digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at sports.espn.go.com —

In High-Stakes Poker vs. Favre, Green Bay Can't Win

sports.espn.go.com — Favre has earned his share of diva currency, enough for one Get Out Of Retirement card. He's played hurt. He's played with his heart heavy with grief. And he's played for the moment, not the money. There are bits and pieces of his body all over Lambeau Field.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • beahmad, on 07/15/2008, -26/+23Just go away. I hate when sports stars pretend to quit to reaffirm their importance. Favre was great, he was ***** amazing, but this is a douche move.
    • dafragsta, on 07/15/2008, -2/+5The way he tells it, they have been pressuring him to retire for years. If you think about it from the point of view of the Packers (which isn't entirely fair, considering Farve had a great year last year), they've drafted Aaron Rogers and they want to develop him. You can't see this from the point of view that Farve is just being selfish. Joe Montana still wanted to play and the 49ers sidelined him until he left for Kansas City. Neither of those two teams wanted to push out someone the fans loved, but neither wanted to risk betting salary cap room and depth chart pitfalls for someone they believed to be over the hill, whether or not they were done, so they were both probably hoping that their respective QBs would retire as a franchise player.
      • chukd, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3SF didn't sideline Montana. He was injured that last year, came back at the end of the regular season, Monday Night Football, and did great. The following season, he was playing for KC. Montana didn't hang around and make an ass out of himself, unlike Favre.

        Favre is saying to everyone that he does not care about the Packers. He has held them hostage for the last 4 years deciding if he should retire or not. During this time, the Packers had to make draft decisions, free agent signings, etc... without knowing the future of the center piece of the team. Shame on Favre and his need to feed his own ego.

        There is no comparison between Montana and Favre! Montana has class.
      • kalii, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2No they didn't pressure him to retire, the Packers were the ones that were telling him to keep coming back the last 2 years when he wanted to retire.
      • SreyaNotfilc, on 07/15/2008, -1/+0You can't really be upset by Farve. I haven't followed his career that much, so I don't know all of the details of his contract. But, if they wanted to kick him out for the past whatever seasons, then why did they sign such a contract? Or, create a contract that promised X amount of years to be played guaranteed? It doesn't make any sense. It's on the contract that he is to play for X team for X amount of seasons. If it states that he can retire as many times as he wants and still come back to that contract while he's still part of the organization, then so be it. They created and negotiated the contract with Farve. They've should've been wiser about it, especially if they felt as if they needed to get rid of him after X amount of years. These retirings and unretirings happens a ton in professional sports, just not on this level. They knew what may have happened if he decided to retire and then unretire. He's just being a buisness man, that's all. He's basically playing by the rules that they mapped out in the contract.
  • wonderbriefs, on 07/15/2008, -0/+13"It says it wants to protect Favre from himself, but mostly it wants to protect Favre from becoming a free agent, signing with the Minnesota Vikings and possibly kicking the Packers' butts twice in the regular season. That's the reason behind not granting Favre his release -- nothing else."

