In a move that must be breaking hearts across Wisconsin, the Green Bay Packers have traded quarterback Brett Favre to the New York Jets. It's a sad finish to an avoidable saga.
We never found out the answer to the most important question: why wouldn't the Packers take Favre back? He had them a home game from the Super Bowl just a few months ago, right? I didn't just dream that, did I?
My impression based on the news of the last few days is that Favre was willing to stay in Green Bay (and even compete for his job, which is lame), but that the Packers were ready to move on. I'm going to assume that's true. I've heard many reasons why the Packers were so eager to go forward without Favre, and most of them had two things in common: they involved Aaron Rodgers, and they were incredibly stupid.
Common was the contention that the team owed something to Rodgers, who has, after all, endured three years on the bench despite a sparkling career quarterback rating of 73. This is so absurd it's practically offensive. Where to start with the rhetorical questions. Okay, first off: does every Packer who sits for three years get an automatic starting job? Don't the Packers at other positions who risk injury and unemployment on every play deserve a front office that will build the best team possible? Did the team perhaps already reward Rodgers for his three years of service with a paycheck? Does the franchise really owe Rodgers more than its three-time MVP and one-time Super Bowl champion? Does Rodgers really "deserve" not to wait as long as, say, Steve Young?
(On the flip side, does Favre really "deserve" the starting spot? Um, YES, if he's the best quarterback on the roster (something it sounded like he was willing to prove). We're talking sports! Isn't it a meritocracy?)
Another idea that while keeping Favre around now will help the Packers in the short term, it will only infuriate Rodgers and spur him to leave at the end of his contract. Um, so what? It's no big loss. Besides, even if Rodgers really is a star, they'll tear up his deal and give him a new one that keeps him in town before he even hits free agency. When was the last time an awesome quarterback switched teams? (Um, not counting tonight.) It never happens.
Also, the Packers had plans already! And those plans didn't include Brett Favre, who said he was retiring! Seriously, I don't get this. Putting Favre in your plans makes you a much better football team. Don't you think the rest of the team craves the stability that would bring? Imagining myself in a young player's shoes, I'd much rather have a shot to prove myself with the Hall of Famer throwing to me, rather than some bonus baby who could be erratic and make me look bad.
I also think the issue has become clouded because Favre has fallen out of favor with many football fans for a few reasons. One, he gets a ton of pub out of proportion with the kind of player he's been the last few years (though he was great during last season specifically). Fine, whatever, I hate hype, too, though this guy is a legit legend. Many people are also saying Favre has been a jerk about this whole thing and put the Packers in a tough spot. In my book, he hasn't been nearly as big of a jerk as so many players have been. I mean, set aside the truly controversial guys (Leonard Little, anyone?). But if Barry Bonds wasn't enough of a jerk to lose his shot at 755, then Brett Favre definitely wasn't enough of a jerk to lose his starting spot in Green Bay.
Also, I keep seeing people suggest on the Web that the league or Packers should somehow be able to force Favre to stay retired. After all, he made a decision. And you're not allowed to change your mind in life! It is funny how many people saw Favre's return coming even when he announced his retirement, even if they meant it in jest.
Anyway, as I've said before, I feel terrible for Packers fans. But I feel terrible for all NFL fans now. First of all, the whiny bastards who keep announcing how sick they are of Favre now have to hear about him more. Actually, that part makes me happy. But why does Favre have to go to the Jets of all teams?
The Packers were 13-3 last year. The Jets? 4-12. I enjoy raining on your parade, Jets fans. Let's be realistic: there is no way Favre takes you to the Super Bowl, so why even bother? Also, Super Bowl III aside, I've always thought of New York's AFC sqaud as one of the lamer franchises in the league. Forget the past; can a 4-12 team have much of a roster? Who's Favre going to throw to, Al Toon?
It all adds up to some incredible lameness. The Packers won't be any good, the Jets won't be any good, and Favre will eventually leave the game unsatisfied. The Packers were a flawed team last year, but give 'em Brett for one more year and who knows what happens? Guess we'll never get to find out.
3 comments:
It would be interesting to see what the Jet's true motivations were when trading for Brett. Were they really trying to improve their team, or were the simply trying to sell some more tickets to help fund their new stadium?
I'm sure Brett will improve the offense, after all, the Jets were looking at having either Pennington or Clemons at QB this year, but whose to say that Brett won't have another year like he did two years ago? Why does everyone assume Brett will be as good as he was last year? I think last year was an anomaly and this year Brett will go back to throwing 20+ interceptions while filling his "gunslinger" role.
Acutally, Blaine, at 20+ interceptions and filling his gunslinging role, Brett Favre is still better than Pennington, Clemons, and Rodgers combined. At least he can connect on a 5-yard screen pass to a wide-open tailback.
This whole thing is just bizarre. I can't imagine how the Packers think they can placate their fan base by running off the best player in franchise history. And I don't get why Favre would accept a trade to the Jets, especially now that Al Toon is no longer on the roster. Couldn't he have at least landed in Tampa Bay?
As for the genesis of this situation, it is clear to me that the issue is interpersonal. This move wasn't based on performance; it was based on the Packers' ownership deciding it had had enough of Favre. And the NFL is still a management league, so they held all the cards and could make this move. The whole thing is exactly like the Eagles running off T.O., except that Favre is an even bigger star and better player.
I hope the Packers' ownership pays dearly, because the only thing I am more sick of hearing than Favre news is whining about Aaron Rodgers getting his chance.
Kenny Smith traded for Brett Favre? I don't know what the Jets' financial situation is like, but I doubt they're hurting for cash. For all I know it's just a move to make themselves more media-friendly since the Giants won it all.
No one knows what Favre's exact statistics will be, but you guys are right-even at his worst he's still quite the upgrade. Chad Pennington has somehow been bad and overrated for years, which should be impossible for a New York quarterback. But whenever I've seen him on TV, someone's in awe of his touch on swing passes to fullbacks.
John, you have a good point. It HAS to be personal because the Jets totally ripped the Packers off on this trade.
I would have been much happier to see Favre go to Tampa Bay; I think he'd be sick with Gruden, and at least the team would have the potential for excitement.
Post a Comment