Brett Favre - Let's Use Some Perspective

All Categories >> Sports >> Football >> Minnesota Vikings

06/16/2009 1:05 am

Jeremy's Archive

Rate this Blog

Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.

I've read a bunch of reactions to the Brett Favre interview on Joe Buck's new HBO show, (Which was pretty boring, then was later completely derailed by Artie Lange, who, I can only assume, was booked by someone who had never heard of Artie Lange.) and, for the most part, I find myself wondering if I watched the same interview they did.

Yes, when asked if he was going to play football next season Favre said, "maybe." However, I'd like to know what the answer you expected was. He wasn't waffling. He was stating a fact.

When you cut through all the nonsense here's what we actually KNOW about the offseason thus far: The Jets all but announce they don't want Favre back. Favre retires, and asks for his release, the Jets decline. The Jets draft a new QB, after which Favre's request is granted. The Vikings and Favre, basically instantly, decide to pursue Favre as a Viking for 2009. Both sides assess Favre's arm, decide he'd probably need surgery to play. Farve has surgery. Favre is currently rehabbing from said surgery, results of which are pending.

On what planet, other than planet 24/7 Cable/Internet news, could that POSSIBLY be viewed as waffling?

The only possible portion you could call "waffling" is the retirement and returning, but even there, how much do we know what his intentions were? Brett's "annual" will he/won't he dance has also coincided with teams that made it fairly obvious they don't want him there anymore, and the two "retirements" have happened in situations where it's very possible he was flat out told "we'd prefer you not return."

More to the point, you really have to be looking HARD to take anything away from the interview in question, other than "healthy arm means Favre the Viking, not healthy arm means no football, and both sides are patiently waiting out the results."

And I know, I know. I'll be accused of leaping to the defense of an enemy now that he's almost changed sides. However, I've been saying the same thing for years.

Besides, that's (almost) my quart-a-back.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 07:44:44 AM
I respect your "leaping" to Favre's defense. For once in you life, you are actually making sense! Although, that picture of Owens is just creepy.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 06/16/2009 7:45:14 am

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 06/16/2009 @ 09:53:25 AM
One of my co-workers is a hardcore Eagles fan, and he was going on about how much he couldn't stand this whole Brett Favre thing. He was muttering the same talking points about "retire, don't retire, retire, don't retire, etc". Anyway, I pointed him to this thread, and he then changed his tune. In other words, Jeremy, you have said things very well.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 10:29:40 AM
Thanks, though I don't think I said anything all that original or profound. I've been reading a lot more stuff today regarding the fact that if you read between the lines Favre might actually already BE a Viking, and has been for a while, the announcement is all that's pending. He was invited to OTA's, he said "We" in reference to the Vikings a few times, etc. I don't buy it at all, because I don't think you could keep a lid on that, but either way, what's the difference? If Brett Favre's arm is ok, he will be the Vikings' QB. That's the sum total of the story, and realistically has been obvious for weeks. He's already a Viking in intent, and every meaningful way. He had an elective surgery to try and come back, he's working exclusively with the Vikings staff, and even worked out with a Vikings trainer. If he had already signed, it doesn't make it any more "official" because we won't know the outcome of the shoulder surgery for a few weeks. To me it's sort of like complaining that "your wife" is out seeing other men after you've agreed to a divorce, moved out, and have done everything but sign on the dotted line, which you would have also already done, if it wasn't held up. (In this case, by an arbitrary waiting period.) It might be "too soon" and all that, but she isn't "your wife" anymore in any realistic, meaningful, sense. Brett Favre is already a Viking in anyway that isn't out of anyone's control, or a technicality.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 06/16/2009 10:31:53 am

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 10:49:17 AM
I was going to mention the whole "we" reference. This is a done deal if the shoulder works.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 12:26:39 PM
Why is "annual" in quotes in relation to the will he/won't he dance? He's actually retired the last 2 offseasons and talked about it for the 5 offseasons in a row before that, when the Packers absolutely wanted him back (at least I think they did).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 06/16/2009 @ 01:15:12 PM
Well, it's debatable how much "he talked about it" and how much it was wondered about over the last 5 years. It was pretty obvious from the get go Thompson didn't like him. Besides, I mainly put it in quotes because it's taken on this sort of legend status as if there wasn't a year that went by Favre didn't spend up until the week before training camp to finally decide, decide to retire, then decide a week later to come back. There was one year for sure he took way too long. One year he was pressured to make a quick decision by a team that probably didn't want him. And this last year, which I think both sides wanted out of that deal, and "retirement" is how to resolve it. The Jets couldn't publicly tell a HOF Qb, who sells tickets, to take a hike, but they practically didn't even try to hide that that's what they kind of prefer happen.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 06/16/2009 1:15:45 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 08:52:10 PM
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-64/Projecting-Favre-s-impact.html		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 06/16/2009 @ 09:02:22 PM
Yeah, I think that's the key you have to keep in mind. I know they have no monopoly on this, but the Vikings are close in lots of games that when you boil it down they're just one, "Man, if that was a completion." or "If we could have pulled out a first down there." away. They don't need a guy to put up 4,000 yards, they need an ever-so-slight push over the hump.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/17/2009 @ 08:13:13 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:02:22 PM Yeah, I think that's the key you have to keep in mind. I know they have no monopoly on this, but the Vikings are close in lots of games that when you boil it down they're just one, "Man, if that was a completion." or "If we could have pulled out a first down there." away. They don't need a guy to put up 4,000 yards, they need an ever-so-slight push over the hump. I'll allow this. Although I'm taking the high road since pretty much every time I've brought this up I've been slaughtered for bringing up "the norm" rather than a unique occurance. But that's the difference between the good teams and the not good teams. The good teams make those extra plays that separate them from winning and losing.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 06/17/2009 @ 09:26:18 AM
Well, the difference is I'm actually talking about something that can push us over the hump. I'm saying the Vikings don't need a record setting performance out of Favre, really only a handful of plays T-Jack/Frerotte didn't make last year. As opposed to him going to the Lions, for example. It's a little bit different than when you talk about it, midseason, in general terms, not changing the equation at all, as if the Packers are the only team that played close games. (Especially since I flat out said the Vikings weren't the only team it applied to.) Edit: And I don't mind at all saying things like "Man...the Packers are 2 missed last second field goals away from being a playoff team." If you point to something specific where there's some degree of certainty the game would have gone the other way, and it's more of a lamenting than it is a "I'm going to count the Packers as that good and pretend no one else missed a field goal," we have no problem. It's only when it's kept general like "Man....The Packers have had the lead in the 2nd quarter in 70% of their games and have 5 losses by a total of 16 points," where it bugs me, because saying "those games are close" and "here's how we almost HAD those points" are two very different things, IMHO. (Not to mention pretends the Packers are in a terribly unique situation.)		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy perfected this 3 times, last at 06/17/2009 9:55:23 am

