If Brett Favre's Monday Night Knock-Out wasn't a strong enough omen, his Zero-TD, 2-INT performance in a "worst loss ever"-contending 31-9 stinker on national TV should be:
Don't come back, Brett.
Ugly note to end on? Sure, but how is that different from the rest of this season? Or, for that matter, all of last season?
He gave up the chance to end on anything BUT an ugly note by coming back... for 2005, let alone 2006.
He's just plain ineffective. His team around him is even more ineffective, made all the more ironic by Favre's preseason boasts about his teammates' "talent."
Sure: Talent for sucking.
(The whole thing was made even worse by the direct comparison to Donovan McNabb: Surrounded by an almost equally sketchy team, McNabb passed for 2 TDs and ran for a career-high 2 TDs. He carried his team.)
If Favre isn't willing to do what's best for the team and cede his spot as the starter, it's up to rookie head coach Mike McCarthy to show some rare leadership and bench the star in favor of the future, Aaron Rodgers. (Rodgers might not even be the right guy, but he's at least worth a look at this point of yet another lost season.)
I'm not sure if McCarthy has that type of leader's mettle in him to make that move.
But I'm quite sure it's the right moment to do it. He just might not be the right man to do it. That job is saved for Favre himself:
If Brett cared at all about his team or his fans – even if it doesn't satisfy his Hall of Fame-level self-interest – he'd show the leadership by benching himself.
Or even hanging it up completely.
Update (12:51 p.m.): Reader Joe in Asheville emailed me a phenomenal reason why Favre SHOULDN'T quit: He's in striking distance of the all-time interceptions record:
George Blanda – 276
John Hadl – 268
Fran Tarkenton – 266
Vinny Testaverde – 261
Brett Favre – 260(Hmm: 12 games, 17 INTs? TOTALLY doable!)
-- D.S.
Posts
47 comments:
Dan, now I agree Favre truly had no reason to return. But seriously? The guy HAS played his heart out thus far. He HAS been throwing pretty damn well half of the time or more. Plus, in his bad losses, they were against playoff caliber teams (with little to no running game).
Again, maybe he shouldn't of come back...but, you can't tell me he should walk away after a bad game. What if Jordan walked away in his first return to the NBA after a 10 point performance and bad loss?
That's all well and good, Dan, if the fault rested with Favre last night.
Since you apparently didn't watch the game, I'll point out where the blame rests, in ascending order.
#4: The Refs. No, I'm not going to pull a Holmgren here. But Jennings got mugged in the red zone and no penalty was called (made particularly galling by Al Harris being called for a contact penalty the following drive when what he did was nowhere close to what Jennings had done to him). There was also Jennings catch in the back of the end zone, but I see where it's a grey area so I'm not going to harp on it.
#3: Favre. Yes, even the apologist will give criticism where it's due. His downfield passes were odd, for lack of a better word. It was like he was uncomfortable throwing farther than 15 yards. This is of course the 2nd INT, which is all his fault. However, his performance was better than
#2: The Receivers' hands. Way too many dropped passes. The first INT was not Favre's at all; Morency needed to catch what should've been an easy completion. Donald Driver dropped a bunch, although to be fair to DD, most of them came after he took a big hit. No excuses, though, and none for the TD he dropped. Oy.
Of course, even with all that, the Packers were keeping it close. Until
#1 Ahmad "Pass Interference" Carroll stepped on the field. Reid and McNabb must've thought it was Christmas out there. Carroll's greatest weakness is against QB's that have accuracy downfield; he can't defend so he has to get a penalty--either way, the Packers are screwed when he's playing one-on-one. What I can't figure out is: why was he out there?
That said, the Eagles are a better team. Kudos to McCarthy for actually coming up with a good gameplan for the first 2.5 quarters. It's a shame that the "talent" let the coaching staff down.
Of course, in the end, no one is going to care about this game after the Packers beat the Rams and the circus that is TO comes to Philly.
"He's a guy having fun out there."
I hear that waaaay too much about Favre, as if having fun is more important than being competent and winning games. Only in the parity-stricken NFL.
Important difference between Jordan and Favre: Favre's been consistantly bad for the last 2 years. Jordan was suspen...err he retired while he was still good and then came back.
