I know I'll never make it as a sportswriter, for one reason:I've never liked Brett Favre.
It seems to be an unwritten prerequisite for being a sports journalist that you have to like Favre. For as long as I can remember, every ESPN analyst and every columnist I've read have consistently gushed about Favre.
I've never understood it.
For the Thanksgiving game in Detroit this year, Fox played an embarassing five-minute tribute to Favre, for no other apparent reason than he was Brett Favre. On a holiday game that is really about a Detroit tradition, Favre had the Fox studio crew talking as if Jesus were about to go under center against the Lions.
I switched channels to the Macy's parade.
Now that Favre finally has announced his retirement, ESPN seems to be running a day-long Favre-fest, with all of its analysts raving about his career, his last season, and his choice to hang them up. It's a disgusting 24-hour Brett Party, and it's sure to continue at least all week.
I'm watching Arsenal and AC Milan on ESPN 2, although the ESPN ticker at the bottom of the screen is reminding me twice per minute that Favre has retired.
I can't argue that Favre wasn't a good quarterback, because he was. You don't argue against records set and a Super Bowl won. But I can say that I just never understood what all the fuss was about.
Everyone says, "Well he's such a gunslinger, he has so much fun out there!" I always felt like he just couldn't make decisions fast enough, and he let his legs and arm make up for his slow choices. The gunslinger image completely is constructed by a media that is in love with him.
If anyone else tried the things he did and threw the interceptions he threw, they'd be ripped apart immediately.
Much is also made of how Favre is just a "Good-old boy who never grew up," and that his addiciton to (and subsequent recovery from) painkillers and alcohol just served to make him more human. Really?
Have we ever given this kind of free pass to a drug addict and alcoholic before? I'm certainly glad no negative consequences ever really came of Favre's vices, but I can't ever recall such habits being passed off as "endearing" with any other athlete before. Once again, Favre's image is a media construction.
The only negative that occurs to me from Favre's retirement is that there will be one fewer quality quarterback in the NFL. Aside from that, I'll be glad to see the No. 4 become a punter's number again. I'll be glad to see Green Bay develop a running game, which makes much more sense for their location. And I'll be overjoyed when I can watch a Sunday of NFL games without every analyst drooling on themselves over Favre.
He was a good quarterback, and I'm happy he played. But I'm happier that he's gone.
comments (29) write a comment »
write a new comment
4 months ago
So, what are you smoking?
from 4 months ago
Ive been a packer fan since 67-68 and I will say I'm glad he is gone-I never wanted a gunslinger who too many times plays like a rookie -- he can take you far but too many times he lets you down and its a long walk back on a tougher road or worse yet next year-- I want a smarter QB whose job is on the line -- I can't balieve that he was never ever benched -- why- because of who he was - I do not want someone who is treated like a mini god--I wanted Rogers to take over the team 2 years ago and grow and get that experience with a young and growing team also - Rogers will do just fine but he could have had that 2 years experience under his belt --now we are back to square one after that horrible pass ( I will not talk about that Philiadelphia pass 3 years ago-) -- I doubt the reciever made a bad rout -- I think he was covering for Favre - did I hear talk that the team did not want him back? -- because they knew that he helped them get that far and then single handedly blew it
from 4 months ago
donald,
that's really interesting to hear that from a packers fan. I think you've said a lot of the things I wanted to say, that he was treated too nicely and was good, but made more bad decisions than you would've liked. Thanks for reading, and good luck with Rodgers.
4 months ago
Your right.. You'll never make it as a sports writer. There is only one place where this article might come in handy, to start a fire in my fireplace.
from 4 months ago
i guess that makes two of us...sweet grammar!
also, are you tossing your computer into your fireplace? I'm not sure that will be effective...
from 4 months ago
HAHA nice comeback
4 months ago
you couldn't be a sportswriter because you don't understand the magnitude of what he has accomplished. imagine the retirement of a baseball player, sans steroids, who held the career records for home runs, RBI, hits, and consecutive games played. that's what this is, only in football. brett favre has earned every bit of coverage he's received
from 4 months ago
see, i don't disagree that he's a great quarterback who's accomplished a lot. I've just never been in the huge party that loves him, and I'm not a fan of any sort of over-saturation in the media, and he's probably the most over-saturated topic we have now.
and i can get behind part of your analogy, that he would be like an MLB player with the record for HR and RBI, but I don't know what category hits would be. I'd say home runs would be touchdowns, RBI would be passing yards, but what would hits be, completions? Just like in baseball, the HRs are related to the RBI (When you've thrown for a bunch of TDs, you've obviously thrown for a lot of yards; if you've hit 700 HRs, you obviously have a good shot at having the record for RBI also), but unlike baseball, the completions are related to the other categories, whereas having a lot of hits wouldn't guarantee that you have a lot of HR or RBI. I also don't buy as much into the consecutive games played thing. Yes, he's tough guy, that's great, but there were times he was probably doing his team more harm than good by taking snaps with broken or sprained fingers or other injuries. It also requires just a lot of luck to never have any major injuries. Dan Marino had 145 consecutive starts before he tore his ACL, and only missed two games after that. It's a lot of luck.