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 06/17/2009 @ 12:49:47 PM
Man, that's sort of a bitter way to take a compliment.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jon - infinity + 1 posts 06/19/2009 @ 05:17:08 AM
Alex Wrote - 06/16/2009 @ 08:52:10 PM http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-64/Projecting-Favre-s-impact.html I only skimmed this and since they used numbers, they probably account for it, but I can't help but think we're glossing over one HUGE thing when it comes to Favre. The interception. I suppose Gus ended up throwing quite a few if I'm remembering correctly, but I think over the course of a season, Jackson would actually throw fewer than Favre. Maybe I'm kidding myself. Plus Rosenfels might end up being the guy anyway. But I do feel like as great as Favre can be, we might be walking a thinner line than we think on the good plays vs. "you've got to be kidding me, why did you throw the ball up for grabs at this point in the game" plays. Look, as I said before (not that people even care), I do want Favre as the qb. But I can't help but imagine many of the ways it could play out. And it's hard not to think interceptions are going to be something we'll have to deal with. We can say that he won't have to win games with his arm so he won't be throwing a ton, but I'm not sure that will actually help. What if he just throws 15 times a game? Then what if maybe he'll want to make the best of those times and force a few in each game? The possibilities are endless! That said, it could be like night and day from last year to this now that a good qb will be there. What if it really does make all the difference in the world and we suddenly have a really good offense? I could see that happening too. But even in that scenario, I feel like he'd still throw a lot of interceptions. I think that's just part of the deal that we should be ready for. Players play like the backs of their baseball cards say, right? Regression to the mean? Something like that. A leopard and not changing spots? Whatever analogy works for you.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 06/19/2009 @ 05:29:44 AM
OK, I read a bit more and see that they actually do show interception stats. They did say, though, that it would be Sage who threw the interceptions. Though, really, we don't know that Jackson would continue to NOT throw them. His sample size isn't anywhere near Favre's. The numbers do show that either way, the TD to Int ration won't be great. I suppose in some ways it might be a case of deciding if we want ugly interceptions from a guy who's past his prime or ugly interceptions by a young qb or ugly interceptions by Sage, who didn't inspire confidence against Indianapolis last year.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 06/19/2009 @ 07:19:37 AM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 06:29:44 AM OK, I read a bit more and see that they actually do show interception stats. They did say, though, that it would be Sage who threw the interceptions. Though, really, we don't know that Jackson would continue to NOT throw them. His sample size isn't anywhere near Favre's. The numbers do show that either way, the TD to Int ration won't be great. I suppose in some ways it might be a case of deciding if we want ugly interceptions from a guy who's past his prime or ugly interceptions by a young qb or ugly interceptions by Sage, who didn't inspire confidence against Indianapolis last year. But only one guy can give you pretty touchdown passes. And only one guy will give the Vikings the type of media coverage they have been longing for.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 06/19/2009 @ 10:09:26 AM
Sage doesn't really protect the ball any better, which, as you noted, they do mention. Favre does throw a couple "what the hell was that" balls, but realistically they aren't a whole lot different then those balls that almost seem like cheating where he just would put it up in the air and let Driver/Jennings out jump someone for it. He might make 1-2 inexplicable throws a game, which aren't always picked off, but he also makes 5 plays a game no one else makes, and is very efficient the rest of the time. Maybe we can finally run the real WCO like the Packers do and just eat other teams alive between the hashes, which is supposed to be the point. I think the Vikings have run 3 slants in the entire Childress era. Plus I think Favre's interceptions, as far as type go, are a bit overblown. He makes a handful of punt-esq throws to the middle of no where, so all his interceptions get lumped into that. Maybe I'm not remembering it correctly, but I think I made this point way back when it happened, so I'm not changing my tune now, but that interception to end the NFC Championship game against the Giants wasn't a "Favre" interception, it was just an interception. It wasn't a bad, and certainly not inexplicable, decision, just an inaccurate pass than should have been thrown to the sideline more. I mean, I guess the result isn't any different, I just think people talk about Farve, and that play in particular, like he was the first and only QB to throw an interception in the playoffs, or throw a pick that sealed the game for the other team. QB's can throw INT's on passing plays, that's just the way it is. Even last year he only had 4 more (22) than Cutler (18), who was in second. Gus Frerotte had 15 in like half the season. (GFrer's 15 ints in 301 attempts is actually a worse percentage than Favres 22 in 522.) Ps. I looked and it seems I remembered it correctly.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 06/19/2009 10:13:12 am

	Alex - 3619 Posts 06/19/2009 @ 11:15:03 AM
I think John Madden hacked into Jeremy's account.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 3 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 06/19/2009 @ 01:59:06 PM
Yeah wow, does someone have time to sift through all of Jeremy's previous posts on Favre and his interception skills.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 06/19/2009 @ 02:09:33 PM
Well, here was my comment about that play, but I feel like we went into more depth on it at some point. http://www.nutcan.com/nflpicks/2007-20.php#comment14476		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 06/19/2009 2:09:47 pm

	Micah - 584 Posts 06/19/2009 @ 02:12:11 PM
I just hope he does sign with the Vikings, because then we can combine the two most talked about subjects here, sports and politics, as we all accuse you of being a flip-flopper. Prepare to be Swift Boated!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 06/19/2009 @ 02:16:23 PM
Well, besides, I'm not making a case here that Farve doesn't throw a lot of int's, just that it's not a whole lot worse that anyone else the Vikings have, or have had, lately.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 06/19/2009 @ 02:30:49 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:16:23 PM Well, besides, I'm not making a case here that Farve doesn't throw a lot of int's, For Shame!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - "Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." 06/19/2009 @ 06:23:08 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:16:23 PM Well, besides, I'm not making a case here that Farve doesn't throw a lot of int's, just that it's not a whole lot worse that anyone else the Vikings have, or have had, lately. back a couple of years ago Favre's interceptions were part of your reasoning for hating him. Now you seem to want to forgive and forget? Awesome.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1 bajillion posts 06/20/2009 @ 03:19:02 AM
Micah Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:12:11 PM I just hope he does sign with the Vikings, because then we can combine the two most talked about subjects here, sports and politics, as we all accuse you of being a flip-flopper. Prepare to be Swift Boated!!! Sports and Politics? The two biggest subjects on this site have always been Favre and Brett Favre. End of story. Except with him it's never quite the end of the story, am I right? Folks?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/20/2009 @ 09:03:19 AM
Jeremy, I don't even know who you are anymore.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 06/21/2009 @ 01:20:15 AM
Micah Wrote - 06/19/2009 @ 02:12:11 PM I just hope he does sign with the Vikings, because then we can combine the two most talked about subjects here, sports and politics, as we all accuse you of being a flip-flopper. Prepare to be Swift Boated!!! Well, I've never been particularly anti Favre, or anti-mind changing.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 06/21/2009 @ 01:28:33 AM
Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:19:02 AM Micah Wrote - 06/19/2009 @ 02:12:11 PM I just hope he does sign with the Vikings, because then we can combine the two most talked about subjects here, sports and politics, as we all accuse you of being a flip-flopper. Prepare to be Swift Boated!!! Sports and Politics? The two biggest subjects on this site have always been Favre and Brett Favre. End of story. Except with him it's never quite the end of the story, am I right? Folks? Fun Nutcan.com Fact: Searching for 'Favre' returns 421 results. Searching for 'NFL' returns 389, despite the fact that "NFL" is programmed right into the title of the longest running, recurring, nutcan feature.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 07/28/2009 @ 04:16:26 PM
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-220/Childress--Favre-staying-retired.html		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 07/28/2009 @ 07:04:03 PM
Long time before week 1 yet.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 07/29/2009 @ 07:21:49 AM
Now will Jeremy go back to hating Brett Favre, or at least the concept of Brett Favre? My world has been turned upsidedown ever since his defense of Favre.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 07/29/2009 @ 09:20:46 AM
To be fair it wasn't "defending Favre" so much as it was just pointing out reality. Edit: Much like what most of our "hating on Favre" was.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 07/29/2009 9:21:35 am