Chrth, the fact is for the last 3 years, Favre has SUCKED. Absolutely and completely. He has cost his team at least 10 games in that time frame with his horrible decisions and drive killing interceptions. Last year he had almost the exact same passer rating as Aaron freaking Brooks for christ's sake, look it up. I don't blame Favre for not retiring, I blame the Packers for being complete morons and not seeing this for themselves and cutting him. But hey if you wanna go 4-12 Favre's your guy. No freaking way they beat the Rams next week.
To be fair to Dan, he did write stuff like this while with the WWL.
As for the 'having fun out there' etc. comment:
Here's the thing about Favre: he gives the Packers the best chance to win right now. Would the Packers be better off without him? Maybe, maybe not. But winning is always preferable to losing, especially since high draft picks are no guarantee in this league.
The problem most of the writers (that have issues with Favre) have is familiarity breeding contempt. Writers make their living off of changes. TO goes to Philly then Dallas then the hospital. McNair goes to the Ravens. Brees to New Orleans, Culpepper (and Miami) to Miami. Collins is signed, Volek is traded, Young is starting in Tennessee. These are all things to write about.
But since Favre doesn't change, doesn't move, just sits there like Buddha meditating underneath the lights of Lambeau Field, writers' hands are tied. So what do they do? Well, some go into Favre-worship mode. Trust me, as a Favre fan, worship mode is as annoying as criticism mode; he's not perfect, he has flaws, there have been better QBs in NFL history.
Then there's the opposite: criticism mode. He's been in the league too long. This is just dumb, because by the writers' criteria Elway was in the league too long. He makes mistakes when he gambles. Well, yeah, but don't go overboard. Everyone still criticizes Brett for OT against Philly, but everyone (including Dr. Z, who you think would've noticed this) forgets that the INT Brett through was a play in the Packers' playbook, one that he had completed twice earlier in the game for big yardage. Is it Brett's fault Javon gets held up by the DBs? Or maybe it's the coaches' fault for having that play in the book in the first place? In short, you can't blame Brett for every INT he makes.
But of course, the Favre Criticism Brigade will. They need Brett to move on so they can write about Rodgers and who the Packers will bring in or draft to challenge for the starter role. They need Favre to ride off into the sunset so they can talk about him in past tense, so they can compare and contrast, and when the Packers have had 6 starting QBs in 7 years they'll be able to write how the Packers had 1 starting QB for 15 years before that and wasn't it a golden age back then?
And the sad thing is that the writers don't even realize this.
As a Packers fan, I'm ok with Brett leaving. He helped restore glory to the Packers. What more can we ask of him? While it'd be nice if he had the strength and fortitude to lift the youngest team on the league on his back and guide them to the Super Bowl one last time, none of us expect it to happen. Because Brett never did that in the past. All Brett has ever done was try to win games. He succeeded many more times than he failed.
And that's all Packers fans ever asked for.
@steve: go compare the 2004 stat line of Brett Favre to 1997. Seriously. Go ahead. I'll wait.
I'm tired of everyone being on the Brett Favre bandwagon. All he has done in the past two seasons is stink it up. I think he has thrown 200 of his 260 career interceptions in the past two seasons.
Sure you can blame it on his teammates but that is the easy way out. The team IS rebuilding, but are uncapable of doing a succesful job with Favre's salary and playing time sucking away Aaron Rodgers career.
Brett Favre
Salary: $7,000,000
Bonus: $3,005,720
Cap Total: $12,639,053
The quarterback position is the most important postion on the field. So when Brett finally decides to be unselfish and retire, Rodgers will have practically no real game playing experience. That is prolonging the rebuilding.
chrth-
You could have shortened your defense of Favre by saying "he is just having fun out there".
Sincerely-
A Bears Fan
2005 Passer Rating:
Brett Favre 70.9
Aaron Brooks 70.0
@dan mega:
It was less of a defense of Favre than it was a criticism of journalists.
@lawdog1214:
Your argument would make more sense if the Packers were at or above the Salary Cap limit. Since they're several million dollars under, it's pointless. Favre has no negative impact on the salary cap right now; in fact, retiring might hurt the cap situation more (although I don't think so, to be honest).
