The Biggest Much Ado About Nothing In The History Of Sports ...
JackWESQ
Posts: 2,133 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
If Brett Favre doesn't end up playing somewhere in 2008-09, then how can the last several months be anything other than the biggest much ado about nothing in the history of sports? And if that does come to pass, then I hope Aaron Rodgers tears his ACL in the first game of the season.
/s/ JackWESQ
/s/ JackWESQ
0
Comments
<< <i>If Brett Favre doesn't end up playing somewhere in 2008-09, then how can the last several months be anything other than the biggest much ado about nothing in the history of sports? And if that does come to pass, then I hope Aaron Rodgers tears his ACL in the first game of the season.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
I'm sure your just kidding and don't really wish Rodgers injures himself. I'm definitely not perfect, but there's something wrong with a person who truly hopes sports players injure themselves.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
/s/ JackWESQ
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>What does this mean exactly? >>
Ultimately, it means that the Packers didn't want to make any concessions to Favre. Favre's position (as I understand it) is that he wants to show up at training camp, be part of the team and have the opportunity to compete for the starting QB position. Packers don't want this and don't want him at training camp. Fine. So then Favre says, essentially, if you don't want want me, let me go somewhere where I am wanted. Packers don't want this either. So essentially, the Packers don't want Favre, but they don't want anyone else to have him either. In other words, they want their cake (not have Favre be part of the team) and eat it too (not have Favre be part of any other team). Hope this makes sense. If not, maybe grote15 can explain it better.
/s/ JackWESQ
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
As much as I've always admired and respected Favre, though, I have to side with GB on this one. Favre has done this song and dance routine about retiring for the last couple of years, so this is nothing new. Many people have criticized him for that in the past, with good reason, but I was always willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I felt he had earned that right to retire (or not) on his terms. After all, he is probably the greatest Packer of all time, and that's saying a lot considering the team's storied legacy, and that Bart Starr as QB won many more championships (and the first two Super Bowls), while Favre, despite all his heroics still has only that one ring.
But my respect for him has dwindled during this ordeal. He made a decision, and the team took him at his word, and made plans to move on. This is a big transition to begin with for GB, with a new QB, and the last thing the club needed was for Favre to go back on his word and now try to come back and create a circus that threatens to undermine the entire GB season. He claims that he was pressured to retire--I don't buy that for a minute. If anything, after last season, and considering how close GB came to reaching the Super Bowl, I'd have a hard time believing that he'd be anything but welcomed back with open arms for another season. Some have speculated that he made the decision to retire rashly after GB failed to sign Randy Moss, a player that Favre was very vocal about the team acquiring--and perhaps there is some truth to that story.
At this point, it's an ugly situation all around, and for everyone involved (Favre, GB and Aaron Rodgers, who's the innocent victim caught in this power play). I can certainly understand why GB would not acquiesce to Favre's demand to be released to sign with a team of his choice--after all, he is under contract, so why should GB give up an All Pro QB for nothing in return? And I can understand why GB is unwilling to bring him back to camp as the QB. When Favre retired last winter, they chose to move in another direction, with a QB they hope will be their future, simple as that. The only realistic option is a trade, but Favre doesn't want to be traded to just any team, but one of his choosing, so GB is hamstrung there, too.
Whatever happens, Favre has irreparably damaged his legacy in GB, IMO, and I now agree with those who criticized him for this song and dance routine he's done in the past. Truth of the matter, too, is that even though he was been a legend in GB and he is a first ballot HOGer regardless of what happens, last January Eli Manning made him look old and cold on his own field, the storied frozen tundra, and can his new club (assuming he gets traded) bank on another season like last? Or will they get the Favre of a couple of years ago, the aging gunslinger who'd throw the crucial pick at the most inopportune time trying to squeeze the ball through double coverage? Time will tell.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The story on de la Hoya is forthcoming, but I want to get this out first.
If you ask anyone who is part of a NFL team, e.g. from the equipment manager, to the players, to the coaches, to the owner, what their goal this season is, I would imagine that 99.99% would respond that it is to win the Super Bowl. Anything else secondary. Ask Mike McCarthy ... Super Bowl. Ask Mark Murphy ... Super Bowl. Ask Ted Thompson ... Super Bowl. So with that in mind, why would you not want Brett Favre as your QB? If you can honestly say that Aaron Rodgers gives the Packers a better chance of winning the Super Bowl over Brett Favre, then I'll shut my mouth. But if not, the Packers should take Favre back right now.
Opponents will counter that if you take Favre back, then you risk losing Rodgers and hurting the Packers' future. So what. That isn't your goal this season. Your goal this season is not to keep Aaron Rodgers happy. Your goal this season is not to keep the "window of opportunity" to win Super Bowl open for years to come. As you may recall, your goal this season is to do anything and everything to win the Super Bowl. Starting Brett Favre over Aaron Rodgers would go a long way to achieving that goal. Indeed, many would argue that by starting Brett Favre over Aaron Rodgers, the Packers would go from 0% chance of winning the Super Bowl to 1% (or more) and that, my friends, is a world of difference.
