Yes, there is an ulterrior motive to McCarthy wanting Favre back. but I think Florio missed. It isn't that McCarthy wants to get on w/ the post Favre era....it's that McCarthy only got a 3 year deal. So he needs to probably have at least one winning season in the next three to get paid decent...or even extended at all.
Although I htink this team will finish 8-8 and w/ 19 rookies or 2nd year players (the NFL's youngest) that should warrant consideration for an extension, so the young guys no who is gonna be boss for awhile.
Anyways, I think my theory is better than McCarthy saying I want Favre back means I dont really want Favre back is pretty stupid. If he didn't want favre back he'd probably say nothing at all or just say things like "it doesn't matter, we'll move on w/ or w/out him."
I think it reallly boils down to McCarthy wanting to get a winnign season under his belt (more likely next year) so he can get extended. I think if Florio realized McCarthy was on a 3 year deal he would see that too. But instead its the ..."Oh Favre is in the news...How can I spin this as negative as possible...."
I think you're missing the point Stevo, does McCarthy want Farve back, yes if he WANTS to come back, what McCarthy said is it looks like Farve is starting to have fun playing again and he feels he still can perform at a high level, but what he wants to avoid at all costs is a repeat of last years waffling! He's trying to get a committment now, if Farve wants to come back he wants him.....if Farve is unsure he doesn't want him...it's that simple....and he's trying to get him to decide early.....if Farve declared he will retire after this season they would start to play Rodgers, after all does even the most insane Packers fan STILL think they can win it all this year?...even with Farve?
If he will play next year, you leave him in to get chemistry with the O-line and WRs....if he won't, you do the same thing with Rodgers. The only reason you wouldn't is if you had a shot at the title.
While I dont totally agree with Mikes take on the story....I disagree that McCarthy is worried is coaching future a "1/2 season into a 3 year contract."
They are playing better than some expected and will probably have a better record than last year.
Making the "I want Favre back" statement is smart. Packer fans with their Brett blowups will embrace him....and as Iowa stated...maybe this will end all that BS that took place in the off season. Get an answer now...if the team tanks...put in the kid.
But then of course I could be wrong and Stevo may have gotten some inside info from the McCarthy Gerbil
While I dont totally agree with Mikes take on the story....I disagree that McCarthy is worried is coaching future a "1/2 season into a 3 year contract."
They are playing better than some expected and will probably have a better record than last year.
Making the "I want Favre back" statement is smart. Packer fans with their Brett blowups will embrace him....and as Iowa stated...maybe this will end all that BS that took place in the off season. Get an answer now...if the team tanks...put in the kid.
But then of course I could be wrong and Stevo may have gotten some inside info from the McCarthy Gerbil
Hey smart ass,
jk, I agree w/ you and Iowa. Florio was the first one to hit it right on the head w/ Favre's overdramatic offseason BS. But a 3 year contract is a very short amount of time to prove yourself. I don't think his job is in jeporady but, it's definately never to early to be thinking about an extension.
Hypothetically, the packers lets say go 7-9 or 8-8 this season (seems reasonable at this point). Next year, if Favre comes back, you figure 9-7, 10-6 is a possibility w/ Favre.
W. out Favre, 4-12 all the way to 10-6 is a possibility since we really have no clue at all what they would be getting into.
My point is, don't you McCarthy would at least command more money having a winning season going into his final year? It seems to me that financially it would make a lot of sense for McCarthy to want Favre back so he can get that winning season under his belt.
Give McCarthy credit though, he isn't all about himself. He made is clear he doesn't want any of the offseaon BS of the last two years. At the same time Taco, i think you made a good point. I don't see our two points as being conflicting. There are a lot of reasons for McCarthy to say what he said.
Bottom line. I don't think packer management is for pushing him out or bringing him back. I think they just want a committment...one way or the other.
While the W's and L's are the end result(and most important)...they not the only factor in determining whether or not a guy can coach. If McCarthy can coach....the guys in charge(Thompson ect...) will know it after a few years...regardless of his record and he'll get his extension.
And I have to admit...I am actualy enjoying watching Favre have some fun out there this year.
But having said that....this is to all you Packer posters out there......PLEASE STOP with the "We are the youngest team crap". Its a catch-all built in excuse. How about "We are rebuilding with a new coach and a new system"....or "Sherman had us soo fukd up....we had to start from scratch"
But having said that....this is to all you Packer posters out there......PLEASE STOP with the "We are the youngest team crap". Its a catch-all built in excuse. How about "We are rebuilding with a new coach and a new system"....or "Sherman had us soo fukd up....we had to start from scratch"
We ARE the youngesr team. While I agree it shouldn't be an excuse, usually it's the cause of most of the problems. Rookies make alot of good plays, but they make just as many dumb ones. This year, the majority of the mistakes has been rookie coaching actually. A rookie HC and two rookie coordinators. The Packers are the youngest team, from top to bottom.
Isn't calling yourself the youngest team, and saying you are starting from scratch pretty much the same thing? So is saying you're rebuilding. Obviously, if you're rebuilding, your not going to be an old team. Obviously if your starting from scratch, your not going to start from scratch with old players. Saying one implies the other.
While the W's and L's are the end result(and most important)...they not the only factor in determining whether or not a guy can coach. If McCarthy can coach....the guys in charge(Thompson ect...) will know it after a few years...regardless of his record and he'll get his extension.
And I have to admit...I am actualy enjoying watching Favre have some fun out there this year.
But having said that....this is to all you Packer posters out there......PLEASE STOP with the "We are the youngest team crap". Its a catch-all built in excuse. How about "We are rebuilding with a new coach and a new system"....or "Sherman had us soo fukd up....we had to start from scratch"
Actually it's this website that constantly is reminding packers that they are a rebuilding team.
But having said that....this is to all you Packer posters out there......PLEASE STOP with the "We are the youngest team crap". Its a catch-all built in excuse. How about "We are rebuilding with a new coach and a new system"....or "Sherman had us soo fukd up....we had to start from scratch"
We ARE the youngesr team. While I agree it shouldn't be an excuse, usually it's the cause of most of the problems. Rookies make alot of good plays, but they make just as many dumb ones. This year, the majority of the mistakes has been rookie coaching actually. A rookie HC and two rookie coordinators. The Packers are the youngest team, from top to bottom.
Isn't calling yourself the youngest team, and saying you are starting from scratch pretty much the same thing? So is saying you're rebuilding. Obviously, if you're rebuilding, your not going to be an old team. Obviously if your starting from scratch, your not going to start from scratch with old players. Saying one implies the other.
Holy crap....I just realized if you hit the quote button it copies the shiit for you.
Ok...so they are young...and they are rebuilding....so why the fuk is old man river still playing QB?
Funny you said that, I've been writing on this board for a year a while now, and just realized a few months ago that that thing existed. I never even noticed it before that.
Funny you said that, I've been writing on this board for a year a while now, and just realized a few months ago that that thing existed. I never even noticed it before that.
Funny you said that, I've been writing on this board for a year a while now, and just realized a few months ago that that thing existed. I never even noticed it before that.
Taco & Bear
You guys are kidding right?
Too funny...........
Unfortunately ...I am not. wow...a smiley thingy too
wow...a smiley thingy too
