One of the best ways to follow what's happening with the Green Bay Packers is to read Jason Wilde's coverage on espnmilwaukee.com and to follow him on Twitter @JasonWilde. (That's WILL-dee, for when you tell your friends about the Packers guy that you follow to keep up with your hated rivals.)
This morning, Wilde wrote about the Greg Jennings' "brainwashing" dust-up by starting out: "Mike McCarthy never said Greg Jennings’ name. He didn’t have to."
Then, he quoted the Packers coach in response to a question about how the Packers don't have many "look-at-me" type players:
“I don’t nip it in the bud. I think it’s a product of your culture. Every coach, every player, every support staff member, and I can express to you clearly everybody in football operations understands the importance of the value of being a Green Bay Packer. That’s the way we operate, whether people like it or not. We do not do anything to jeopardize that. That’s No. 1. The brand name of the Green Bay Packers is something all of our players are educated on, and then from that, development of your individual brand? Hey, go for it. As long as it doesn’t jeopardize the brand of the Green Bay Packers. That’s the only message I’ve ever given to our team on a consistent basis, and our guys are in tune with that.”
And linebacker Clay Matthews threw in a reference to Brett Favre, again without naming names, when he was asked about balancing his personal "brand" with the team's needs: “With his (Jennings’) case, obviously it didn’t end on agreeable terms, and we’re very competitive – both the organization as far as winning, and players as far as winning. Whether that’s on a personal level or on a team level. So it never sits right. Obviously we saw that with a former quarterback here. So it’s something you deal with.”
You can read the entire post here.
And if you need a reminder about how Jennings felt about his time in Green Bay, we remind you of this:
One more thing that's puzzling, as long as we've gone this far. Fans say they want to know what players really think, beyond the cliches. But if that's really the case, how to you account for the results here?