In today's lesson, Steve learns that 2005 != 2004.
Now now, mr. sawyer, let's not use hyperbole until we need it. There is no worse writer on the planet than Skip Bayless. Let's not wound others unnecessarily.
having fun is important in anyone's job.
chrth, do you think they will stop the game and honor Favre when he breaks George Blanda's all time interception record this year? I think they should. 2004's stats were ok, still a lot of int's though, but 2005 is more recent and 2006 is just as bad, so....
@cl9699:
It's really the gushers' fault. If PK and Madden didn't act like Favre was the second coming, most of the bashers wouldn't care as much. They'd hate his longevity, of course, as I already mentioned, but their criticism would be muted.
Plus, in the world of Instant History and Internet forums and talk radio, there's no place for a legend to wind down his career. Ripken would've been bashed for several season before breaking Gehrig, ditto Rose for Cobb. Everyone should pull a Barry Sanders or Robert Smith and retire at their peak.
Some would argue we already have.
I'll stop now, I'm going to retire at my peak discussion abilities in this thread before other commenters say I'm washed up.
Unless we start talking about the whole 'they should let Rodgers play' angle, that I still have more on.
I'd like to see what Jon Gruden could do with him...
Okay, as a warning, I'm a wisconsin native, a packer fan born and bred. As much as it hurts me to say this, Favre isn't the answer to our problems. however, everyone outside of wisconsin has to realize one thing: he means more to us (or maybe just me) than winning or losing. he's been the face of the team and the city of green bay for 15 years. he's been the only starting qb i've ever known, with the exception of vague recollections of majik man. i feel that we owe it to him to let him play it out, even if it means letting him suck for this year, and delaying the rebuilding process. i know a lot of people won't agree with this, but that's not the point. i'll follow this qb to a 1-15 season if it happens. i'm proud that he's still a packer, and wants to be until he retires.
I'm just sick of hearing about Farve, period. He can play for another three years, quit tomorrow, or whatever in between, but the CONSTANT attention he gets every time he *thinks* he *might* say something remotely related to the possibility that he may or may not continue playing is really, really annoying. The gushing that almost always accompanies said breathless reports is even more annoying. Brett is also playing every second of this up as much as he possibly can, and it's starting to get to the point where I wonder if he believes that football in the state is WI exists because of him, and we should all just feel privileged to watch him play and sit in great anticipation of his every whim.
Play, don't play, get traded, whatever. Let's just get Brett and the media to somehow agree not to go crazy over the possibilities, and just wait until there's an actual decision of some kind that makes a difference. In the meantime, pointing out his poor play is fair game, even for the saintly, he-loves-this-game Brett.
But in your rush to do so, you’ve lost your objectiveness. - eric
Dan Shanoff ever had objectiveness? I don't think we are talking about the same person. This is a man who proudly proclaims his hatred for everything Northeast (Yankees/Red Sox/Patriots) and Brett Favre. Favre could lead the Packers to a superbowl and Dan would bash him for taking so long to do it. There's just no point in fighting with Dan over his passion, he'll always hate the Northeast minus Harvard Business School and he'll always sweat everything Florida.
it's getting fiesty in here today!
my two cents. favre isn't the first quarterback to suck. some (ravens fans) would argue that you don't even NEED a quarterback to win football games. if the packers aren't going to bench him then they need to work around him. take his favre-ness out of the equation and he's another crappy quarterback that needs the supporting cast to step up.
do i think he should keep starting? it doesn't matter. if the powers that be in green bay (whomever they may be) decide to have him keep starting, then they need to compensate for it in other ways.
its ultimately not up to favre whether he starts or not. if i were in his position, i would keep playing until someone said "stop". if the coaches won't do that, then its hardly brett's fault for continuing to play. nobody should be forced to bench himself.
@mattie:
I don't think it's Brett's fault, honestly. You know the media. They've been asking him about retiring for 4 years now. If Brett was interested in publicity, he wouldn't go down to his farm every offseason.
Dammit, I said I was going to shut up. Grrrr.
@paul:
Dan (and others) have been arguing since last year that Rodgers should play in games so the Packers coaching staff can see if he's the QB of the future or if they need to draft/sign someone else. There are two problems with this argument.