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/17/2009 @ 01:19:20 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9922912		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/17/2009 @ 02:01:00 PM
If he did want to come back I think the Wilfs would still want him aboard. The Vikings home opener isn't until week 3, so it's a ways off, and against a team no one cares about (49ers), but still, the fact that they've had to already resort to more of less begging to get people to the game, and selling packages (like $48 gets you a ticket, parking, and $20 worth of concessions) is telling.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/17/2009 @ 02:32:23 PM
I'll still root for him.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto - 209 Posts 08/17/2009 @ 04:22:52 PM
We don't need him. Didn't you see Sage tear up the Colts second string secondary on friday night!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 08/18/2009 @ 10:40:24 AM
It's happening. As a Packer fan, is it wrong for me to be excited about this?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 08/18/2009 @ 12:52:54 PM
It's pandemonium on the Vikings forums. Farve is either taking us to the Superbowl, or the 7th circle of hell, there's no in between. Most people are solidly convinced that this whole thing was a conspiracy for Favre to skip camp. While it certainly might be, that doesn't make sense to me. Why would the vikings be so quick to say that the Favre door is "closed" if they knew it wasn't. Any case you could make for that doesn't stand up. For moral reasons? Even if that helped, and I'm not sure it did, the damage would be 10 fold once you brought Favre in. It would mean the players, Sage and T-Jack especially, were flat out lied to. Why would the Vikings put together ticket packages practically begging fans to come to the games if they knew Favre was imminent? Sure, not having camp to go to was probably a big part of Favre's revised decision, that doesn't mean this was "the plan." He has also continued to work out, and all those other ailments he was unsure about have gone away. In the end Zigi was faced with the prospect of every game being a blackout battle, and Childress had first hand witnessing to the same camp everyone else did where the daily reports sounded something like "Wow this team is good, though the QB's struggled. So far through camp Booty has looked the best, and that's not a compliment to Booty." In my opinion it's much more likely everyone just changed their minds.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 08/18/2009 1:05:57 pm

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 08/18/2009 @ 01:10:34 PM
I agree that it's unlikely that this was "the plan" for all parties involved. I'd bet that it was always at least in the back of Favre's mind though, if only at a subconscious level. Because as you said, the Vikings really had no choice but to accept him if at any point Favre said he wanted to play. Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:40:24 AM It's happening. As a Packer fan, is it wrong for me to be excited about this? Not if your excitement is based on the belief that Favre is only average at best now, unlikely to stay healthy the whole year, destroying any chance the other QBs had of establishing themselves (regardless of how seemingly unlikely that was going to be anyway), and most probably still unofficially employed by the Packers as a saboteur. Just wait until he throws a patented WTF (what the Favre) interception to swing things in the Packers' favor.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 08/18/2009 @ 01:22:20 PM
I have no problem with people being as much/more/whatever degree a fan of a player as much as a team. I think we've gone over this, but at any rate the usual "hating" that goes on when people to this makes no sense to me. Questioning someone's loyalty because they now somewhat "divide" their allegiance makes no sense, because they are being just as loyal, just in different ways. and you could make a case that sticking by a group of players is MORE loyal, and certainly is the case that it's more logical. What is more loyal/sane: Fan A) Continues to root for a player that was his favorite player for his entire football life, who has since went on to a different team. Fan B) Decides to hate player that was his favorite player for his entire football life, because he has since gone on to a different team and rather focuses his beam of undying loyalty and adoration onto the next random stooge that happens to where the same color jersey, no matter who that is.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 08/18/2009 1:23:53 pm

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/18/2009 @ 01:31:08 PM
http://www.vikings.com/ So, I'm guessing it's official then?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 08/18/2009 @ 02:29:13 PM
As official as anything Favre related can be. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:22:20 PM What is more loyal/sane: Fan A) Continues to root for a player that was his favorite player for his entire football life, who has since went on to a different team. Fan B) Decides to hate player that was his favorite player for his entire football life, because he has since gone on to a different team and rather focuses his beam of undying loyalty and adoration onto the next random stooge that happens to where the same color jersey, no matter who that is. I don't really disagree, but I'd either reword B or add C, depending on what you really meant. Fan C) Decides to hate player that is no longer wearing the right jersey and focuses his beam of undying loyalty and adoration on the right color jersey, regardless of who happens to be wearing it. I think I practice a mix of A and C. I have "favorite" players on multiple teams that I will root for regardless of team (doesn't mean I'm rooting for the team they're on though), but I'll also root for anyone on my favorite teams while they're on those teams (for the teams' sake, doesn't mean I like them at all).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto 08/18/2009 @ 02:59:11 PM
I am stunned. There is a link on the vikings website to buy his jersey, although the link is broken, possibly due to overloading. Turned on ESPN when i got home from work and saw him on the field practicing. Booty changed his number to 9. And they are also saying that he will start the preseason game on friday night. It's going to be an interesting season to say the least.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/18/2009 @ 03:14:34 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 02:29:13 PM As official as anything Favre related can be. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:22:20 PM What is more loyal/sane: Fan A) Continues to root for a player that was his favorite player for his entire football life, who has since went on to a different team. Fan B) Decides to hate player that was his favorite player for his entire football life, because he has since gone on to a different team and rather focuses his beam of undying loyalty and adoration onto the next random stooge that happens to where the same color jersey, no matter who that is. I don't really disagree, but I'd either reword B or add C, depending on what you really meant. Fan C) Decides to hate player that is no longer wearing the right jersey and focuses his beam of undying loyalty and adoration on the right color jersey, regardless of who happens to be wearing it. I think I practice a mix of A and C. I have "favorite" players on multiple teams that I will root for regardless of team (doesn't mean I'm rooting for the team they're on though), but I'll also root for anyone on my favorite teams while they're on those teams (for the teams' sake, doesn't mean I like them at all). Well, I wasn't advocating for either way, or saying that those are the two categories everyone fits into, just that by any logical/objective way of looking at it person B is much more irrational (1000 fold?) than person A. I mean really, on some level, rooting for teams, and being unflinchingly loyal to, arguing about, etc, whatever random group of guys happens to be wearing our most favorite uniforms this year is almost comically silly. Fake Edit: Oh, and the Packers suck.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 08/18/2009 3:15:06 pm

