NFP»Columns»The Busine$$ of Football
RSS

The difficult parting of Favre and the Packers

Sunday begins a new chapter in drama between QB and former team. Andrew Brandt

Bookmark and Share Print This Send This October 30, 2009, 01:29 PM EST
169 Comments

The saga continues Sunday at Lambeau Field. The storylines are drawn for this drama that’s been building for 16 months: The signature player for one team for a decade and a half returns in the uniform of its rival. Made for television, guaranteed to garner the strongest rating of the 2009 NFL season. High drama indeed.

Having spent nine years in Green Bay, I’ve commented often about both sides of the decision by the Packers to move on without quarterback Brett Favre. I’ll leave out the truly confidential parts of the story, but here’s a look behind the green and gold on some matters.

“We’ve moved on”

Brett FavreAPWhen Brett Favre wanted to return to Green Bay, he was told that the organization had moved on.

As we know, when Brett decided to un-retire last year to reclaim his throne in Green Bay, coach Mike McCarthy informed him, “We’ve moved on,” signaling the end of an era. All events from that point forward were the result of those three words.

In early 2008, there was radio silence between Favre and the Packers. In previous years, McCarthy and GM Ted Thompson had stopped by the Favre compound in Mississippi for a visit when they were at the Senior Bowl in Mobile, Ala. Faced with indifference from his coach and general manager in the months following the 2008 NFC championship game, Brett took the hint. And coincidentally, on the same day Randy Moss re-signed with the Patriots after the Packers had attempted to sign him two years in a row (after much urging from their quarterback), Brett decided to retire.

Even though he cried at his press conference -- and Packer Nation cried with him -- announcing that he had “nothing left to give,” those of us who knew Brett understood this was not a decision he wanted to make (he cried following other seasons, but he wasn’t going anywhere). He was retiring from the Packers because the Packers were indifferent to his decision about playing, something he dearly wanted to continue.

The man behind the curtain

When I started with the Packers in February 1999, Ron Wolf greeted me and placed me in an office with a white-haired personnel director named Ted Thompson. I got to know Ted a bit that year. We shared an office and then worked closely for three years when he returned as general manager of the Packers. There were a few times when I was able to get Ted to open up and actually talk about things other than football players. I was pleasantly surprised to learn there was more to the person than anyone knew.

Ted ThompsonAPGreen Bay GM Ted Thompson

Ted is a fundamentally good person with exceptional loyalty to a few close friends. He cares about his staff and players and about the history and tradition of the Packers. He is obsessed with the task of looking under every rock to find the best football players for the team.

Like many people, though, Ted is uncomfortable being open with people when the situation may require it. Difficult conversations are just that -- difficult -- yet necessary to clear up ambiguities. Dealing with conflict is part of leadership and management of elite athletes with fragile egos and insecurities. Avoidance is a dangerous option when handling the raw emotion of player-management relations.

I never had a difficult conversation with Ted until our last one, when it became clear we were not going to be able to continue working together. Even in that conversation, Ted acted as if he had a plane to catch. It hurt, but I agreed with him: Although I felt, and still feel, that the Packers are a national treasure, life is short. After a nine-year run through three head coaches, three general managers and countless players, it was time to move on.

It was also time for Brett to go soon after. Ted and Brett never had a cross word with each other; they just had little to no words at all. Brett was used to a certain warm response from the general manager’s office -- through the years of Ron Wolf and Mike Sherman -- and he and his family recoiled at the quiet chill from Thompson’s leadership. Rather than talking about it, both sides just stayed silent rather than face the inevitable conversation.

The successor

A major reason, of course, why the Packers moved on from Brett was Aaron Rodgers. Aaron was special from the day he arrived, exuding high intelligence, natural leadership skills and a wry sense of self and humor. We were friends despite our alma mater rivalry (Cal vs. Stanford).

Aaron RodgersAPThe successor, Aaron Rodgers

Brett, as I have often said, has the Wally Pipp syndrome, knowing how he got his job -- replacing the starting quarterback and never giving it back. I saw it first as an agent for Matt Hasselbeck and then with Aaron. I understood Brett’s insecurity about a new potential team leader. Aaron was someone he could not embrace, but I was glad to finally see Brett warm to him in 2007.

On the field, Rodgers displayed in practice and preparation the skills he’s now showing as a starter. And in the 2006 and 2007 offseasons, with Brett at home making his decisions and sitting out the majority of the offseason, Aaron was preparing as if he was the starting quarterback. Ted and Mike certainly liked what they saw. Aaron was going to be fine.

The bitter end

Even upon his retirement, the Packers knew -- or should have known -- that Brett would not stay retired. They knew Brett and knew when the calendar moved closer to training camp, that he would want to play again. At the time of his retirement, as hard a conversation as it would have been, the Packers could have had an open and honest communication that they were moving on with Aaron, someone they had been grooming for three years, and any un-retirement would not be welcome. That conversation, however difficult, would have headed off the enmity to come.

