Wonder if their assessment at the end of the year was that there wasn't that much rubber left on Favre's tires? We'll probably never know clearly but that had to have been some of the motivation, anyway.

I think its more likely that they decided after the Farve unretirement Waffle in March that it was time for the TEAM to move on, not because Farve could not still play but because this "will he/won't he" act was wearing thin in the front office and the locker room.

Farve's inability to commit to anything combined with having Rodgers waiting for his turn was enough to say it was time to turn the page.

Remember they were willing to take him back before he retired, and even AFTER he retired...It wasn't till late March when he said he was coming back and then did an abrupt about face that they decided as a team to "move on".

Reading this made my night! http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=gallo/080728

PRC, I think you make the right point. As part of my job, I see how interpersonal dynamics on project teams influence performance every day. Having people committed to the delivery of work product (wins, playoff berths, superbowl rings) is an essential part of getting the team optimized. I can imagine the Packers brass feeling (especially with the youth movement on the team overall now) that going with youth at the QB position would create a better team environment.

To your point, packeraaron, I'm reminded of the Favre's press conference after the Redskins game, wherein he was pressed to discuss his having underthrown the deep ball. He fervently defended himself, saying "it was just one game!" Telling? Perhaps...

Do you have the link to that article? It'd be an interesting read at this point.

I remember the article and I think thats been the case for longer than that but ultimately the decision even then was to take him back next year...until he retired.

I am sure the questions about wether to move on or not have been lingering for a few years because if we're hearing it in the press then either its being openly discussed in team offices or they want us to hear it. Or both....

Ugh, I hate to always sound like a biased Favre defender, but I really believe context is needed for the aforementioned games.

Sure he struggled against the Skins, but it was very early in the season and they had no semblance of a running game. If memory serves, I believe Jennings was also out. I just can't get on him for that game. He's never played well in Dallas, so those tea leaves seem a bit spoiled to me. I don't recall the Eagles game all that much, and since I'm working I don't have the time to research it. The Giants playoff game: their D-Line was otherworldly down the stretch and in the postseason. They beat the crap out of everyone. Tom Brady had a rough go of it against that front. I'm inclined to give him a pass on that game, especially since the offense demolished Seattle the week before.

I think we're making things more complicated than they need to be. Brett played very well last year and would probably done very well this season. Any slight dip in performance would have been offset by the improvement in the running game. He would be in training camp now if he hadn't screwed around with the front office in March. McCarthy and Thompson are selling a certain king of culture and they need a QB who is committed, so they're going with Rodgers, for better or worse. It's Brett's prerogative if he decides he wants to play, and Thompson should try to accomodate him without hurting his own team in the process. Things got ugly because Brett's feelings were hurt when told he could not just re-ascend to the throne he abdicated and also because Thompson is trying to squeeze too much out of the teams who want Favre. Everyone knows he won't be traded in division and everyone knows that the longer this drags out, the crazier the circus in GB will become. Thompson should just trade him for a 4th/5th rounder and be done with it.

Still, I think the Dallas game was more of a mental thing than a physical thing, which is usually the issue when Brett has a poor game.

For me it's simple, the dude can still throw bullets and was a top 5 QB last year. He bought into McCarthy's system and pretty much carried the offense until Grant's emergence. I was interested to see how he would do with a second year of restraint coupled with a more consistent running game.

Keith, you said "It’s Brett’s prerogative if he decides he wants to play, and Thompson should try to accomodate him without hurting his own team in the process. Things got ugly because Brett’s feelings were hurt when told he could not just re-ascend to the throne he abdicated and also because Thompson is trying to squeeze too much out of the teams who want Favre."

However, I see the problem not being with Thompson wanting to much but with Favre. According to Peter King the Packers have asked Favre for a list of teams he would accept a trade to and he's refused both times. Thompson doesn't seem to be asking or the sun and the moon. Peter King thinks it is a guaranteed 4th round that could rise to a third or second based on Favre's performance. But no one wants Favre. There are multiple articles about how the Packers are calling everyone but no one is interested outside of the NFC North.

I think Brett had a great year last year and I think he could have had a great year this year. But the way he has acted has been completely inappropriate and he seems to be the one holding up the show - not Thompson.

The other day I began some cursory prep work for my upcoming fantasy football draft and the state of quarterbacking in the NFL is a sad one. I can't believe that teams do not have any interest in Favre.

I can understand it. He doesn't seem fully committed, he costs a ton and isn't going to be around for long, and he's shown a willingness to throw everyone and anyone under the bus to get what he wants. I wouldn't want that.