    Oh *****, that would be pretty incredible. I've lived in Wisconsin and Minnesota. I was in Minnesota much longer but still a Packer fan. With all the trash-talking the Viking fans do, I'd love to see Favre play for the Vikings just to stir ***** up.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6I would be scared of the Vikings with Favre. They have a lot of nice pieces in place.
    • Kanten, on 07/15/2008, -2/+5I think I'd rather see him in a Bears uniform. That would be the twist of the century there.
    • scheibs14, on 07/15/2008, -0/+5You're right, I've trashed talked Favre my whole life as a Vikes fan (even though deep down I have respect for the guy). If he came here I would ***** bricks because a solid quarterback is pretty much all we are missing right now. Just think of the awkwardness in the first game of the season at Lambeau when they are supposed to retire his number.
    • tolbs, on 07/15/2008, -2/+3I've never been able to figure out why the media portrays the Bears v. Packers a bigger rivalry then the Vikings v. Packers. I've lived in both Minneapolis and Chicago and people care more passionately about Vikings v. Packers more in Minnesota (especially the more rural areas). In fact a lot more then they do about Bears v. Packers in Chicago. Either way it'd be weird to see Favre in anything but a Packers uniform.
      • MagicHobo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0The Pack/Bears rivalry may be waning or even seem nonexistent until you realize that underdog always seems to uproot the favorite whenever the two teams play. The Packers gave the Bears one of their three regular-season losses two years ago when they made their Superbowl run and last year two of the Packers three regular-season losses were at the hands of the Chicago Bears. Aside from this, the main reason is history. The Packers/Bears rivalry goes all the way back to the 1920s. The Minnesota Vikings didn't even exist until the 1960s and the "rivalry" in question never really started brewing until the 90s. Give it another 50 or so years and the Pack's main rival might change, but as of now, the Pack/Vikings rivalry just hasn't stood the test of time.
      • posure, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I disagree. While the Vikings/Packers rivalry has been more competitive, Chicago fans (mainly Cubs and Bears fans) try their best to be the biggest pricks on the planet which makes those rivalries more heated.

        Maybe I'm just biased because I live in Milwaukee and there's quite a bit of crossover between Milwaukee/Chicago people in both cities. Also, I am sick of Cubs fans coming to EVERY SINGLE Brewers game solely for the purpose of pissing us off (and then they buy sausage race souvenirs, go figure).
    • kalii, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Farve just put the Packers in a jacked up situation. Now they are going to have quarterback controversy if they don't trade him. This is one of those no win situations for everyone involved.
  • robEstyles, on 07/15/2008, -3/+12I'm a huge Favre fan but he cant keep doing this its not fair to the franchise. You got Rogers waiting in the wings plus they just drafted 2 QBs this year. How do you look towards the future when the present keeps changing his damn mind.
    • fata55, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Well then he should be released from GB.
      • troyfoley, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1nope. it's called a contract. if he isn't retiring he's still governed by it.
  • bg233, on 07/15/2008, -5/+16Is the thumbnail a before and after?
  • zacharytelschow, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6Favre will be traded to an NFC team outside of the division, which as a Packers fan is ok by me. I'd love to see him play another year, but Aaron Rodgers has been in the wings for 3 years now and will demand a trade if he doesn't start this year. Rodgers is no Favre, but former Favre backups like Matt Hasselback, Mark Brunnell, Aaron Brooks, and even the Dilf (Trent Dilfer, as many Super Bowls as Favre) have done alright for themselves. Trading Favre is in the best long term interests of a loaded and young team.
    • frankingeneral, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Yeah, the only problem is that all sports never have been, and never will be about "long term interests." It's a right here, right now league. And if you think that you are going to win more games with Aaron Rodgers than you would with Favre you're seriously deluded. By not taking Favre back the Packers went from serious Super Bowl contenders (as they lost virtually no one but Favre and were 1 step away last year) to not even being Wild Card contenders.
      • zacharytelschow, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2You're forgetting a few very critical points.

        Favre blew chunks in late-season, cold games where he was needed most. His hands looked like he could barely move them, and it showed in his play. The Packers may have been better off playing the Cowboys in Dallas than the Giants at home for the NFC title game.

        Farve, while blaming teammates for their play in Dallas, was jittery and threw the ball all over the place. When Rodgers stepped in, he became a game manager and let the Packer's offensive talent work for him.

        Yes, the Packers would lose Farve, who had a great year, but Rodgers is a capable quarterback and the Packers have a ton of young and developing talent that will get better.

        The Packers have a LOT of talent, a lot of young talent, and Rodgers doesn't have to do anything particularly special for the Packers to win 10 games this coming year. He essentially needs to be what the Badgers have had at quarterback for years: a guy who hands it to the stud running back (Grant) behind a good O-line and doesn't turn the ball over while leaning on a solid defense. The only difference is the Packers receivers are exceptional and the Badgers wideouts never have been.