	jthompto - 209 Posts 08/18/2009 @ 03:23:06 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/08/18/what-next-for-tarvaris/ T-Jack to Packers? Who wants him?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 08/18/2009 @ 03:43:01 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:14:34 PM I mean really, on some level, rooting for teams, and being unflinchingly loyal to, arguing about, etc, whatever random group of guys happens to be wearing our most favorite uniforms this year is almost comically silly. While I couldn't possibly disagree with statement more, I do agree with the premise of your other statements regarding being a fan of your favorite player regardless of who they play for.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/18/2009 @ 03:50:10 PM
Well, why do you disagree?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/18/2009 @ 03:55:17 PM
jthompto Wrote - Today @ 03:23:06 PM http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/08/18/what-next-for-tarvaris/ T-Jack to Packers? Who wants him? Unless someone comes calling with a 4th-5th round pick, which is unlikely for lots of reasons, I say we just keep him. Packers makes some sense, from a "the backups have zero experience" angle, but Flynn looked pretty good the other night, maybe Brohm could be odd man out then, but I don't know if there would be any interest.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 08/18/2009 3:55:56 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/18/2009 @ 04:02:10 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:50:10 PM Well, why do you disagree? I am a fan of the Green Bay Packers. I am a fan of the Milwaukee Brewers. I am also a fan of some of the players who play for those teams. It's not that I am in love with a jersey that is hunter green and gold, but I am a fan of the team that plays in Green Bay. Players come and go, but that team will always be there. I'm not saying you can't be both, but I don't think it's any less silly to be a fan of either the players or the team. I am a fan of America too, regardless of who's currently running the country.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 08/18/2009 @ 04:13:02 PM
Well, I wasn't being literal about loving the jerseys. Unless you're actually from those towns your picking of those teams was fairly arbitrary and fighting to the death to defend whatever players happen to be playing because they happened to end up on a team you chose fairly arbitraily IS silly. We've discussed this many times, but let's say the Cubs and Brewers swapped staff/rosters completely, people may or may not follow their "old" players, cheer for them, whatever, but people would, almost universally, go on loving/defending/rooting their favorite team, even if it was full of players they despised the day before, and the entire intact team they worshiped the day before was elsewhere. It's not bad or anything, but it's not rational. In other words, what is there to love about a team, if not the players? And if you're loyal to a team despite the players, what exactly are you being loyal to?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 4 times, last at 08/18/2009 4:20:08 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/18/2009 @ 04:22:31 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 05:13:02 PM ...let's say the Cubs and Brewers swapped staff/rosters completely... I don't debate such absurdities.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 08/18/2009 @ 05:41:16 PM
To be honest, I'm a little pissed right now. WTF? I was ok this whole summer and now it's like the Vikings? really? You want to go there? Why don't u just kick all your fans in the head? It'd probably hurt less. But, being who I am, I retain all rights to still root for him, just have some frustrations right now with the whole deal. Also, I know a lot of you don't do the whole twitter thing but 3 of the top "trending topics" (things people are talking about) are Minnesota Vikings, Brett Favre, and Farve. WTF people he's been in the league 19 years and was beloved by all. Spell his frickin name right!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 08/18/2009 @ 10:06:12 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 05:13:02 PM Well, I wasn't being literal about loving the jerseys. Unless you're actually from those towns your picking of those teams was fairly arbitrary and fighting to the death to defend whatever players happen to be playing because they happened to end up on a team you chose fairly arbitraily IS silly. We've discussed this many times, but let's say the Cubs and Brewers swapped staff/rosters completely, people may or may not follow their "old" players, cheer for them, whatever, but people would, almost universally, go on loving/defending/rooting their favorite team, even if it was full of players they despised the day before, and the entire intact team they worshiped the day before was elsewhere. It's not bad or anything, but it's not rational. In other words, what is there to love about a team, if not the players? And if you're loyal to a team despite the players, what exactly are you being loyal to? I am being loyal to the team that represents the state to which I call home. Ultimately, I really don't care who in fact plays for the Brewers, as long as they win (someday). I really don't care who plays for the Packers as long as they win. Over time, I grow a certain fondness to the players that wear the jersey. But I do not think it is in any way imagineable irrational to be foremost loyal to a team and then to the players on that team. Afterall, players don't win the Lombardi trophy, teams do. All that being said, I am actually quite disheartened by the reaction from Packer fans to this whole thing. It's one thing to be a bit heartbroken that your favorite player of all time is now playing for the arch rival. But as Jeremy mentioned (and I will probably echo in my own words), it just seems ridiculous to now have some deep seated hatred for the guy. Green Bay clearly did not want him 2 years ago. And in fact it was the Packers management that was holding him hostage, wanting him to retire and then refusing to release him. So Favre played for the Jets for a year, and then "retired" so that he could get released by that team. Only then could he look for a team that a)needed a quarterback, b)had a decent chance of winning, and c)played against the Packers so he could get a little vengence for the way the two parties parted. I know I've said this before, but it has to be said again: Brett Favre does not owe any Packer fan anything; he certainly doesn't owe me anything. He can do what he wants. If he wants to keep playing, on what ground do I stand on where I can say he doesn't have the right to keep playing? And the whole "retired/not retired" thing I really think goes back to the origins of the situation in which he left Green Bay. They forced him to retire, and then in order to eventually play for the team he wanted to play for he had to get traded to the Jets, play a year, retire again in order to be granted his release, and the unretire. So if were up to him, he would have just retired the one time, then unretired, been granted his release from the Packers, and then signed with the Vikings. Packer fans have basically just made me sick today. (and from the few things I've read from her, I am not grouping Sarah into this mess, for what it's worth).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 08/18/2009 @ 11:12:33 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:06:12 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:13:02 PM Well, I wasn't being literal about loving the jerseys. Unless you're actually from those towns your picking of those teams was fairly arbitrary and fighting to the death to defend whatever players happen to be playing because they happened to end up on a team you chose fairly arbitraily IS silly. We've discussed this many times, but let's say the Cubs and Brewers swapped staff/rosters completely, people may or may not follow their "old" players, cheer for them, whatever, but people would, almost universally, go on loving/defending/rooting their favorite team, even if it was full of players they despised the day before, and the entire intact team they worshiped the day before was elsewhere. It's not bad or anything, but it's not rational. In other words, what is there to love about a team, if not the players? And if you're loyal to a team despite the players, what exactly are you being loyal to? I am being loyal to the team that represents the state to which I call home. Ultimately, I really don't care who in fact plays for the Brewers, as long as they win (someday). I really don't care who plays for the Packers as long as they win. Over time, I grow a certain fondness to the players that wear the jersey. But I do not think it is in any way imagineable irrational to be foremost loyal to a team and then to the players on that team. Afterall, players don't win the Lombardi trophy, teams do. But what does it really mean to root for a team despite players? What are you rooting for? The colors? The logo? The stadium? (The closest thing you could argue is "the history" but that's sort of just as silly a reason to root for a team, and has a lot to do with players also.) I'm not saying I don't feel the same way about the Vikings and Twins, but I step back once in a while and recognize how comically arbitrary, largely illogical, and often absurd, the whole thing is.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 08/18/2009 11:15:11 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/18/2009 @ 11:14:59 PM
I think he's retired/unretired about 20 times now. That's my biggest beef with him. The biggest media crush of the last 15 years and the Packers forced him to retire? Please. All he had to do was say, "I have a contract, I'm coming back next year, I still want to play." From that point on the Packers would have little to no leverage.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 08/18/2009 @ 11:18:11 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:12:33 PM I'm not saying I don't feel the same way about the Vikings and Twins, but I step back once in a while and recognize how comically arbitrary, largely illogical, and often absurd, the whole thing is. So's your face.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/18/2009 @ 11:19:01 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 11:14:59 PM I think he's retired/unretired about 20 times now. That's my biggest beef with him. The biggest media crush of the last 15 years and the Packers forced him to retire? Please. All he had to do was say, "I have a contract, I'm coming back next year, I still want to play." From that point on the Packers would have little to no leverage. He did do that later on, then they told him "you won't play here, and we won't let you play anywhere you want to play either."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 08/18/2009 11:19:26 pm

