From Pro Football Talk:

Brett Favre on why he played in 2010: “First of all, the money”

Posted by Michael David Smith on July 19, 2012, 9:15 PM EDT

Getty Images
If Brett Favre had retired for good after the 2009 season, he would have left near the top: He had a brilliant season in Minnesota, with the best stats of his career, he led the Vikings to the NFC Championship Game, he extended his consecutive games record another 16 games, and he was one of the most respected men in the NFL.

Instead, Favre came back to the Vikings for one more season in 2010, and it was a mess: He had the worst stats of his career, the Vikings were a bad team, his consecutive games streak came to an end and his reputation was tarnished by sexual harassment accusations stemming from his year with the Jets that might not have ever become public if he hadn’t remained in the public eye.

So why did Favre return? He did it for the same reason most people do their jobs: For the money.

“First of all, the money was too good,” Favre told Deion Sanders on NFL Network. “The money was too good, and I hate to say it’s about money. But, you know, I felt the money was a lot.”

Favre initially signed a two-year, $25 million contract with the Vikings that paid him $12 million in 2009 and $13 million in 2010, but as the Vikings tried to convince him to return for the second year of that deal, they gave him a pay raise to $16.5 million that year, plus $3.5 million in incentives tied to postseason performance. That postseason performance never came, of course, and Favre told Sanders that he hadn’t expected to make the playoffs in that final year.

Favre said “it was going to be next to impossible” to have as good a year in 2010 as the Vikings had in 2009.

“Now, that’s not to say I didn’t give my all,” Favre said. “It just wasn’t to be, and I think I knew that. I really know it now.”

And Favre also knows that he’s now many millions of dollars richer than he would have been if he had retired after the 2009 season.

While one could easily misread or misintepret this Favre article as sinister actions by Brett, I hope Viking fans understand what Brett was talking about in its entirety. I don't think it was an admission of pure monetary greed by any stretch. If you recall back in August of 2010, Brett appeared to be done with football and even texted some people about that. The Vikings went into their panic mode and sent the private jet and top players to his house, and the owners offered him a big raise. Even though every athelte in sports historically plays to make the most money they can, its always seen as a sign of greed whenever a player discusses their salary. While Favre certainly wouldn't outright admit it at that time, he is now admitting that it was certainly a factor in his decision to play one more year. And what 40 year old athlete of any sport would swiftly turn their back on $20 million?

At that time, it seemed like Brett's primary motivation was to support his teammates, the Vikings organization, and Viking fans, who all clearly and vocally wanted him to play again. And to add $20 million to that, certainly seems understandable and not greedy or selfish. The problem in the end, was that Brett wasn't playing for himself, he was playing for others, and this is a great example of how its tough to get a magically inspired performance when the athlete himself has already resigned himself to be done. That being said, Brett's inability to play one more MVP year was not the only reason why the Vikings went 6-10 or even the top reason. There were a lot of reasons, mostly to do with injuries, but that's all be debated to death before. But would like to remind folks of that in case their memories will shift to "Vikings failed in 2010 because Favre admitted he couldn't turn down $20 million offer".

But I do believe this raise came organically and was not a power play or a months long plan concocted by Bus Cook and Brett to squeeze more money out of the Vikings by pretending to not want to play anymore. It's important to note that the Vikings came to him with the raise, he didn't demand it or ask it, or even send feelers out to see if they'd pony up more dough. It was the Vikings decision to offer that to encourage him to play and it worked, and I don't think Brett is a bad person for factoring in 20 million reasons why he should play one more year. (remember this made Brett the highest paid guy in the league, seasonally speaking)

As for his comments about his doubts of them making the playoffs that year, that's probably one of the big reasons why he didn't want to play in 2010, but came back anyway to help his teammates and to earn a ton more money. While a Viking fan might resent him for coming back to play instead of declining the offer, so they could find a new young QB sooner, it is not any player's responsibility to decide the long-term roster of the team. It's on the Vikings, not Brett.

I don't have any problem with it. You really can't blame a guy for taking an opportunity to make $16.5MM for what amounts to 4 months of physical labor. Who here wouldn't do that?

That aside, I never felt like Favre was loafing it in 2010. There was plent of dysfunction going around on the Vikings that year, if anything Favre was a result of that, not the cause. The cause got fired that year, thankfully.

I don't have a problem either. I think I would probably do just about anything for 20 million haha

While the first statement isn't a direct quote, there's a HUGE difference between not expecting to have "as good a year" as 2009, in which the Vikings came within a hair of going to the Super Bowl, and not even expecting to make the playoffs. If you can't see that, then you're blind.

It's a damned shame that the money-grubbing #### came back in 2010. The Vikings would be a better team today if he hadn't, and Ziggy would have saved millions.