        If you think the Packers aren't a playoff team (and still the favorite in their division) without Favre, you are delusional. Yes, Favre is the better quarterback this year, but who knows how many years that will be the case and what happens to Rodgers (demands a trade?) if Favre returns?
      • Starflyer59, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2Favre is a proven commodity, so until Aaron Rodgers starts a NFL game, finishes a NFL game, and wins a NFL game, he is a huge question mark for the Packers. It is what it is until he does something to change it.
      • kalii, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Farve is sporadic there is no telling what kinda of year he could have this year. The year before last he chucked so many interceptions everyone was wanting him to retire. He could easily have the same output this year.
      • frankingeneral, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2@zachary

        You're making some very incorrect assertions about how Favre played in cold weather games late in the season. In November through the post season he played in 6 cold weather games. He only played half of the Detroit game in Week 17, and he played mediocre in the Giants game. The remaining 4 games saw Favre with a QB rating of at least 115 (ranging as high as 137 in the Divisional playoffs) in each of those games, and a completion percentage of at least 65% (the other 3 games were all over 70%, including a 78% in the Divisional Round of the playoffs against Seattle). So your assertion that Favre was struggle in the cold weather is just plain wrong.

        The fact that Rodgers played decent for one half of one game is hardly enough to say that the Packers shouldn't take Favre back. AT THIS POINT (not to say that it won't change in the future), but at this point a Rodgers-led Packers team is no better than a Tavaris Jackson-led Minny team or a whomever-Lovie-Smith likes this week Bears team. The common denominator...neither Grossman, Orton, Jackson or Rodgers has ever proven anything. Why would you choose complete uncertainty when you can have a legit shot at the Super Bowl?
      • zacharytelschow, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1@ frankingeneral:

        The Packers played in two brutally cold games last year: the NFC title game with the Giants and at Chicago in week 16. In those games, Favre was a combined 36/67 (53.7%) while throwing two touchdowns and four interceptions and posting QB ratings of 40.2 and 70.7, respectively.

        If I recall correctly, the divisional game against the Seahawks was a game with huge, fluffy snowflakes falling in about 30 degree weather with almost no wind. There were no other games that were notably cold.

        If you choose to say there's little difference between the Packers and their division rivals, so be it. I completely disagree, as I believe the Packers have much more talent (much of it young) than the others in thee division. The Packers have the best non-injury prone back in the division, far and away the best receiving core, and based on last year's performances, the best defense. All Rodgers has to do is not lose the game and the superior talent around him will find a way to win it.
    • ZiggyILM, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1You had a great point before you said "Aaron Brooks" -_-
  • krogothwolf, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3The thumbnail is Farve and Thompson. The guy who looks like he just got handed a rattlesnake is Thompson if ya can't tell lol.

    So the team feels betrayed and doesn't want to let Farve go? I see no problems with that. Why have the possibility of him being the factor you don't make the playoffs/win super bowl because he ended up being the deciding factor in a game against his new team? Sounds fair to me, its his own fault for deciding to Retire. I'm pretty sure Packers went "We need to know, Retiring or not?" So they can decide what to do with their QB situation.
    • sphincterwart, on 07/15/2008, -1/+0"just handed a rattlesnake" is hilarious. A first for me... I will try to use it whenever possible.
    • dafragsta, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3or maybe they went "C'mon Brett. Aaron has been riding the pine for 3 years. We need to let him play. Please retire and do us all a favor." Maybe that's how it went.
  • jarjarwang, on 07/15/2008, -6/+1I read this hoping to understand why everyone has been saying "Brett Favre" for the last 10 days, but I guess the article was aimed at people who follow football closely in the off season.
  • bucky31, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3For a more detailed timeline of events: (according to packer sources)

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AuzRuclFFoAw ...