	Matt - 3875 Posts 08/19/2009 @ 05:01:26 AM
Following sports is, and should primarily be, an emotional thing. Since emotions are unconstrained by what is "rational" or "irrational", it is therefore irrational to argue that being a fan of a team above all else is irrational in and of itself.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Matt messed with this at 08/19/2009 5:06:17 am

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 08/19/2009 @ 05:41:28 AM
Watching a game can be enjoyable, but watching a game and cheering for one of the teams is even more enjoyable. Now, every day you could pick a game and a team and have fun, but what is more fun is to pick a team and follow their games, cheer for them in each game, and cheer for them to have a good season. Better than that even, is if you root for them to have a lifetime of good seasons, so you might as well pick a team and stick with them. As for picking that team, I would guess that most people follow either the local team or the team that the person who introduced them to the game (parent/friend/etc.) followed. In many cases this is probably the same team. This makes sense as it is usually easier to follow the local team (more coverage, more chance to actually go to a game or see them on TV), and it is more enjoyable if you can watch a team and follow them along with someone else. Now, if you're Vulcan, this would all seem irrational and silly (as most things based on emotions would), but if you look at it as trying to maximize the enjoyment/emotional impact you get from a leisure activity, then it makes sense.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/19/2009 @ 06:41:44 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:12:33 AM But what does it really mean to root for a team despite players? What are you rooting for? The colors? The logo? The stadium? (The closest thing you could argue is "the history" but that's sort of just as silly a reason to root for a team, and has a lot to do with players also.) I'm not saying I don't feel the same way about the Vikings and Twins, but I step back once in a while and recognize how comically arbitrary, largely illogical, and often absurd, the whole thing is. I move to ban the use of "arbitrary" from NutCan lexicon; it's overused and in reality, you could use it for pretty much anything in sports. I think we've been through this a few comments ago. I sarcasticly said I'm not necessarily rooting for the hunter green and gold jersey, and then it was mentioned that the person making that argument wasn't being serious. I root for the team. You do develop an emotional attachment with the players on that team, but that does not ever mean that my allegence for said team would ever change based on what players do/don't play for them. Like I said, players come and go, and if I choose to root for players over the team, I would be a very sad state as a fan since those players always (always) go where the money is regardless of where that team is. I choose to root for the constant, the entity that isn't leaving, the one that represents my hometown/city/state. I think I've been pretty clear about that. And if I were to be a guy to say what's rational and what's not, I would say that I find that to be 1000-fold more rational than choosing a few players to root for above all else.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/19/2009 @ 09:52:36 AM
Right, but you still haven't answered a majority of my questions. Look people, I get why people choose teams, and even how they choose teams (which is part of the reason it's so arbitrarily arbitrary.) That doesn't mean that, as Matt alluded to, if you had to step back and explain to an alien why that person with a B on their hat and the one with the NY on their hat want to practically kill each other, the alien would think our race is insane. Although we faction ourselves off into many other groups for many other reasons, this one would be pretty high up there amongst the hardest to explain. I never said I didn't, you shouldn't, or that anyone who does is an idiot. (Well, they might be, but we're all idiots then.) In a world of irrational emotions it is more rational, and certainly a better show of loyalty, to form an attachment the some of the people actually doing the playing than it is to spit in the face of someone you loved, and follow that up by instantly coming to blows to defend the next guy in line wearing your colors because he's wearing said colors. If you aren't rooting for the players, what are you rooting for? I look at it this way. At some point in time you really did just pick a team. There were likely some rules involved so that you didn't just pick a team out of a hat, but there's no instinctual reason we root for the teams we do, but as a kid that doesn't matter as much. (At that point you're just looking for adult approval more than anything anyway.) So you started rooting for that team, and you picked a few favorite players, and as those guys age new guys come aboard, by the time there's no Anthony Carter there's Cris Carter, by the time there's no Cris there's still Randy and Dante. When a new owner/coach comes aboard and blows the team up I don't think it's some unforgivable sin, and an unforgivable lack of loyalty, if your enthusiasm for the team wanes because the part worth rooting for is largely unrecognizable. If anything, that's that's the saner response. If it really is true that you could wake up tomorrow to a world where the Bears and Packers swapped rosters, and your love for the Packers wouldn't wane at all, because they're still the Packers, then that's pretty crazy, and surely you could admit that.** Now, granted you still-lovers of Favre are in a rather unique situation of rooting for him to to well, as long as the team fails miserably, which doesn't make sense in and of itself, but continuing to cheer for a guy who was the most important part of your favorite team for most of your "the period I can actually remember" life, isn't a disloyal slap to the face of the Packers, or Aaron Rodgers. And instantly liking Aaron Rodgers above all others from the nano second he was moved up the depth chart, is, if anything, the sillier position. (Not to mention the whole thing treats fan-dom/allegiance like it's a fixed pie, which it's, largely, not.) There would be some point where your allegiance meant nothing. For example, picture an extreme where someone liked, and rooted for, all teams equally. But it's certainly the case that you can root for Brett Favre and still root for the Packers as much as you ever did. **Edit: And I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same thing, in the end at least. Geeze, last time I try to defend you.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 5 times, last at 08/19/2009 10:12:09 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/19/2009 @ 12:47:37 PM
Jeremy, I agree with you in that I think the Packer fan Favre haters are just stupid. All I disagree with is that rooting for a team above the player is not irrational and arbitrary. And I believe I've been pretty clear as to why I think that. The "Brewers" are not just a bunch of people in jerseys. They are "The Brewers". They are an entity in and of themselves. That team represents my state/city. If I lived somewhere else I would have been a fan of another team. There's really nothing arbitrary about that. (and, strangely enough, I am kind of sort hoping the Vikings do well this season. That is, if the Packers can't win, I'll root for the team that Favre is playing for).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/19/2009 @ 02:06:04 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:47:37 PM If I lived somewhere else I would have been a fan of another team. There's really nothing arbitrary about that. ar·bi·trar·y (är'bĭ-trěr'ē) adj. 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle 2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 08/19/2009 @ 03:48:54 PM
I think necessity applies to me picking a team from the location in which I live. So by your very definition you are wrong. I'll even throw in principle too, because, come on, dude, be true to your school (beach boys).		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Scott screwed with this at 08/19/2009 3:50:34 pm