Don't blame him. He tried to say no how many times? And the vikings wouldn't take it for an answer. He was clearly physically and mentally shot and wanted nothing to do with playing again. Until the team decided shame be damned we'll throw everything we can to get the guy to try and work the magic again.

A pre-emptive defense of Favre saying he played for the money? I mean, I'm sure that can be taken to mean many things, and probably Favre would agree, there was a little of the mercenary in him that just decided the money was worthwhile, regardless of the prospects. But do you think this really warranted a first strike defense?

I hope it was worth slightly tarnishing his career (very slightly) by ending on a really bad season where his consecutive start streak ended.

Frankly, I was never a big fan of his, and no amount of defense of him will change my perception. But this... is a non-story.

Im just glad hes gone. And no one can blame him for coming back for the money.

I was never a Favre fan. But I blame Chilly and Co. waaay more than him for coming back in 2010.

Favre seem content to sit on his tractor and retire but Clueless had other ideas. He practically begged him to come back, sent Allen, Longwell and Hutch down to beg for him and even got Zygi to open the checkbook to give Favre even more money than the 13m he woulda made if he played.

If I had even the slightest itch to play and had people begging me and throwing $16m in face, I'd probably come back too.

Why blame Farve .. I go to work and do something for money just like he did

I'm not offended that Favre chose to play and collect that money. I'm just offended that he was ever a member of the Vikings.

Jim

That's a really strange attitude.


Edit: He led the team to one of the best years in the last decade and always played with an honest love of the game. Yeah he should have stopped at one but no one really knew that the gas tank was as empty as it was.

Not really. He was the QB of the Vikings biggest rival for over a decade and a half and consequently, I rooted against him for over a decade and a half. The last team I ever wanted to see him play for was the Vikings, especially because I never bought into the hype and believed they could win a Super Bowl with him at QB. Bringing him back in 2010 was folly, pure and simple. He was too old and they paid him too much. The best things to come out of the whole mess were Childress' departure and the end of the Tarvaris Jackson experiment.

I still think it is slightly strange, but I understand both sides of it. I was happy as hell when he came here. And you have to admit, 2009 was a fun season.

You've just taken your team to the conference championship game and came within a few plays of the Super Bowl. You got beaten all to hell doing it, and you're 40 years old, but someone talks you into playing for the same team, one more year, by waiving 20 million dollars in your face.

Fine. You need the money. We get it.

Now you tell us that you DIDN'T EVEN EXPECT TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS in that last year.

Huh???

Somethng isn't right here. I wonder if he expressed that feeling to any of his coaches or teammates? I can see it: "Guys, if you insist ... sure I'll play for $20M. Booyah! But, ya know, I don't think we'll make the playoffs this year. Just saying."

How fast do you think it would have taken Longwell, Hutchinson and Allen to get back on the plane without the hick from Mississippi?

It was certainly more fun than the last few losing seasons have been but honestly, I didn't have the blast a lot of Vikes fan did. Maybe it's just because I've seen better Vikings teams and better Vikings seasons or maybe it's because I never believed Childress and Favre could get the team to the Super Bowl, much less win it. I know that sounds cynical but I just didn't believe they'd get the job done. On top of that and despite the success the team had that year, it was still frustrating having Favre on the roster, especially because he came with the usual Favre-focused media circus and group of sycophantic, worshipful fans. I won't deny that he provided some thrilling moments and performances but that year became all about Favre and the following offseason was even worse. Billboards begging Favre to come back? Ugh, that was sickening! On top of all that was the knowledge that the team was ignoring their growing QB of the Future problem and was heading for a major fall...

I'm just glad that period in Vikes history is over.

This is funny, because someone should have asked him why he played in 2009. That was to screw over Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy and get back to another Superbowl that would give him more personal glory.

Make no mistake - I respect what Favre brings to the field. He's the best QB the Vikes had since Culpepper and one of the better ones ever. It probably took a guy with Favre's standing and experience to relegate Chilly's offensive tendencies to the background in 2009 while exploiting the substantial talents the Vikings had on offense. A lesser QB would not have been able to get away with some of what Favre got away with, of that I'm sure. While I was never thrilled that Favre was a Packer, it never bothered me all that much. I was a lot happier he was in Purple in 2009 than in Green and Gold, that's for sure.

With that said, Favre is, and was, always about Favre first-and-foremost. There is no shame in that unless one wants to believe something that isn't true. That Favre has come right out and said it regarding the 2010 season shouldn't really shock anyone. I would wager that the vast majority of players (and people) would do the exact same thing in a similar situation and for the same reason.

To me the biggest implications of what Favre did by playing (but more directly, what Childress and the Vikings failed to do by not working on a long-term answer at QB) in 2010 was it ensured the painful period that began that season would last longer than it might otherwise have due to the non-action at the QB position. Granted, there were no guarantees that any moves at that time would have paid off, but by not acting and relying on Favre the Vikings gave themselves zero chance of finding a bottom sooner, and now they're hitched very tightly to Ponder because their hand was forced.