Instead, there was growing distance between the parties, even with an awkward attempt to have Brett stay retired with a marketing deal with the team. Favre and the Packers retreated to their media sources to spin their stories. The Packers even uncharacteristically detailed the sequence of events that showed Brett’s vacillations, incensing Favre and his family.

Mutual mistrust ensued again with Brett’s desire to play for the Vikings and, in the view of the Packers, having extensive communication about doing so. The Packers obviously were not going to let that happen and were exasperated when the NFL dismissed tampering charges despite what they felt was strong evidence against their rival. That episode further enhanced the existing rivalry that continues Sunday.

Once set free from the Jets last winter, Brett was finally was able achieve the result he and the Vikings had pursued for more than a year. Brett now is linked at the hip to offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell, a member of Mike Sherman’s staff in Green Bay that treated Brett and his family the way felt they should be treated given his accomplishments with the team.

Handling the decision

Brett FavreAPFavre already has a victory over the Packers this season. Can he deliver again on Sunday?

Let me say this: I agree with the decision by my former team to move to the future with Rodgers. It was not like the Packers were moving forward with a stopgap veteran quarterback. I also believe that whatever communication Brett had with the Vikings a year ago complicated matters for all sides and that Brett could have handled himself better at the end of the relationship as well.

The Packers didn’t “owe” Brett Favre anything. He had retired, was paid over $100 million by the team, and he would be a living legend free to return any time with great fanfare. At the end of the story, though, Brett deserved more from the Packers as a person, not as a player. Brett had played through personal tragedy; he had raised the profile, the profit and the asset value of the franchise; he had made the Packers a national, and international, attraction.

How could they have treated Brett better at the end? Simple, open and honest communication, and perhaps a touch of bedside manner and humanity to go along with it. As easy as it sounds, it was very hard to do but needed to be done. That may have gone a long way to making sure the parting of the most famous player on one of the most storied franchises in sports was amicable.

The next chapter – but certainly not the final one -- comes Sunday.

Follow me on Twitter: adbrandt

Comments

Add a Comment
RHO1953
Oct 30, 2009
01:41 PM

The Vikings and Brett Favre clearly colluded last year. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The league made a financial decision, putting their desire for the draw of Favre ahead of integrity. A finding of tampering would have put an effective end to a Favre comeback. The NFL proved itself to be a whore. There will be no justice or reckoning at this point. Favre got his way, he threw a tantrum and manipulated the fans, the league, and the Packers. It's a shame that he will never be get the spanking he deserves.

hedgeapple
Oct 30, 2009
01:49 PM

I think that the Packers deserved more from Brett, too. The fans certainly deserved more. It's sad to see a grown man act like a child. Just stand up and tell us what you want, what you need. Don't expect people to read your mind. It seems as if so much of this stuff, perceived indifference, imagined persecution, was all in his head. I mean, come on, TT didn't stop by on his way home from the Senior Bowl so he retired? Give me a break. He complained that they pestered him too much by asking him if he wants to come back, and he complains when they leave him alone to let him think about it. There's no making this guy happy.

INTWTFK
Oct 30, 2009
02:00 PM

Andrew,

Thank you for the post. I have stated over the past year that no matter the side you chose (Favre or Thompson), it comes down that both parties equally share responsibility for the events that unfolded and followed.

What is interesting is that Favre and Thompson have recently stated in a roundabout way that they are responsible for their actions and have moved on. And 80% of the fans realize this and have moved on; the remaining 20% will still deflect, deny, and deride as they continue to think their position is the only correct explanation. Perhaps the 20% vocal about the divorce should take the hint.

Scott M.
Oct 30, 2009
02:00 PM

Andrew - in general, I agree with you on this topic however there is one thing that has always bugged me about this. If Brett's primary motivation was to lead a team to a championship again, as he has always claimed, what was there to even think about after the 2007 season? He was literally on the doorstep of returning to the Super Bowl on a team that made a dominant run.

I understand there are a lot of other factors involved in his decision but if I'm Mike McCarthy, it's real simple - if knocking on the door of a championship isn't enough to have you interested in playing, then I don't want you on my team. If that wasn't enough to make up his mind, then he wasn't playing for the right reasons.

Looking back at the beginning of the whole mess, I never in a MILLION years would've guessed he was retiring prior to that press conference. One game away from competing in the single greatest game in the history of sports, a game that millions of athletes can only dream of ever taking part in, a chance to literally make sports history, and you want me to beg you to come back?!?!?!?!?!?

Yes - the Packers could've handled the whole thing better than they did. But this wasn't started by "We've moved on"....

Professor7
Oct 30, 2009
02:33 PM

hedgeapple, I couldn't agree more. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has a big problem with a 16 year vet retiring because his team didn't beg him to return for another year. What kind of competitor needs to be wooed and begged to compete. I used to love the guy but jesus did he turn into a whiner.