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/19/2009 @ 04:16:31 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:48:54 PM I think necessity applies to me picking a team from the location in which I live. So by your very definition you are wrong. I'll even throw in principle too, because, come on, dude, be true to your school (beach boys). Even if that were true, which it isn't, you still just happened to be born where you were. (At least in the sense that it was out of your hands, and thus chance, from your perspective.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 08/19/2009 4:20:41 pm

	Carlos44ec - You had me at "Hello" 08/19/2009 @ 04:25:50 PM
Come on, Jerm. I was born in San Diego. Eff SD teams. I lived in Iowa, wrestling Sucks, and Chicago teams can kiss it. I currently live in Minneapolis, Eff the Vikes.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/19/2009 @ 04:28:26 PM
Which is my point.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 08/19/2009 @ 08:35:50 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 05:16:31 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 04:48:54 PM I think necessity applies to me picking a team from the location in which I live. So by your very definition you are wrong. I'll even throw in principle too, because, come on, dude, be true to your school (beach boys). Even if that were true, which it isn't, you still just happened to be born where you were. (At least in the sense that it was out of your hands, and thus chance, from your perspective.) In that case, because I only root for the players who play for my irrationally and arbitrarily chosen team for which I root, those players would be even more arbitrarily rooted for by me. So ultimately, rooting for a team first is still less arbitrary. And again, based on the definition you present, I am still right (as I was about what I view as necessity and principle--which also, by the way, are arbitrary), for I also have very good reasons for rooting for the teams I root for. None of which come down to a whim or impulse. I didn't just decide one day "hey, I'm just going to start rooting for the brewers (or packers)." And in closing, I'll say this: I don't watch sports to see certain players "do well". I watch sports to see my TEAM win, and hopefully win it all. I rest my case.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 08/19/2009 8:48:40 pm