So yeah, I won't argue with you that he's good (I never said he wasn't), but I just wasn't ever a big fan, and I'm glad that after this week of tons of Favre coverage, I won't have to hear as much about him.
from 4 months ago
add in strikeouts because of all the interceptions, and when he said hits, he was eluding to completions, so that's what that is.
4 months ago
A few reasons why Favre might deserve a little bit of attention from the sports media.
* Most AP NFL MVP awards: 3 (1995, 1996, 1997)[65]
* Most consecutive starts by a quarterback (NFL): 253[4] (275 including playoffs)
* Most wins by a starting quarterback (NFL) regular season career: 160[4] (Regular season record: 160-93)
* Most career passing touchdowns: 442 [66][67]
* Most career passing yards: 61,655[66]
* Most career pass completions: 5,377[68][4]
* Most career pass attempts: 8,758[4][3][69]
* Most career interceptions thrown: 288 [66][70]
* Most career games with at least three touchdowns: 63 [46]
As far as his bout with Painkillers, it's a little different than smoking pot or doing Cocaine. He started taking them to help with various injuries and hit rock bottom. After going to rehab, he hasn't relapsed at all. Forgiveness is something we all are willing to practice, when it is warranted. Lord knows we all need it from time to time.
Also, the gunslinger mentality does work when you win Super Bowls, MVP's, repeated division titles, repeated playoff appearances, and don't ever get hurt. After 1994, he only had two seasons where he threw more INT's than TD's. He wasn't just a Gunslinger, he was a good Gunslinger and that's the difference.
I'm guessing you were one of those people who wanted him to retire last year as well. How would that have worked out for the 13-3, division winning Packers?
4 months ago
Again, I never said he wasn't a good QB.
As for the painkillers...you're doing exactly what I said, giving him a free pass! How is it different than another drug? He got addicted and abused them! Alcohol too! Actually, isn't there some sort of comparison to steroids to be made of that, if he started using them to ease the pain of football, allowing him to play better? And I agree nobody should be automatically damned for their mistakes, but nobody has ever been given the treatment Favre has when it comes to drugs.
One Super Bowl, not Super Bowl(s). And you're making the argument again that I didn't think he was good. I did. I just also thought 'gunslinger' was another media construction for their darling. "ONLY" two seasons AFTER 1994 where he had more picks than INT?? How many seasons has Peyton Manning had with more INT than TD? Brady? Marino? Favre was good, but "gunslinger" was a nice way of saying "playing out of control".
my wanting him to retire had nothing to do with his play. Can I re-iterate again that I thought he was good? I just don't like him.
4 months ago
well i'll say this...you're lucky he put up his numbers in green bay instead of new york or chicago if you don't like the coverage he's getting. if a quarterback started every game for 16 years for the giants, jets, or, especially, the bears, and also only had one losing season since then (every other current NFL franchise has had at least three, by the way), the coverage would probably never end.
and sure, the vicadin helped him get out onto the field, but he never lied to Congress (Palmeiro), he never sold out any of his friends because of it (Rocket, Barry), and he hasn't dodged questions about it (McGwire). he hasn't had a drink in 10 years! i'm pretty sure that's enough to earn forgiveness.
and i'll take brett favre with broken fingers over a healthy doug pederson, aaron brooks, ty detmer, mark brunell, young matt hasselbeck etc. any day. twice on monday nights.
from 4 months ago
those are solid points. I should count my blessings that he wasn't in a big market. But do you think that a big city like Chicago or New York would've embraced his risk taking and "down-home-ness" the same way?
4 months ago
"Actually, isn't there some sort of comparison to steroids to be made of that, if he started using them to ease the pain of football, allowing him to play better?"
Huh?
I guess if we're making comparisons to booze/prescription med abuse and performance enhancers, why don't we compare zebras and hula hoops?
You want people to regard him as a 'roid guy now? Classy!
People like Favre because Green Bay is a tiny city. He's a country boy. No one wanted him. Together they shouldn't have had much of a chance. And in the end, turns out he did pretty well. So did the team. And at the same time, his flaws were pretty visible. Journalists latch on to something like that for better or worse. And ride it into the ground. Is it that goddamn difficult to piece together? Wrap your brain around it there, guy. If you're wanting to be a contrarian, get in line. There's probably 500,000 other fans who are happy he's hanging it up.
Favre actually made me start liking the team again, for what it is worth.
4 months ago
Performance Enhancing Drugs. If Vicodin helped him take the field every sunday or ease the pain most NFLers feel, wouldn't it be performance enhancing? I don't think it's quite zebras and hula hoops. Although looking at a zebra long enough makes me dizzy, same as alcohol. Also, I never said we should regard him as a 'roid guy, but that there could be a performance-enhancing metaphor to be made between painkillers and steroids.