    I think Ted Thompson should bring in a 3rd party (say Ron Wolf) and discuss possible options for resolving the situation amicably. Wether it be releasing him, trading him, or making him come to camp to compete for the starting job. I think the best solution is to allow him to come to camp and compete with Aaron Rogers for the starting job. If he is the better QB, start him. Any other team would do that.
    • troyfoley, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1that is the solution he's been given. thompson said he would reinstated as a backup QB (rodgers won the starting job in OTA's), but the Packers aren't stupid. if he outplays Rodgers in training camp, they aren't going to keep him on the bench.
  • DrTubes, on 07/15/2008, -3/+6I'd love to see Favre come back as a back up and mentor to Rodgers. Who knows if Favre would be ok with that, but even Jim McMahon got a second super bowl ring as back up to Favre.

    If that doesn't happen, then Favre should really start focusing on his presidential run. We need a president who knows how to scramble when things turn sour.
    • Samadhi007, on 07/15/2008, -3/+1Favre hasn't been able to scramble well in years. He's much more likely to lead block.
  • Jackson0909, on 07/15/2008, -5/+3I think what Favre is doing is the wrong move. I understand that it is difficult to walk away from something you have loved your entire life; that's why so few have ever left the game sitting on the top. But the fact of the matter is, it is Favre's mistake to make, not the Green Bay Packers'. It is not fair to Favre to say that he will not be the starter for the Packers, but then will not release or trade him. They are attempting to control the man's life and that is wrong.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/15/2008, -2/+3It isn't "wrong." Its contractual. Favre signed with the Packers and has two more years left on his contract. If Favre shows up to camp, they have to put him on their roster and either keep him there and eat the ~$12 million in cap room or trade/release him. Favre can force the Packers hand, if he wants to. But I doubt it will come to that.
      • Jackson0909, on 07/15/2008, -4/+2It is wrong. Thompson has stated that they won't even allow Favre to compete with Rodgers for the starting job. In who's world does that make sense? The ridiculous part of all of this is the fact that Rodgers is an unproven quarterback. For all anyone knows, he could be a huge disaster. I'm of the opinion that Favre and Rodgers should have the chance to duke it out and the best man gets the job. Sound fair?
      • zacharytelschow, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3If Thompson doesn't want Favre, that's his choice. The team has moved on and prepared for life after Favre and they are completely within their rights to start anyone they please.
  • MRintheKeys, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5It's not fair for him to hold this franchise hostage like this. I know what's he's done with this franchise but there are other guys on this football team that need to know who the hell their on field leader is going to be on offense. If Farve does come back and I was Rodgers, I'd sit out and demand the Packers for a trade.
    • DephexTwin, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3Then they should just release Favre if that is what it comes down to.
      • robEstyles, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1They can't do that that would put them in salary cap hell and he'd probably go to the a divisional team like the Vikes or Bears.
      • DephexTwin, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Then that shows that the franchise isn't being held hostage; they are holding out because they don't want anyone else to have him. That's their choice, and they have that right, but they certainly aren't victims.
      • MRintheKeys, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0Sure they are being held hostage. I can think of plenty of great players Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, John Elway, Barry Sanders who retired with some dignity and class. Retiring means that's it, you don't want to play football anyway. Favre signed that contract he knew what the deal was. He is Packer's property and they can do with him whatever he wants. If Favre wants to play, then Brett come in and compete for the job. But it shouldn't just be given to you since you've already walked away from it once. You are the reason they lost the NFC Championship game Brett. Your tearful goodbye was enough for me, you tried, fell a little short now you ride out in the sunset. If he does come back, doesn't get the Packers to the playoffs or to the NFC championship game his comeback would be considered a failure.
      • johnnyblazepw, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1barry sanders might have left and never come back but the way he did it was hardly classy.. the lions intended on him being in their lineup and planned things around him and he quit at the last minute giving them no chance the fill the GINORMOUS hole he left
      • MRintheKeys, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0Sorry I don't have a problem with that. Unlike Favre, he wanted to make sure his mind was made up. He gave himself til July to come to a decision and after committing himself, told the Lions he was through. It's not his fault that they weren't grooming a successor for him as he knew he wasn't going to run forever. July is not the last minute in football especially for someone like a running back. He ran on turf which is horrible for a running backs' legs. If the Lions didn't plan for life without him that's their problem not his.
    • sphincterwart, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1They should take Brett back and trade Rodgers. Brian Brohm is a fine insurance policy. They will get more in trade for Rodgers then Favre and Favre is (almost)guaranteed to be better. If Favre sucks, the fan's can blame him. If Rodgers sucks the Packers will be blamed.
  • slaverynin, on 07/15/2008, -1/+6I just don't understand how you could have Favre on your team and not start him, i was amazed he wanted to be released then i thought about another great QB that finished his career in KC after playing his glory years in San Fran.
    • frankingeneral, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Yeah, and Montana (unlike Namath and Unitas before him) was still an above average starter in KC, which I think Brett would be wherever he ends up. He proved last year he still has plenty left to give. I'm not going to say the Packers owe anything to Favre, but they owe something to the fans that buy the merchandise and the tickets. They owe it to the fans to field the best team possible, and anyone who thinks that the Packers wouldn't be better with Favre starting is seriously deluded.
  • Klak, on 07/15/2008, -2/+7Farve has used his get out of retirement card. This is completly unfair to his team and to Aaron Rodgers. Too bad he couldn't jsut bow out gracefully.
  • Kanten, on 07/15/2008, -3/+9Quarterback Legend vs Newbie GM.