	Sarah - So's your face 08/19/2009 @ 08:55:59 PM
Only 3 weeks where the Packers and Vikings play at the same time on the same channel and not against each other. I'll have to go hang out at the bars.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 08/19/2009 @ 08:57:33 PM
Ultimately, I just don't like being told that the way I watch sports is "silly", especially since that conclusion comes from someone's judgement and/or perception, and is this arbitrary. If anyone has ever seen two arch rivals just up and swap rosters? If so I guess it actually would make sense to use that analogy not once but twice in the same argument, especially comsidering the lack of response it got the first time it was used.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 3 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 08/19/2009 @ 09:06:09 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:35:50 PM for I also have very good reasons for rooting for the teams I root for. None of which come down to a whim or impulse. I didn't just decide one day "hey, I'm just going to start rooting for the brewers (or packers)." Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:47:37 PM That team represents my state/city. If I lived somewhere else I would have been a fan of another team. There's really nothing arbitrary about that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 08/19/2009 @ 09:20:20 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:57:33 PM Ultimately, I just don't like being told that the way I watch sports is "silly", especially since that conclusion comes from someone's judgement and/or perception, and is this arbitrary. Dude, first of all, in what way shape or form could I possibly have been singling you out? It is silly and it's the dictionary definition of arbitrary. No one said it's supposed to be anything else, but it is what it is. You said it yourself, if you were born elsewhere you'd probably be a fan of another team. If you were born in Illinios you might be a Cubs fan. Knowing that fact, you really don't think that makes all the "who's superior" chest-bumping/death-matching that goes on in heated rivalries pretty illogical? (Again, not that it's supposed to BE logical, it's emotional, but call a spade a spade.) Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:57:33 PM If anyone has ever seen two arch rivals just up and swap rosters? If so I guess it actually would make sense to use that analogy not once but twice in the same argument, especially comsidering the lack of response it got the first time it was used. It's called a hypothetical situation. People use them in thought experiments to get other people to consider their actions in a pretend situation. You don't find it interesting to consider what you would do if the guys that made up the team you hate and argued about how inferior they are were suddenly on your team, and the all the guys you loved, and defended to the death were on your most hated rival? There's no right or wrong answer, but many people (myself included, though I think it would take a few seasons to get back into it) would continue to primarily support the team they always did, and I find that very interesting/telling about humans.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 08/19/2009 @ 10:12:36 PM
"That's the only part of his legacy that he has really been tarnishing these days. While his place among the game's all-time greats will never be in question, Favre has undergone a stark transformation over the past two years. He used to be a passionate, charismatic, fun-loving guy who was as genuine as they came. Now he's just insecure, indecisive and manipulative, a man who clearly has shown us why the Packers finally got tired of dealing with his difficult ways in the first place." http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeffri&id=4408883		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 08/19/2009 @ 10:14:09 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:28:26 PM Which is my point. cool		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 08/19/2009 @ 10:15:09 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 08:55:59 PM Only 3 weeks where the Packers and Vikings play at the same time on the same channel and not against each other. I'll have to go hang out at the bars. Gotta see that. Maybe I'll invite myself.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 08/19/2009 @ 10:46:14 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 10:12:36 PM "That's the only part of his legacy that he has really been tarnishing these days. While his place among the game's all-time greats will never be in question, Favre has undergone a stark transformation over the past two years. He used to be a passionate, charismatic, fun-loving guy who was as genuine as they came. Now he's just insecure, indecisive and manipulative, a man who clearly has shown us why the Packers finally got tired of dealing with his difficult ways in the first place." http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeffri&id=4408883 The problem with pinning that on Favre is that everyone is pretending he's the only person to ever do something like this, when in reality not only is he not alone, it's probably not even the exception to the rule with people in his class. Michael Jordan retired like 50 times, and even switched sports to one he sucked at. Lots of bands have done 15 farewell tours and 16 reunion tours. IF you're one of the lucky few left that still have people that want your services, then deciding to retire would be hard. I was looking for a clip I heard on The Herd this morning about Favre's legacy, and found this. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=bryant_howard&id=4409317		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/19/2009 @ 11:27:06 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 10:12:36 PM "That's the only part of his legacy that he has really been tarnishing these days. While his place among the game's all-time greats will never be in question, Favre has undergone a stark transformation over the past two years. He used to be a passionate, charismatic, fun-loving guy who was as genuine as they came. Now he's just insecure, indecisive and manipulative, a man who clearly has shown us why the Packers finally got tired of dealing with his difficult ways in the first place." http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeffri&id=4408883 I just got a second to read that article, and the whole thing holds a couple of presuppositions I don't think are sound. 1) I really do believe that there was no "wink-wink" deal about missing camp. Childress watched the quarterbacks struggle, both in execution and in learning the offense, and took a shot in the dark. These same people lampoon Brett for his indecisiveness, yet this one time it's impossible that that's the case? "Oh you naive little child, surely this was the plan all along." I'm on the Minnesota Vikings mailing list, and by last weekend the emails could be paraphrased "Seriously people, it's the fucking home opener, and we can't give these tickets away to you people? Fine, how about if we knock $10 off the ticket and throw in food and parking?" They wouldn't be doing that if they were certain Mr Ticket Sales was 3 days away from solving their problem. 2) That Favre needs training camp, and that that will be a big issue with teammates. He, got off a plane, signed the deal, walked onto the field, and started calling plays. Sage apparently doesn't know that much of the playbook, and after T-Jack's entire tenure there, they can still only use about 50% of the playbook with him out there. Favre needs time to get in sync with his wideouts, sure, but it's not 2 days before week one, and that's not what training camp is for either. In fact, it would really be downright irresponsible for the Vikings to ask Favre to go along with the team drills at camp, even if he was there. He's old, and his arm has a pitch count. He doesn't need to waste his legs running suicides, or his waste arm throwing to guys that will be working at the sunglass hut in a week or two. To try and put out there that people don't understand that some people are special is ridiculous. That's life. It might bother them, sure, but then again last I checked the players are all paid according to their talents, and not all equally, lest we upset the, apparently, extreme fragility that is "the locker room".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 4 times, last at 08/19/2009 11:31:58 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/19/2009 @ 11:51:02 PM
What do bands have to do with anything? You don't think it was at all manipulative that Favre "retired" from the Jets, asked to be released and then had this revelation that maybe he did still want to play after all? Isn't it likely that sequence of events was entirely premeditated? I don't think there was a "wink-wink" deal either. I think Favre said to himself screw training camp, I do whatever I want, they'll still let me sign later. Which is probably still the right move for the Vikings, but they would've preferred to have him aboard earlier even if he was taking it easy physically. And Favre is special which is why he can get away with it, but it makes him seem like kind of a tool.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 08/20/2009 @ 06:21:22 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:20:20 PM Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:57:33 PM Ultimately, I just don't like being told that the way I watch sports is "silly", especially since that conclusion comes from someone's judgement and/or perception, and is this arbitrary. Dude, first of all, in what way shape or form could I possibly have been singling you out? It is silly and it's the dictionary definition of arbitrary. No one said it's supposed to be anything else, but it is what it is. You said it yourself, if you were born elsewhere you'd probably be a fan of another team. If you were born in Illinios you might be a Cubs fan. Knowing that fact, you really don't think that makes all the "who's superior" chest-bumping/death-matching that goes on in heated rivalries pretty illogical? (Again, not that it's supposed to BE logical, it's emotional, but call a spade a spade.) Perhaps the problem is that you keep using the word arbitrary in a way that seems like you are equating an arbitrary choice with an illogical and/or inferior choice, when, as I tried to point out earlier, it's not really the case here. Beyond that though, just because something is initially chosen arbitrarily, why does that mean that people can't develop strong attachments, feelings, and emotions towards it as time goes on? It's kind of like saying that if two people were arranged to be married by their parents, 20 years down the line, it would be "illogical" for the husband to now love his wife and defend her honor. Not to mention the fact that, as you just said (and I pointed out in my previous post), sports fandom is supposed to be emotional. Arguing about sports is emotional and fun. People may make illogical arguments about their favorite team, but that doesn't mean that the arguing itself is illogical (it may be obnoxious and people may go farther than you or I would go, but it's not necessarily illogical). I mean, if we go by what I think your argument is, then isn't debate class/competitions the height of illogical behavior (not to mention what we do here on this website)?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this at 08/20/2009 6:30:29 am

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 08/20/2009 @ 07:41:18 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:51:02 PM What do bands have to do with anything? Example: The Eagles- break up as a band, solo careers, wash up, reunite for a couple of months, break up... flip flop, retire, unretire. You really can't see the analogy?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/20/2009 @ 09:23:28 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:20:20 PM Beyond that though, just because something is initially chosen arbitrarily, why does that mean that people can't develop strong attachments, feelings, and emotions towards it as time goes on? It's kind of like saying that if two people were arranged to be married by their parents, 20 years down the line, it would be "illogical" for the husband to now love his wife and defend her honor. Not to mention the fact that, as you just said (and I pointed out in my previous post), sports fandom is supposed to be emotional. Arguing about sports is emotional and fun. No, that not really what it's like at all, in fact that's really a good analogy for my earlier point. Being arranged to be married does mean he was arbitrarily paired up with the woman, but that woman still has qualities that a person can like or dislike. It's not written into our DNA to be Packer fans or Vikings fans, and you might only like Donald Driver because you're a Packer Fan, but Donald Driver actually has qualities a person can like, or dislike. Donald Driver is anything. Of course arguing about sports is emotional and fun, and I plan on doing a lot of it this year as the Vikings make a Super Bowl run and the Packers struggle with the Lions over who will get last place. I just find it interesting that people, myself included, align themselves more with things that aren't really anything and have no qualities of their own (teams) than they do with things that actually have qualities and can respond to/reward loyalty (players), especially when going so far as to question the loyalty of anyone who doesn't want to see a former player burn in hellfire the second he puts on another team's jersey. In a realm that's largely logic free it's still more reasonable/loyal to be the person rooting for Brett the Jet than it is to be the guy who acts like Brett is dead to him, and instantly throws his unflinching support behind a guy he's never actually seen play. I think you guys are taking what I'm saying way too far here. Not to mention you keep talking like I spend my Sundays sipping tea on my high horse watching all the Neanderthals root on their teams and scoffing at their ignorance, and not the guy who spends 15 minutes and 13 f-bombs ranting after every penalty against the Vikings, or for the Packers, about how it's a some sort of conspiracy.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 08/20/2009 @ 09:31:36 AM
I don't think you're singling me out. I just hold the belief that is being debated, so I am using myself as an example. Let's agree to disagree, because honestly, I am seeing your arguments and am coming to different conclusions based on the same set of precepts. Again, though, I think that being loyal to a team and being loyal to a player are not mutually exclusive (not that you are saying that they are). I don't think either is silly, but rather what I do think is silly is the people who want the player they rooted for as a hero to die a horrible death because he goes to a different team. This I do not think is in the same realm of our argument about being loyal between the two entities. Oh, and while still being "loyal" to Favre, I more or less did throw unflinching support behind Rodgers, because he is now the quarterback of my team. I have no choice but to support him. I don't think that's illogical. *it would be funny to see you sip tea whilest sitting on a horse. That would be some talent.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 3 times, last at 08/20/2009 9:37:06 am