Andrew, I also agree with your assesment of Ted. With the exception of a few questionable draft picks (almost every offesnive & defensive lineman he's drafted and cutting SS Smith loose in favor of Rouse) overall I think he's done a decent job. He definitely needs to improve his people skills. I always thought it was unfortunate you left the organization. I thought you did a good job. You probably won't elaborate but I'm very curious as to what that final conversation with Ted was about.

It's too bad Brett doesn't understand that his diva attitude is what cost him his job. He angered the front office with his retirement antics every year and opened a huge door for his replacement by not showing up for offseaon activities and training camps. Brett may as well have gotten injured because that was the kind of opportunity he gave Rodgers by not showing up for camp.

I think the tough part for me to accept from your assesment is that a lot of the drama could have been avoided if Ted was nicer to Brett. I'm sure you're probabaly right, but what the hell. A future hall of fame NFL veteran with an "ironman" reputation jumped off the deep end because the GM wasn't nice enough! This is was hurt Brett's feelings so much that he decided to create a media frenzy during training camp and follow through on a two year plan to play for the Packers biggest rival, and alienate half of his fans in the process. What....a freaking....girl.

Jay
Oct 30, 2009
02:40 PM

"The Packers even uncharacteristically detailed the sequence of events that showed Brett’s vacillations, incensing Favre and his family."

The Packers were pretty much forced into revealing Favre's vacillations if I'm not mistaken. It was either that or let Favre win the PR battle. Thompson was explaining his version of the events and not letting Brett's accusations go unanswered.

Brandt may be unbiased, but I'm not sure he remembers exactly, all the sordid twists and turns of this unfinished saga.

Vin-Man
Oct 30, 2009
02:43 PM

Good stuff.

However, the real issue is this.... The Pack had A-rod ready to go, AND they watched Favre's performance fail at the end of the 2007 season.

The Pack knew that they had to get Rodgers on the field and see what they had before they paid him a ton of money in a contract extension.

Brett Favre is and was the face of the Pack and the NFL for a pile of years, but, look at the history of the Pack, they failed to replace Bart Starr for 2 decades.

Imagine if Favre would have come back. Rodgers would have left via free agency due to a voidable contract, Favre would have/could have retired.... Then the packers would have been left with nothing.

Think of the backlash.......

Cheesehead
Oct 30, 2009
02:45 PM

Why have I never heard in the media the sensitivities regarding Deanna in early 2008 and her role in why the Packers chose the communication path that they took at that time with Brett?

Randal
Oct 30, 2009
02:53 PM

I think what a lot of Packer fans forget is that Favre and Thompson differed on what type of team this was. Thompson wanted to build through the draft and have a very young team, Favre wanted to take one or two more shots at the Super Bowl. Given they had a vertern QB, the better optiion would have been to take one more shot. With Randy Moss and another verteran G, the Packers could have won one or two more Super Bowls. I think that still bugs Favre and it should bug the fans.

Jcavhs
Oct 30, 2009
02:56 PM

I disagree that the Packers owed him more as a person. They let him waffle in the off-season and prevent them from making firm plans about the direction of the team. Despite all of the negative press Favre and his family have created for the Packers (the Greta Van Susteren interview for example) the Packers have never said anything negative about him.

If the Packers owed Favre more then Favre also owed the Packers more. Including not airing his dirty laundry in public, not talking to a rival when you ostensibly want to play for the Packers, and even being able to give either a firm decision or a firm deadline for when you will make a decision.

There is blame on both sides, but it is Favre's actions that seem to have turned this from a sad situation into the farce that it is.

Tiffysmom
Oct 30, 2009
03:05 PM

I hear no mention of the fact that the Packers were in the NFC championship game in 2007, and the Jets had a better record last year than the Packers. The Vikings have a better record this year. I am a Packers fan from long before most of you were born. I attended the ICE BOWL in 67 ...and have lived through a lot of rebuilding and moving on years. They are not fun, and this old guy deserved some special treatment........All I see is comments about whiner and Diva..You must have been too young to watch the 1996 Super Bowl...I would say whiner and Diva are closer to a good description of the people commenting. TT has not put a great team on the field, or do you just ignore the win loss records?

mark
Oct 30, 2009
03:09 PM

Fascinating read Andrew, thank you for sharing.

I agree that Thompson's "avoidance" was probably unhelpful at best, and detrimental at worst. And yes, Brett deserved a bit more tenderness from an employer for whom he'd given everything he had. But even if Ted was the kindest and most emotionally understanding individual on Earth, I don't see any scenario where the Favre to Rodgers transition happens comfortably. It's a business. And Thompson seems to treat it as such, as any good GM should.

Furthermore, for as emotionally cold as Ted might've been, Brett was the opposite: telling the press his every emotion, waffling and leaving the fans and the franchise waiting year after year, talking openly about his struggle to stay dedicated, and being a poor mentor to Rodgers...let's be honest, Brett didn't do himself any favors.

"Amicable" -- I just don't think that was possible, under any scenario.



Next 1 - 12 of 146 Prev COMMENTS

Add a Comment

* Required - Keep track of your comments Login or Register with NFP
(will not be published)