1> There have been five QBs who have left the Packers system to become starters without starting a game for Green Bay: Ty Detmer. Mark Brunell. Aaron Brooks. Doug Pederson. Matt Hasselbeck. Craig Nall was almost 6th on this list, but the Bills stuck with Losman. Now, not all of them did very well (Detmer and Pederson especially; Brooks was actually good his first couple seasons out). If these guys didn't need to start garbage games before becoming starters, why would Rodgers?
2> Rodgers plays against NFL-caliber defenses every day. If the coaching staff can't judge him on the basis of his work in practice/pre-season, they're not worthy coaches. No one criticized Fisher for Volek, did they? No one said, Shouldn't Billy Volek have started a couple meaningful games first before being benched? So why would it be any different with Rodgers? The coaches will judge him based on what he does in practice; how he absorbs the playbook, etc. Everyone else in the league does it, why wouldn't the Packers?
What? You must be a pretty die-hard fan to say that Brett Favre is one of the top 10 quaterbacks in the NFL. How can you qualify such a claim? Certainly this year's (and last year's) stats don't back that up! And, of course, an interception is a turnover, so comparing it to a missed shot is basketball is pointless.
The thing is, Favre's best years are quickly fading in the rear-view mirror. If Packers fans don't mind sacrificing the future of the team to let him have fun on the field, that's fine with me. Its not my team. Maybe they secretly want to lose to get Brady Quinn as Favre's replacement (of course, with the way the Raiders are playing, that doesn't seem possible). Should Favre have retired or gone to a different team? Probably. He had a horrible year in '05, and despite his claims to the contrary, it's not like the Packers are a better team this season. It's obvious that he's not playing to win (unlike Jordan, or Elway, for that matter), he's just there for adulation of his fans and to stick around long enough to break some individual records.
Of course, the fact of the matter is that it isn't Favre's fault, really. The GM and coach are the ones who decide who is on the team and who starts. Therefore, it's their fault if they continue to pay and start a player that is holding back the success of their franchise. So if they let Favre play 'till he's 90, then good for Brett. Is he still a great QB? No. But why should he quit? He still enjoys the game, the fans still come to see him, and the team keeps cutting his check. Seems like a pretty easy decision when you look from his perspective.
ChrTh, I definitely think the bigger share of the blame goes to the media, but I'm not convinced that Brett doesn't contribute his share, and I tend to suspect he's believing his own (stratospheric) hype, regardless of what his stats over the last few years say. I mean, when you're sitting at a press conferences to face the media and say..."I have nothing to say, still haven't made up my mind yet," that's not any reporter's fault. That's Brett being a jerk to the media (which is fine in my book ;)), and to the fans (both those who really are invested in whether he stays or not, and those, like me, who don't want to see a big story on a press conference about nothing). To me, that was just a whole different level of arrogance, and that should be pinned on him -- even if he didn't call the conference himself, why not just cancel it instead of going there and making a big deal about saying nothing?
I have no problem with Favre continuing to play, in Green Bay or whatever, and generally agree that players should do what they want (and that the media goes overboard in screeching about who ought to do what when, though everyone's entitled to their own opinions). But this high-profile, gushing dilly-dallying on his part and the media's part drives me crazy.
All I know is, Brett Favre has been my favorite quarterback of all time. It still means something to see him go out there. Is he tainting his legacy? Maybe, but I doubt it. We're going to remember the good things, not these last couple seasons. Just like we'll forget about teh Wizard years for Jordan, the gimpy Bird seasons, Willy Mays farting around in centerfield at the end of his career.
When I get older, I'm going to tell my kids about Favre (I'm not a Packers fan or from Wisconsin). Why? Because he was something else to watch. His numbers will not be extraordinary (especially with these last years of 30 picks), but the toughness of the guy is just riveting to watch. I still think about throws I've seen him make.
Isnt' that why where all hear? To read his opinion...tards.-bryan
its always fun being called a tard by someone who spells we're "where" and here "hear".
Kurt,
Go easy on him. Maybe he's just from Mississippi.
So, we can all agree that the Packers are done for the year. Right? Okay, great. Let's move on.
