No schadenfreude tonight. Favre threw the dumb pass at the end, which as a Packer fan I've seen numerous times before. It's part of the equation. And unless I miss my guess, Favre will be back.
One last thing: I've argued this before and I'll continue to argue this. The NFL overtime rule sucks. Favre, bless his heart, never had a chance to get the ball back to redeem himself. While the Vikings had a few chances to stop the Saints in the overtime, it was a lot to ask. They need to look at a variation of the college rule. But having said that, a team that turns the ball over 5 times ultimately deserves its fate.
22 comments:
there should be a 6pt rule for OT.
That would be another idea.
a team that turns the ball over 5 times ultimately deserves its fate.
BINGO!!!!!!!!
The great Ego/Mercenary Experiment is over for this year. The Viking Curse remains intact, and Farve has fallen short. Ironically enough, the team from which he "retired" also fell short by just a little bit.
I was taken by a comment during the game that on the surface seems rather innocent, but really pretty much sums up life with Brett on yor team. One of the announcers said "Brett Farve and the Minnesota Vikings are about to take the field to go on offense." With Brett on your team, like or not, it's always going to be Brett First, and team second.
Brett's narcism and ego has brought him to this point. He's alienated more than half of his Packer Fan base, is more than likely hated in and around New York, and now is just a Randall Cunningham, Gus Frerrote, brick in the wall in Minnesota. I can't help but wonder if, in the end, his desire to "stick to to Ted" was worth it for all parties involved.
All I can say to the Viking Fans is have fun with the offseason, and Brett's annual retirement/hold your draft hostage dance. It's really a pleasurable experience. Perhaps he could "retire" again, and join the Bears or the Lions.
Favre won't hold this draft hostage. Whether he stays or not doesn't affect the Vikings interest in drafting a QB. Despite recent exceptions, few rookie QBs are ready to lead a playoff team and the pressure on a team to start a rookie QB is something last place teams have to consider (being a non-contender is why they were able to draft a "prize" QB anyway). If Favre returns it will be for one year and any rook QB the Vikes draft won't be counted on to contribute until his second season.
I wasn't thrilled at Favre joining the club in August, but I can't see in any way that this move was a failure, despite whatever sour cheese curds some anonymous commenters may have been eating for breakfast (apparently all season long).
Was the Packer's decision to go with Rodgers the right one? This season provided the emphatic "yes". Was Favre and the Vikings decision to hook up the right one? This season, too, provides the "yes".
Favre couldn't have been as successful without the team around him; that team would not have been as successful without his stellar play. Neither party would have had a sniff at the Super Bowl without the other. If it was about narcissism and sticking it to Ted Thompson, Favre could have tried to go to Chicago; if it was about being mercenary (uh, last I checked, all the players get paid for their services) then he likely could have siphoned off a boatload of Daniel Snyder's bucks. This season was a brief window where opportunity and ability came together...and fell just short. Credit both parties for trying to seize it.
This title game wasn't the one against the Redskins when an over-achieving team came up just short with a dropped pass at the goal-line; it wasn't the 41-doughnut game when an over-hyped, over-confident team had it's bubble burst; this wasn't the over-managed '98 team taking a knee and missing a field goal. This was an excellent team playing at the highest level with the best opportunity it will ever have, and falling just short. The better team yesterday just happened not to be the winning team - and they can both credit and blame themselves for that, as can Brett Favre.
"Neither party would have had a sniff at the Super Bowl without the other."
Bingo.
I think there's a lot of emotion in all this because of the unusual circumstances involved. For Packers fans, it did seem like a betrayal because of the great number of years Favre had given to the franchise, and the great loyalty (and bountiful remuneration) that the franchise returned to Favre.
Anon has a point – Favre had indicated at various junctures that he wanted to stick it to Ted Thompson. Packers fans realized that and while loyalties are somewhat divided on the matter, most sided with the green laundry over the guy who wore it all those years. Having said that, NW is 100% correct -- it was rational for Favre to choose the Vikings over, say, the Redskins. There is an excellent team assembled here, but there wasn't a top-flight NFL quarterback in place.
A little background for the Minnesotans – what Anon is referring to is the little-disguised anger that Favre showed to Aaron Rodgers when he was brought into Green Bay back in 2005. The word in Green Bay is that Favre did very little to help Rodgers learn the ropes, viewing him as an interloper. And when 2008 came around and it was time for the Packers to make a decision about Rodgers, Favre's behavior was awfully childish. Having said that, as NW points out, it all worked out. The Packers have a 26-year old quarterback who is already one of the top 10 quarterbacks in the league and a good young team around him. His moment draws near.
By all reports, Favre has been an ideal teammate in Minnesota. Good for him and good for the Vikings. There's no question it was mutually beneficial for them.
We'll see how this ideal teammate does in the off season, if he chooses to have one. He'll be ideal in the OTA's which he won't attend, and in training camp, which he'll try to avoid.
The bet here is that things in the Vikings Locker room weren't as rosy as depicted. Let the media work their magic during the next several weeks.
I don't really agree with the asessement that neither Farve or the Vikings would have sniffed the Superbowl without each other. It sure looks like Farve would have gotten a sniff if he had stayed in New York.
Anon, what would Fav-rey do in New York, play baseball? What does that have to do with the SuperBowl? (Hint: The SB is in Miami this year, not New York)
What does that have to do with the SuperBowl?
The Jets (Favre's 2008 team) were in the AFC championship game. So Anon is right -- he could have stayed there and disappointed a whole different group of fans.
The bet here is that things in the Vikings Locker room weren't as rosy as depicted. Let the media work their magic during the next several weeks.
Could be. The reason I suspect he was better is that the TC media was very skeptical of Favre when he came to town and there are a lot of snarky sports guys who ply their trade here. They probably would have found out and would have had incentive to do so, because Favre always gives his ESPN bobos the scoops.
Mr. D, please tell us that you know that the Jets don't play in New York, please.
But, you are correct, if Fav-rey would have stayed in New Jersey he would have disappointed a whole different group of fans.
Mr. D, please tell us that you know that the Jets don't play in New York, please.
Sometimes we miss those little nuances, K. Conservatives are notoriously bad at nuance, as we are being forever reminded. ;)
they are known as the New york Jets.
good enuf.
Ignorance by any other name...
...still looks stupid. ;^)
Ignorance by any other name...
...still looks stupid. ;^)
No flame wars, K-Rod. Word to the wise, okay?
Arlington Cowboys, Glendale Cardinals, Minneapolis Vikings, Orchard Park Bills, Etc. I apologize to any fans of the East Rutherford Jets that I may have offended with my earlier posts.
Anon, let me help you out and inform you that Arlington is indeed in Texas; Glendale is indeed in Arizona; and Minneapolis is indeed in Minnesota.
Now please don't tell us that East Rutherford is in New York. ;^)
K-Rod, your point is semi valid. The Cowboys aren't known as the Texas Cowboys. Since we're splitting hairs!!!!! You're point is well taken....I sure hope that I haven't offended any of Mr D's New Jersey readers....
Anon, true, but it's just a bit of a pet peeve for me. I mean, both the Jets and Giants play in a completely different state.
They should be called the New Jersey Giants and the New Jersey Jets. That's what I calls 'em.
I bet the mob is responsible... and the unions... and it's obviously part of the vast NFL conspiracy against the Vikings.
mob as in the mafia, not MN bloggers.
and the Los Angeles Angles dont play in los angeles.
its all marketing. get real.
Post a Comment