Bad NFL Reporting Continues: Brett Favre 100 Percent Positive He's Retiring?
Sports Illustrated's Peter King is the latest misinformed, rumor-chasing, supposedly competent sports reporter to give the NFL world the "latest dish".
The well-respected writer confidently says that "some guy" (who none of us know for sure) spoke to Brett Favre after the 2009 NFL season, and was told that Favre is "100% positive" that he's retiring.
Can we all just finall come to a collective agreement on a few things? Seriously, let's run down the list:
1. Peter King shouldn't report on Brett Favre.
The guy has said, oh, I don't know, ten times over the past three years that Favre wouldn't be coming back. Whether it's strictly from Favre's mouth (rarely), or from some other player, I think it's high-time that we all openly proclaim...that King isn't very credible.
And speaking of the constant poor reporting from so-called expert reporters...
2. The same goes for Ed Werder.
No, that's all I have to say about that guy.
3. And Ron Jaworski.
Come to think of it, nobody respects this chipmunk-looking, poor excuse for a former NFL quarterback. I mean, really, who actually believes this guy was one of the best Philadelphia Eagles of all-time?
Eagles fans, politely sit back down.
4. Can we second this notion ten-fold for Chris Mortenson?
I can't count how many times this guy has reported with his entire career on the line that Favre was retiring.
Talk about disgusting hearsay and misinformed, flat-out, rumor chasing. Does anyone do it better than Mortenson these days?
5. Back to where credibility counts.
Can we just, just for this one time, actually believe what Brett Favre says?
The guy went up against ESPN reports and internet rumors galore, on his own official website, mind you, that his ankle injury wasn't that big of a deal.
He also said he was completely undecided. If he was so "positive", let alone 100% positive, why would he be dangling ankle talk and written reports on his own website?
Contrary to popular belief, Favre isn't that big of a schmuck.
In fact, the real schmucks are all these reporters who keep this horrible gossip afloat in a dead NFL season.
6. Don't hate Favre. Hate ESPN.
Message and comment boards across the web are on fire on a daily basis, and you wouldn't believe how much animosity is geared towards the future Hall of Famer Favre.
Sure, most of it is pure jealousy or division rival hatred, and of course, there's the bitter Green Bay Packers fans who still can't rid of the humiliation Favre dealt them in a clean 2-0 sweep of Green Bay last year.
7. It's the dead part of the NFL off-season.
This is the part of the season that all the major sports sites and companies take advantage of player misconduct, injuries, position battles (even if they don't really exist), and God help us all, rumors.
Whether or not Favre is decided and simply waiting it out until August, we're going to hear about him not making this decision for the next three months.
Hate on the guy all you want, but that really has nothing to do with him.
Let's just all decide right now to either buckle-in for the horrible joyride that is the NFL off-season, or make that decision right now to ignore ESPN and the internet until the football season starts.
8. Favre should be able to be indecisive.
Hate him for whatever reason you want, but the fact still remains: This 40-year old silver-beard can sling it, and he can still win.
The dude threw 33 touchdowns and 4,000+ yards and brought the Minnesota Vikings to the NFC Championship game.
Besides, even if you hate him for a number of reasons, it's still hard to admit the game of football would be better without him. Or that he can't still play at a high level?
Even if it's only because you want to see him fail, to get hurt, or just so the Packers can beat him once or twice, we shouldn't want him to leave for good.
Because, as I've said a thousand times, once he's actually gone, even his most spirited opposers will, in some distorted way, miss his presence in our nation's greatest sport.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?