So 2006 is the start of, what, probably a four to five season rebuilding process? If that's the case, then we know after at least one more year, McCarthy is out. End of story. Dan even pointed out that Aaron Rogers might not be the answer (and look at him. He's not. Point out one quarterback with his body type in the NFL right now who is good. Peyton Manning maybe? But as we've seen in those commercials, Peyton is pretty built, oddly enough). I digress.
Rebuilding isn't always about the quarterback position. It's a huge part of it, clearly, but on a team that is starting this many first year guys, what difference is the quarterback position going to make if you don't have the guy of the future? If the Packers had drafted Matt Leinart, for example, he'd have a much better chance of playing soon than Aaron Rogers.
So, with that being said, until they get the quarterback that will lead this franchise into the next decade, who is better to teach the young wide receivers and offensive lineman, on the field, in real-time game experience?
Aaron Rogers? So, wide receivers can learn about running routs and catching balls and avoiding hits when their quarterback can't get to them? And offensive lineman can learn to read defenses better from a guy who can't read them all that well himself?
Okay. Cool. Sit Brett Favre.
But what about learning from a man who's won 3 MVP's and a Super Bowl? Yeah, he really does stink, I'll be the first to admit, and he makes bad decisions probably 52% of the time he drops back, but you can't tell me that it's better on their younger players to have Aaron Rogers leading them down the field, when he may very well be the next Joey Harrington. Sure, we'll never know until he tries, but won't having better linemen and WR's help him when he does finally get under center. He looked bewildered and a little scared last night, and that's not what you need to help your team grow.
So why not let it be Favre's call? If he's in it for the record, more power to him. But he's not making the Packers any worse than they would be without him, and in ways that we don't see on TV every Sunday, he's probably helping out a lot more than we think. If he wants to stand there and get killed and decimate his legacy, again, it's his call.
I mean, when people think of Joe Montanna, do they really think about the years in Kansas City? If Derek Jeter got traded to the Devil Rays tomorrow, would you ever consider him anything other than a Yankee?
Throw the legacy argument in the trash. When Favre gets inducted into the hall of fame, people are going to talk about the MVPs, the Mike Holmgren days, the Super Bowl Ring, and then ultimately the starts streak. They're going to forget Michael Vick beating them in Lambeau in January. They're going to forget 2004, 2005, and especially 2006 (except for the asterix where he broke the all time TD record).
I'm not saying leave him alone, because he's in the public eye, and scrutiny comes with the territory. It's just that...well, I guess the Packers could actually be a lot worse.
On McCarthy:
After Game 1 of this season (before we all realized how good Da Bears were), I called for McCarthy's firing. How's that for Instant History? Anywho, I was pissed. I wanted Jim Bates. I wanted him to become DC after Miami dumped him, and he did. And I said, Great! Green Bay has their coaching successor to Sherman! And then Sherman gets let go and the Packers interview Bates and I'm all happy and then ... they hire McCarthy.
Now, my criticism of McCarthy's hiring had nothing to do with his previous jobs; Bill Walsh could've been last in the league as OC of San Fran last year. But what I saw in the preseason and game one was a very lackluster game plan. Short, conservative, uninspired. BLAND.
I'm willing to change my mind now, though. I was actually impressed with the game plan he put together last night. Granted, there was a lot of luck--the two fumbles--but I thought they showed some good fundamentals out there (until Ahmad Carroll showed up, of course). Maybe I was wrong to call for his firing. Other coaches would've said 'we can't beat them with our defense so we'll need to outgun them' and set Brett loose. But he didn't, and that impresses me. I'm willing to give McCarthy the benefit of the doubt for the remainder of the season.
dan, as I said over in the mlb post, I didn't think I took any. Which post are you referring to? I'll edit/delete if necessary. I pride myself on limiting cheap shots to Skip Bayless.
*hug*
I LOVE YOU BIG GUY!
(Obviously. Trust me, I don't waste my time on other blogs)
@salsa shark:
Some of last year needs to be blamed on Brett. For example, Robert Ferguson is not Javon Walker. Never was, never will be. Yet too often last season Favre threw the ball to Ferguson thinking Ferguson could catch it. Walker could have (and Jennings looks like he might be able to). Ferguson couldn't. And so an INT occurs, or a drive-killing incompletion. And yes, some of the blame goes to Ferguson, or the coaching, but at the same time, Brett Favre needs to step back and say, oh wait, Javon is injured, maybe I shouldn't throw jumpballs to Fergie.