	Matt - Ombudsman 08/20/2009 @ 10:06:47 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:23:28 AM Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:20:20 PM Beyond that though, just because something is initially chosen arbitrarily, why does that mean that people can't develop strong attachments, feelings, and emotions towards it as time goes on? It's kind of like saying that if two people were arranged to be married by their parents, 20 years down the line, it would be "illogical" for the husband to now love his wife and defend her honor. Not to mention the fact that, as you just said (and I pointed out in my previous post), sports fandom is supposed to be emotional. Arguing about sports is emotional and fun. No, that not really what it's like at all, in fact that's really a good analogy for my earlier point. Being arranged to be married does mean he was arbitrarily paired up with the woman, but that woman still has qualities that a person can like or dislike. It's not written into our DNA to be Packer fans or Vikings fans, and you might only like Donald Driver because you're a Packer Fan, but Donald Driver actually has qualities a person can like, or dislike. Donald Driver is anything. I think it was a fine analogy. Your point was that it was illogical to defend/argue for a team which was chosen arbitrarily. My analogy showed where that's wrong. The way I see it, for most sports fans, once you pick a team everything else is downhill. The players/coaches/owners may have good or bad qualities, but those are largely incidental at that point, and for good reason. Those things all change every few years. If you let those qualities factor in enough that you would be switching teams every few years it would, in my view, be unable to get the same emotional highs and lows that you would if you lived and died with one team. Therefore, people root for one team, defend them to their death, and will choose the team over the players in most cases. It may seem silly, but to me it's also rational behavior for maximizing utility.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this at 08/20/2009 10:08:19 am

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/20/2009 @ 10:23:19 AM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 10:06:47 AM I think it was a fine analogy. Your point was that it was illogical to defend/argue for a team which was chosen arbitrarily. My analogy showed where that's wrong. Except for the part where it missed the point entirely, and is thus wrong, for the reasons I showed. (The wife isn't analogous to the team, she's analogous to a player, and even if you disagree there it's still not apt because a person has qualities, a team doesn't.) I agree rooting for specific things, be it a player or two, and/or a team, is more logical/fun than constantly switching.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 08/20/2009 10:25:30 am

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 08/20/2009 @ 10:23:19 AM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 11:06:47 AM ...it's also rational behavior for maximizing utility. I think we need some quantitative data here. Someone create some sort of correlation graph with a few other charts. We're almost to the bottom mof this.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 08/20/2009 @ 12:58:01 PM
ok, who wants to over-analyze fandom a little longer? Nobody? OK, let's move on!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 08/20/2009 @ 01:10:49 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:23:28 AM Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:20:20 PM Beyond that though, just because something is initially chosen arbitrarily, why does that mean that people can't develop strong attachments, feelings, and emotions towards it as time goes on? It's kind of like saying that if two people were arranged to be married by their parents, 20 years down the line, it would be "illogical" for the husband to now love his wife and defend her honor. Not to mention the fact that, as you just said (and I pointed out in my previous post), sports fandom is supposed to be emotional. Arguing about sports is emotional and fun. No, that not really what it's like at all, in fact that's really a good analogy for my earlier point. Being arranged to be married does mean he was arbitrarily paired up with the woman, but that woman still has qualities that a person can like or dislike. Just because the husband didn't pick the wife, doesn't make it arbitrary. I doubt that the parents opened up the phone book, closed their eyes, picked a name and said that's who you're marrying kido. They probably had some selection process of their own, which quite possibly had nothing to do with the husband's feelings for the potential candidates.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 08/20/2009 @ 02:38:09 PM
There wouldn't be much difference from the husband's perspective, but then again I'm not sure who you're arguing with. At any rate I think we exhausted this topic long ago.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/20/2009 @ 04:41:05 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:38:09 PM At any rate I think we exhausted this topic long ago. Favre? I agree, let's never talk about him again.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 08/20/2009 @ 09:09:03 PM
ok... how bout this instead?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!! 08/22/2009 @ 01:05:02 PM
lol that was hilarious.... I love favre, always will, I havent lost any disrespect for the man at all, he shares something that alot of us have, and that is the love for the game of football. I mean if u guys didnt enjoy it u wouldnt be here wasting hours of ur life writing about it :) I love to play the game, and I love to watch the game, and talk about the game and everything about the game, we as packer fans have NO RIGHT to deny brett favre the right to play, for ANY team. If we really had a great love for the man as I claim to have, we wouldnt hold a grudge against him for going to another team. :)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 08/22/2009 @ 02:54:32 PM
That is one grey head of hair.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/22/2009 @ 05:38:31 PM
I never knew Scott was Canadian.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 08/22/2009 @ 06:26:23 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 06:38:31 PM I never knew Scott was Canadian. What?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 08/23/2009 @ 02:27:41 AM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:26:23 PM Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:38:31 PM I never knew Scott was Canadian. What? Gray		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/23/2009 @ 08:53:32 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:27:41 AM Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:26:23 PM Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:38:31 PM I never knew Scott was Canadian. What? Gray Grey But then again, I grew up pretty close to the Great White North.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 08/24/2009 @ 07:22:46 AM
Clearly ESPN is listening in on our converstations. I think they stole Jeremy's Title. When it comes to retirements, Favre, in fact, is still an amateur compared to Roger Clemens, who seemed to retire annually during much of this decade. The most famous was in 2003, when in Game 4 of the World Series, the umpires stopped the game as Clemens appeared to be exiting the mound for a final time. The opposing team, the Florida Marlins, actually gave him a standing ovation during the game. Clemens not only came back the next year, but also pitched in the World Series again in 2005, and then came back again after much drama in 2006 and 2007.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 08/24/2009 @ 03:37:42 PM
I never liked Clemens in the first place. Although I spent many early Saturday morning hours playing Roger Clemens' MVP Baseball back in the day.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich 08/24/2009 @ 04:18:02 PM
I found a few clemens cards when I was cleaning out my closet. I also found a Quadry Ismael or two.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 08/24/2009 @ 05:23:07 PM
Here some perspective for you. Too far! http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/54604557.html		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/24/2009 @ 07:55:26 PM
So it's not legal to put a goat in a trunk?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.