And I'm not trying to be a contrarian, this is how I've always felt about Favre. If there's that long of a line, why is this the only Bleacer Report article I've read that isn't gushing over him? Someone had to write for 500,000 people I guess.
And that's good. I'll never try to talk someone out of becoming more enthusiastic for a team or a sport. He just doesn't do it for me.
4 months ago
if the bears had gone 25 years (25 years!) with only one playoff appearance, and some young stud who did nothing but throw touchdown passes, win football games, get people talking about the team again, lead teams to a super bowls, and set records with a stupid orange C on his helmet, bears fans would accept him just fine.
from 4 months ago
Agreed. That was more of a hypothetical wondering. I can see your stance clearly, Tim, but you know you're not going to make me like him or want to hear more about him.
4 months ago
I agree. Favre is overrated. I have an article going up on Sports-Central.org tomorrow afternoon that basically says the same stuff you did. I'll never understand the love affair with Favre.
He's a good QB, but people pretend he was the best ever just because he played for a long time and built up a lot of stats. They forget that he also built up a lot of bad stats and really hasn't been a top-level QB in 10 years.
from 4 months ago
I look forward to reading it.
from 3 months ago
Don't know if you'll still see this, but here goes--I'll compare him to Montana, since he seems to be everyone's consensus "greatest of all-time."
Favre over Montana: 1968 more completions, 21,104 more yards (THAT'S TWELVE MORE MILES, AND OVER 50% MORE YARDAGE IN JUST ONE MORE SEASON!), 28.7 more yards per game, 169 more touchdowns (modify by INTs below), 43 more wins (modify by losses below).
Montana over Favre: 1.8% more completions (inconsequential), .53 more yards/completion (actually significant), 6.6 higher rating (again significant but not overwhelming), 149 fewer INTs (ratio of TDs to INTs is .37 higher, or 28%--an impressive margin), 47 fewer losses (winning percentage 81 points higher, again impressive).
Bottom line: the only places Montana has a clear edge over Favre were aided by his superior supporting cast (including championships); the only places Favre has an edge over Montana were aided by his ability to stay under center more. That's a major factor in how good a QB is--can you count on him playing? That's why I put Favre ahead of Montana, but I accept it is arguable. I hope this helps you see the case for #4 is strong, too.
4 months ago
at least he didn't fade away in places like, oh, arizona, or oakland, like two of the other two great football players of his era. his last season was one of his best, and he left the game knowing that over 75 percent of the teams in the league still would want him to play quarterback for them. it was just a big, 30-touchdown, 4100-yard, 14-win "F you" to people who thought he should've retired 3, 4, or 5 years ago
from 4 months ago
see, now Favre's exit might seem more glorious, especially when you put it that way (and the media certainly has), but I tend to sympathize more with Rice and Emmitt, who still wanted to play, and weren't "emotionally tired" from the game. If anything, it takes a little off of the "he's just a kid who loves playing" angle for me, because kids who love playing don't stop until they can't play anymore. He says he can still play, and he played a good year to prove it, but he's choosing the "glorious" send-off as opposed to going until he can't anymore.
4 months ago
With the numbers he put up, I wish he woulda' stayed in Atlanta.
(yes I'm a sad Falcons fan *single-tear*)
Great article tho'!
4 months ago
justin i love you!
your amazing!
from 4 months ago
okay anonymous, that's the second comment you've left in that vein, so let's get this straight: It's YOU'RE.
3 months ago
I love Favre but won't argue most of your points, because they are opinions and not without merit. I also admire your courage for speaking intellegently against common thought. However, I don't think he got any free pass that others didn't: he is #1 in virtually every category despite having marginal talent around him and still not #1 on very many people's lists of the greatest QBs of all time.
People do love the guy and the way he played, but it has not given him additional respect in the list of the best. And I don't think the streak can be overplayed--we always knew we were going to have our best quarterback in on that day, and no other QB can say that. How many losses did Aikman's injuries cost the 'Boys?
3 months ago
By the way, I'm actually glad he's retired too: his gunslinger mentality meant he could raise the play of his team to a new level, but it also meant he could lower it. Even if he does the former twice as often as the latter, it doesn't leave good odds we win a Superbowl again, since that requires three games (presume two good and one bad outta three). He won the one because Holmgren could reign him in, but everyone who has come later was dwarfed by Favre in presence. Mike shoulda stayed--they were better together than either apart...kinda like John and Paul.
2 months ago
Yo know why every reporter liked him cause he was an amazing athlete. He was respected on and off the field. He showed good sportsmanship as well as good talent.
about 1 month ago
BRAVO, BRAVO or should it be BRETTO, BRETTO??? Incidentally - Arsenal, AC Milan was a very good game!
write a new comment