I usually think it's silly to say a player SHOULD decide to retire. He's making millions!!! Of course he's making the right decision!!! Like any of us would turn down money!
BUT, fact is, the Packers CAN'T cut him or trade him for business reasons, either. Once he's off the roster, they have to admit they have an awful team to their core fans (the ones who think Favre is 12th best QB?!? In what league?!?)
So they're stuck. But he won't retire, and he should know they can't trade him. He should find a football-related job with decent pay and get out that way.
As a QB, he's awful, horrible and really, really bad. And it's not the Packers, it's him. He was shaky when he entered the league, and now he's the same. Everyone forgets this, but he ALWAYS took TOO many chances. But with Holmgren coaching, the rough spots were smoothed out and they got receivers who could help nullify his gunning.
The Packers _just_ _barely_ won the Super Bowl, in part, because of Favre. He was no Tom Brady, even at his peak. You put him behind a good offensive line, and what do you have? Marc Brunell. You have the 2006 Redskins O, and that's it.
I love Brett Favre dearly, I was on his bandwagon in college, when he was ALWAYS interesting. Not always good, ALWAYS interesting! Now he's always bad. If the Packers weren't in the NFC North, this would be a lot easier to see.
So football is a team game right?
2005 Passer rating for Kyle Orton, 59.7
Bears made it to 2nd round of playoffs?
Tell me why none of the blame falls on the front office for not having the guts to give Favre his release and going with Rogers and admitting they are rebuilding?
Favre has better passing stats this season than Hasselbeck, Vick, Big Ben, and your 1/4 MVP McNair. And he's not that far behind Leftwich...anyone out there want to start screaming for Garrard to start?
And in response to all the personal shots, fighting on the internet is like the special olympics.
I like how ESPN.com was lauding Favre's "Monday Night Magic" until the wheels came off in the third quarter. Now he's a washed-up has-been again.
Inconsistency, thy name is sportswriter.
To be absolutely clear, Favre is only 16th among fantasy QBs in my league, even though he's played New Orleans and Detroit. To be fair, not everybody has played Chicago.
But the key is that you're not going to the Super Bowl with brett favre. The team needs to be re-done, and a new quarterback has to be a part of that.
And every decision should be made with the Super Bowl in mind. That's the real goal.
Good enough Eric? This isn't a panel at Stats Inc, you know?
I don't know any casual fan that would take Favre 12th in a draft, and I doubt any GM would place him that high. It's not just offensive stats, because the entire team is built around him.
You think that's still too glib? For a comment on a sports column that has no statistics? Really?
All previous posts by someone posing as "Dan Shanoff" have been removed. They weren't from me.
Whoever is doing that, could you please stop? It's completely uncool. Why not post as yourself and join the conversation, instead of impersonating me?
-- Dan
Ok, here's my list, why not?
potential/future HoF (3):
T. Brady
P. Manning
D. Brees
No debate possible, based on last couple season's numbers (5):
C. Palmer
J. Kitna
B. Roethlisberger
J. Plummer
T. Green
QBs who don't kill their team like Favre, and occasionally win games(4):
M. Hasselbeck - vastly underrated
M. Bulger - He's had MVP seasons much more recently than Favre.
C. Pennington - Kurt Warner 2.0
J. Delhomme - vastly underrated.
Potential and current performace alone is better than Favre(2):
P. Rivers - low sample size, looks fantastic though.
R. Grossman - ditto.
Toss-up with Brett(4):
E. Manning - kills his team, can bring his team back.
K. Warner - bad O-line.
D. Bledsoe - Experience similar to Favre, but still gets it down the field.
Charlie Batch - who knows? Better numbers, but I doubt anyone really believes those numbers.
B. Favre
So Favre is _maybe_ 15th on my list. Considering that he only has 1-2 more years of playing, no actual GM should pick him up, unless your other option is Culpepper, Brooks or Harrington.