/s/ JackWESQ
P.S. Oh, and if your goal this season isn't to win the Super Bowl, I invite you to publicly state as such.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
JS
JS
Kevin, your lack of knowledge about football may be dwarfed only by your lack of knowledge about baseball (or all sports for that matter). Maybe Chrissy Simms will come back for you guys in '08.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>If you ask anyone who is part of a NFL team, e.g. from the equipment manager, to the players, to the coaches, to the owner, what their goal this season is, I would imagine that 99.99% would respond that it is to win the Super Bowl. Anything else secondary. Ask Mike McCarthy ... Super Bowl. Ask Mark Murphy ... Super Bowl. Ask Ted Thompson ... Super Bowl. So with that in mind, why would you not want Brett Favre as your QB? If you can honestly say that Aaron Rodgers gives the Packers a better chance of winning the Super Bowl over Brett Favre, then I'll shut my mouth. But if not, the Packers should take Favre back right now.
Opponents will counter that if you take Favre back, then you risk losing Rodgers and hurting the Packers' future. So what. That isn't your goal this season. Your goal this season is not to keep Aaron Rodgers happy. Your goal this season is not to keep the "window of opportunity" to win Super Bowl open for years to come. As you may recall, your goal this season is to do anything and everything to win the Super Bowl. Starting Brett Favre over Aaron Rodgers would go a long way to achieving that goal. Indeed, many would argue that by starting Brett Favre over Aaron Rodgers, the Packers would go from 0% chance of winning the Super Bowl to 1% (or more) and that, my friends, is a world of difference.
/s/ JackWESQ
P.S. Oh, and if your goal this season isn't to win the Super Bowl, I invite you to publicly state as such. >>
This is the most eloquent (and exact) explanation of my position that I have seen. Thank you for putting into words exactly how I feel.
Absolutely. It's far easier for most fans to make decisions looking back on past performance than potential results, but as your examples illustrate, the unknown is often just as rewarding (and successful) for the teams involved in making those decisions.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
At one point Scott (my roommate) was working the drive-thru. So who pulls up? Oscar de la Hoya with a buddy in a black Lamborghini. De la Hoya orders two (2) burgers and a two (2) sodas. He pulls the Lamborghini up the window to pay/receive his order. Scott hands him his order and see de la Hoya pull out a $100.00 bill. BEFORE handing over the $100.00 bill, de la Hoya asks Scott to give him some fries. Scott says sure, but that it would be an additional (what is it ... I'm not sure) $1.35. De la Hoya says come on, just give me some fries. Scott responds sure, but it will be an additional $1.35. At this point, de la Hoya starts pulling the "do you know who I am card." He starts cursing at Scott saying that he's never been treated so poorly, that he's going to contact management, all the while still cursing, using the f-bomb and a number of profanities. (I and other associates could hear him as we were standing near the drive-thru windowy.) Scott tells him that there's no need to use such language and that he'd be happy to give him the fries, but that there would be an additional cost. De la Hoya continues to shout f-bombs and curse at Scptt. At this point, Scott says to de la Hoya, that if he would like, he (Scott) would be happy to meet him in the parking lot to resolve matters.
Now, I can't say with absolute certainty that Scott would LOSE a fist fight with de la Hoya because, while de la Hoya is exceptionally skilled as a technical boxer, I don't know how he would do against a street brawler/martial arts black belt (which Scott is). Would Scott lose? Probably. Can I say for sure that he would lose? No.
So de la Hoya responds to Scott's offer to meet him in the parking lot with a, you guessed it, f-you. After which, de la Hoya shifts him Laborghini into gear and leaves never having paid for the burger and drinks. (Remember, he pull out a $100.00 bill, but never actually handed it over.)
Is this incident representative of de la Hoya's "true personality"? I have no idea. But I do know that no one who observed the incident that night at In-N-Out would cross the street to spit in de la Hoya's face. I wish him all the ill will that may come to him.
/s/ JackWESQ
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>mortgaging your future >>
There's that phrase again. There is no phrase that inappropriately carries a greater negative connotation in all of sports. I submit that mortgaging your future may be a good thing. Consider the following.
There have been 42 Super Bowls and a number of teams have been around for all 42 and yet have not won any of them. Of the top of my head ... Vikings, Lions, Falcons, Cardinals, Eagles, Bills, Chargers. If any one of these teams at some point in the past 42 years decided, for one season, to "mortgage their future" and do whatever it took to win the Super Bowl that season, I have to imagine that one of those teams would have actually won the Super Bowl.
Now keep in mind, mortgaging your future wouldn't be in perpetuity. How far could such a strategy set a team back? Five years? Ten years at the most. Regardless, still much less than the 42 years each of these teams has gone without winning a Super Bowl.
A misguided strategy? Probably. But how many of you would sacrifice the next five years? ten years? for a Super Bowl Championship this year?
/s/ JackWESQ
/s/ JackWESQ
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
I believe that Aaron Rodgers gives the Green Bay Packers nearly the same chance to win that Brett Favre does this season. Favre gets us through the regular season but falls apart come playoff time. Year after year.
John
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
In addition, that would have surely been a nice public embarressment for him.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject