to come here and we can get him for a 3rd rounder or less, then I'm on board. None of our quarterbacks have shown any kind ability at all. A terrible quarterback hampers the development of the entire team, including the defense. (offense goes 3 and out too much so none of these young players ever have a chance to contribute, the defense is always tired)

Would you have rather NOT had Montana here in '93? Going 13-3 and getting to the AFC Championship was amazing. I'd take that again in a heartbeat over 3-13 and losing to the freaking JETS. I think too many people around here think that "rebuilding" means that you have to try and suck.Wow. You clearly do not understand what 'rebuilding' means...

BigMeatballDave
07-13-2008, 07:48 AM
.

Buehler445
07-13-2008, 09:09 AM
I'm on board with Milkman. I'm not sure Croyle is the answer, but I'd hate to pull what Atlanta did with...who?...Brett Favre. I'm in no way suggesting Croyle is Favre, but the kid's got some talent. Now, whether it materializes into anything is what I want to find out this season (hopefully we can have something difinitive this season).

It's speculation, but I don't think we are even close to where we were when we picked up Montana. I just don't think we have the talent. I hope to shit I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it. But like I said, it's all speculation.

The other thing we haven't discussed is what happens to Herm if we bring this cat in. FAX touched on it a bit. Favre is the Anti-Herm. The dude looks deep and forces passes. He has all his life. If you look through Favre's career, he has excelled when his coaches could put something around him to set him up for success around those traits. When his coaches try to change that or his team can't facilitate Favre-ball, it's ugly. I have no idea what Herm will do, but I think I would kinda lean towards, "not going to change shit. Play the game." type of BS. If we were to get him, we would need to build the offense around him like we did with Montana, I'm not sure we could do that with the one and only Herm.

But HOORAY! a football thread!

blueballs
07-13-2008, 09:28 AM
surley even Packer fans can see what a douche Favre is

Green Bay Post-Gazette

Packers coach Mike McCarthy says he received a text message from Brett Favre on June 20 saying "Give me my helmet or give me my release."