Not even slightly bothered.

At all.

Favre played as hard as ANYONE when he was here.

If you think he was milking the Vikes for the 2010 year, think back to that Chicago game at TCF that NEVER should have been played. The field was dangerous and even Kluwe spoke out about it. He came off the doubtful list to start that game and put us up 7-0 with a TD to Harvin. freezing cold, dangerous, icy field, he's injured. Yet he's pushing to play.

Not bothered.

This.

While 2009 was fun (until the way it ended, which I seen coming from miles and miles away), it pained me to see Brett Favre as the one leading that fun. During those 60 minutes of play I gained a little more respect for Favre the player though. He seemed to love it and playing his heart out.

But like you said the circus surrounding everything was awful.

In retrospect (all this was also my opinion at the time) I'd probably rather have Brett Favre never suit for the Vikings and have watched a one and done playoff team with Jackson or Rosenfels. We're weren't winning a Super Bowl anyway with Childress at the helm. And Favre turned a 10 win team into a 12 win team.

The silver lining is eventually everything came full circle and it lead to ridding Chilly. But honestly he probably woulda been fired by the end of 2010 anyway if things stayed the course he was on pre-Favre from 06-08.


As far as fun rides and teams go I still prefer the '98 team to the '09 team even though I was only 7 at the time.
(The 2000 team made the NFCCG too, but that team wasn't as good in the regular season as the other 2 and I try to forget that massacre at the Meadowlands)

For the record, I was never a fan of Favre, so I am offended. If this was any other player, we would be yelling and screaming about how selfish that player was. But Favre gets a free pass? We are acting like it is all good? Wow.

I'm not offended. But my perspective is a bit different than what he says he believed at the time, or what you have all said. I think he wanted to make the money without the effort. I begrudge him missing the time in the summer and preseason, when he could have been working out with our players. The time off made him very ineffective early, and really doomed the 2010 season before it started. I think he knew he wouldn't let $16 million go by, and was just waiting for the last moment so that he could avoid the hard work of getting ready for the season, and just play the games and collect the paycheck.

I would agree with you IF Favre had said that he'll play and then he later admitted to doing it only for the money. The fact of the matter is that he didn't want to play and made no bones about it. Frankly, I wouldn't have wanted to play for Childress either. But they not only asked him ( in fact begged him, much to the angst of others) but offered him a raise. Although not expressly stated, he may have had doubts about their ability to make the playoffs with the Childress running the show. He had a first hand seat in overcoming (or trying to overcome) both the opponents and our coaching incompetence in 2010, so his "heart may have not been in it". I still defy anyone to say he didn't give 100% though. As far as him "admitting he didn't think the Vikes would make the playoffs": I would think less of him if he did so. Leaders should instill a "can-do" attitude with their people, not a "we can't " attitude. Saying after the fact is different, because it only affirms what we already know - the Vikes weren't good enough to make the playoffs.

I can't blame Favre here. YMMV.

John - The training camp issue is a valid point and that, I think, is a strong argument. That may be an angle where you could argue he didn't give 100% (in that 100% means also showing up for camp). When on the field though, I believe he made very effort to play well, but I can see your point here.

Exactly.

Well someone was definitely irriated by Favre's comments.

Brett Favre phoned it in for Vikings, says ex-teammate



http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... line_stack

I'm glad to see most everybody here seemed to understand what Favre was saying in its full context and if anyone saw the entire interview with Deion they would feel even stronger about it. As for Leber, while I don't think his comments were an accurate description of what happened, he is certainly entitled to his own opinion and interpretation of Favre, and anticipated that sort of response from some Vikings people and fans, but glad to see here on the board, most have a sensible interpretation of this situation. For the most part people on this board have been fair to Favre since the NFCCG and I credit that to intelligence of the folks on this board. And if people here dislike Favre no matter what, they at least admit or acknowledge it.

Bottom line is, I don't take for granted any favorable thoughts or statements about Favre from Viking fans considering he was the arch-enemy for 17 years, so when I see Favre is still perceived fairly in these parts, it reminds me why I like Viking fans.

everyone is playing for the money. it was part money and part revenge against ted thompson.

Leber hit the nail on the head. Favre was only there to collect a ****ing paycheck, and his attitude and poor play damn well showed on the field. (And off it, as well, complete with dick pics.)

Sometimes I wish the Saints *had* broken his leg.

favres heart probably wasnt in it when rice got surgery but he still loved the game. cant blame him for going for the cash. i dont blame him one bit for taking the cash, waffling on retiring and skipping training camps. he earned the right imo.