    It's pretty obvious who's got the leverage.
  • cajungator2, on 07/15/2008, -2/+5Look, Farve is a great player but you have to just accept the fact. He's like an old car. Dove great back in the day. You can repair it to keep it going. Sooner or later you just need to put it to rest. Again, no disrespect to Farve but I think its time he just keep himself in retirement.
    • sphincterwart, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Favre is a diver? Deep sea, cliff or sky?
    • frankingeneral, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2You're an idiot. He's not like an old car. Last year Favre had his best QB rating in 12 seasons and his highest completion percentage ever, and nearly a 2 to 1 TD to int ratio and his highest yardage total in 10 years. He clearly still has something left in the tank, and if you think the Packers will be better with Rodgers your seriously mistaken.
      • cajungator2, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1You're an idiot. My mom told me!
  • misterteenwolf, on 07/15/2008, -2/+2usually i'm against people that like to come out of retirement (jordan, jay-z, etc.) only to be shadows of their former selves. however, a part of me would love to see brett favre play another season. if anyone can come back, its definitely him
    • johnnyblazepw, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I'm somewhat torn on the subject. In Jordan's case he wasnt close to what he was before, but for his age he was still a solid performer and who are we to say he cant come back and get a few more years out of his career before he's too old to even try.
      In Jay-Z's case, he's still better than most of the rappers out there so I don't have a problem with it. If Jordan tried to come back now I'd definitely be against it, but I doubt he could even make a team outside of publicity stunts.
  • akeldama, on 07/15/2008, -2/+195% chance Favre will be a Buccaneer this season
    http://jasonjeffrey.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/95-ch ...
  • funkytaco, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2I disagree. Favre will look bad if he comes back, because it won't be with the Packers. The Packers are invested in a new quarterback, and it might be time for Favre to just enjoy the good life.
  • babydill, on 07/15/2008, -4/+3i'm from Wisconsin and it feels like Farve is spitting in my face when he says ***** like this. ***** retire alrdy, u can't do it anymore old man.
    • sphincterwart, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Text much? You can use whole words here.
    • WELLDOITLIVE, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2So you're the reason why people think we're a bunch of inbred hicks...
    • napk, on 07/16/2008, -0/+113-3. Seems like he can do it just fine to me.

      If you think Aaron Rodgers, a guy who has never started a game and has one TD can do better, then you've got be the dumbest SOB out there.
  • reverland, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3Favre should just hang it up while his health is good. A lot of football players have debilitating arthritis as they get older, I think if you think you're well enough to play and you're already assured a hall of fame spot as well as financial stability for the rest of your life then you shouldn't tempt fate.