For the last 3 years, I'd rather have Trent Dilfer. He never hurt your team and he made 3rd downs. He's just HORRIBLY underrated. Favre makes dumb decisions, and he hasn't really cared enough to stop in the last 3 years or so. If we found out he's regressed as an alcoholic since 2001, would any of us be surprised?
And let me defend fantasy stats, because that's the ONLY way Favre begins to look good. Fantasy stats under-count interceptions and turnovers. And I still think fantasy stats are fine for giving a quick judgement to QBs.
But in the real world, Favre is even worse. He has no future. He has no willingness to play conservative (i.e. terrible for contenders like Ravens and Chicago). He has few physical skills that stand out. In the real world, no one wants Favre except the Packers (and maybe the Raiders would consider it). I'd rather have Losman, same arm, same dumb decisions, but he's more athletic AND HE'S TEACHABLE.
Look at the teams that took a gamble on old, used-to-scramble QBs: Ravens got McNair, Raiders took Brooks and these are desperate, desperate teams.
There aren't even 12 GMs that want Favre, let alone would rank 24 QBs below him. Saying he could go to the Super Bowl with the Ravens is silly, you can't prove it, it's 100% conjecture. The fact is, QBs just like Favre (same age, similar history and skills) aren't valued by the league.
@solomonrex:
He has no future
Wow, remind me not to name you in my living will.
eric, there's a difference between trying to irritate you and disagreeing with you. We disagree, that's it, it isn't personal. If you think the world is magically going to agree with you, may I refer you to Dan's original post, where he has NOT changed his mind. These comments are in part for disagreement. That's part of sharing ideas.
Maybe you're irritated because if we talk about numbers, I win. If we argue subjectively (since you have no numbers) there's no basis for us to agree.
I don't have to watch last night's game, because I've seen the Packers for the last 3 years and I have his statistics. So, are you going to argue that he's better than the numbers indicate (and I argue that he's worse)? There's no resolution possible without numbers, and the numbers agree: he's not very good.
Losing 31-9 is not a dropped ball issue, that's a desperate fan(s) making excuses. 9 points is hard to swallow when your QB is the best part of your team. 9 points shows that Detroit and Minnesota have been propping Favre up for years.
And there are no moral victories. If Favre played well enough to win, they would have won. His offense didn't score 32 points, it scored 9, so he loses. David Carr managed 10 against the same Eagles.
Favre just isn't very good, and Shanoff is about the millionth person to wish he would retire. You know what? It's his life, and I don't blame him for taking the money and gunning for records. But I don't admire him.
And I'm not going to make excuses for a millionaire manager who isn't good at his job and can't make the people around him better. I'm shocked at how lenient people are for bad white quarterbacks and critical of black wide receivers.
funny that GB just cut Caroll today. Too bad they didn't do it on Saturday, maybe they would have covered the spread.
cl9699:
The point is not whether the numbers lie. Of course the numbers can be misleading - you can prove anything with numbers if you try hard enough. But there's a reason every NFL contract incentive has numbers in it: it's objective. So unless you're an NFL scout, and can verify that you are, I can't just take your word that Favre is still good. I'm only willing to accept an authority argument if you are, in fact, an authority. Otherwise, all we can do is talk numbers.
So I think the Packers and the NFC North have been propping Favre up, (as you point out, the Packers had the best D because they were in the NFC North). And I guess you think Favre is better than his numbers, but you give no real reason.
Whether I played ball doesn't make me automatically wrong. Either I'm right or I'm wrong, and if you know why I'm wrong because you played ball, then speak up.
And I'm not making this a color thing so much as a perception thing. Favre relies on people so it's obviously NOT his fault? No, more people rely on him, and he's paid accordingly and the best way to measure his effectiveness is the Packers' points scored. No one on that team is paid as much (except Bubba Franks, bizarrely, is paid nearly the same)(2005 figures, USAToday). He needs to accept responsibility for the fact his offense is bad. What he gets paid is part of the problem. To be fair, he brings in a lot of money for the organization, more so than, say, Bubba Franks. But that's the business side.
What kills me is the argument that he would go to the Super Bowl with Baltimore. Yes, IF he only had to score 2 touchdowns a game, he would be a winner. Um... doesn't that prove that's he's not very good?
Don't make excuses for millionaires. How hard is that?
Post a Comment