    His team made it to the playoffs and were beaten by a better team this year. Will he not be happy unless he wins another superbowl?
  • trsully, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4Rodgers is a good quarterback, even if he bombs this season. Farve wasn't always a great quartback, he was a good quarterback with potential. Denying Rodgers play time now will most likely end up in the Packers having no quarterback in 3ish years.

    One thing us Packer fans like are Dynasties. Farve's is ending, we need to start a new one and Rodgers is our best bet.
  • chrissku, on 07/15/2008, -0/+7Brett Favre is big distraction for the Packers right now. This is a time when the team should be focuse on next season, instead of waiting in limbo to see what Brett Favre wants to do. He's nothing more than a drama queen at this point. It's getting ricockulous. Favre chose to retire, so he needs to stay retired.
  • thomsamuels, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Both parties are being babies about this whole thing. We should have expected Favre to pull this crap, he's been a consistent off-season headache for at least three years now. Thompson has obviously made his choice at QB and McCarthy seems to be on board with the plan, so they should man up, release Brett and let him play for the Vikes, and see what happens. You can't have your cake and eat it too fellas.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2"... they should man up, release Brett and let him play for the Vikes, and see what happens."

      Why? He's under contract, why should they just give him to the Vikings?
    • thomsamuels, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1It would be amicable on a number of levels. If Brett wants to continue his career with a rival then he should be allowed to. I agree, the first lesson in honor would be to honor his contract and compete for the job, but both sides would profit publicly, with the Packers doing the honorable thing, and Brett getting his chance to prove everyone wrong on another squad. I'm not a big Favre fan, but he has earned a little leeway in his years in the league and a concession like this from the Packers could do a lot to smooth the whole thing over.
  • Trifold, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Good to see a number of actual Packer fans agreeing that Brett's put them in an impossible situation. According to Brett, it seems like Green Bay has two options: start him and yank the starting job you promised to Rodgers (who will absolutely sign for another team after this year if you do that), or release him, and let him play for whoever he wants (of which there's a more than fair chance he'd shoot right to division rivals Minnesota or Chicago, which the front office doesn't want to do because that'd be stupid).

    Yeah, he gave the Pack a lot of great years, but it's not like he was working for free. They asked him if he wanted to come back, and he decided no. It's way too late to just change your mind and start making demands no matter how beloved he is. If he wants to come back, some team can trade fair value for him, otherwise tell him to grab a clipboard.
  • digglet08, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2In my eyes, the only thing that would "tarnish Favre's legacy" would be him trying to preserve his legacy. Its Brett Favre! He doesn't care about that, he just loves playing. Green Bay should go with Aaron, and Favre should just keep on playing. Its what they both want!
  • jerrycan, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1more proof they should have never replaced "The Magic Man" Don Makowski with that bum.
  • Ramenhood, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1Please give the Atlanta Falcons Brett Favre, becasue we need him! :O Matt Ryan can wait a bit.
  • MysticSavage, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1I like Brett as much as the next guy, but I think the Pack can find another cheaper, younger guy to throw 4 picks a game.
  • sportsstar67, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Packers will eventually bring him back and then trade him..Best guess is Tampa Bay
  • GenericZ, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Ego's aside, if the man wants to play and you decided to move on with Rodgers-- then release the guy! its good for the game, its Brett Friggin Far-vraaa for god sakes...

    besides i thought i read somewhere that Brett's contract is for another 2 or 3 years and i think, he is to be paid $12 million this year-- dont quote me-- but i know its alot-- so you are going to pay a sure starter and game winner that much money to hold a clip board!?

    dont get me wrong i like Rodgers being a Cali fan (bears) and watched him under Tedford... and wanted my Niners to pick him with their number pick that year -- but no we got the useless Smith... Screw it, you packer fans get no sympathy from me....
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.