Whitlock canonizes Favre

They were outplayed by Pittsburgh. They don't have a quality win this season, because nobody knows how good the Packers really are (my thinking is 9-7ish) and the 49ers are looking more and more like a young team that's not there yet. Baltimore's not as good as they were last year (and the Ravens should have beaten them at the Metrodome).

 

Worst offensive line in the NFL in my opinion. The Packers are trying to turn Rodgers into David Carr.

 

The only good thing about Favre's comeback is that anything short of winning the Super Bowl will be viewed as a failure. He's played well so far, but this is going to be just like the last several years where his play drops off considerably in the last six weeks of the season.

He beat a mediocre Packers team twice, who cares?

 

Favre held the ball too long and failed to protect it on the fumble. He also rushed his throw to Taylor, which was high and in traffic. Let's also not forget that even though he put up some yards, the Vikings' offense only scored 10 points in that game, with the other seven coming on Harvin's kickoff return.

 

Aren't these the same columns that ran last year after Favre threw six touchdowns against the Cardinals?

 

Favre usually spends the first half of the season putting some distance between himself and Dan Marino...

He spends the second half of the season putting distance between himself and George Blanda.

 

In fact, if I remember correctly, that fumble came two plays AFTER Favre's TD pass to Rice was called back on that indefensible tripping call. The fumble was a bad play, no question, but we should have been kicking off to the Steelers with the lead at that point.

The pass to Taylor wasn't perfect but you can't blame that turnover on Favre. The ball hit Taylor right in his hands when he was in a position to catch it, and he just muffed the catch.

 

It wasn't an indefensible call, though I find those arguments tend to be pointless. The offensive lineman was falling down while pass blocking and he did kick his legs up, which is illegal. The reason it looked shaky is that the Steeler (I think it was Harrison) tripped more over his body than his legs. But the lineman did violate the rule. Not a call I think they should normally make, but not indefensible.

You are also assuming the Vikings would win because they had taken a lead in the fourth quarter, which is a big assumption with a Steelers' offense that had been outstanding in recent weeks on the other side of the field.

Penalty or not, Favre still failed to protect the ball in two key situations. And you can absolutely give him part of the blame for the interception. He should have eaten the ball when he saw Taylor in traffic, or at least make sure he makes a better throw.

 

Jason Whitlock writes about the sports world from absolutely every angle, including angles other writers can't imagine or muster the courage to address. His columns are humorous, thought-provoking, agenda free, honest, unpredictable and uncomfortable for white and black people comfortable with their biases

 

Rosie, as a fellow fan, you can have T-Jack back. And Sage. I mean, it's not like they benched Fran Tarkenton in his prime for Favre. And I'm sure the players - the schism in the locker room guys - aren't exactly missing Jackson either.

And I have a lot of Packers fans (one who went to the Ice Bowl) who have these exact same feelings about Ted Thompson, but their beliefs obviously get drowned out by those everywhere who loathe Favre. One - who calls Rodgers Lynn Dickey 2 - said he wanted to light a cigarette after reading the column.

And waiting until the end of the season to write this column? Wouldn't that mean there shouldn't be any coverage of anyone until after the Super Bowl, and then we have, what, a 9,000-page newspaper recapping what happened? Why should anyone write an article praising Manning, or Brady, or Brees, or Peterson, or anyone else? With everyone - except for Roethlisberger and any other player on the Steelers - you could criticize it by pointing out what happened last year. But something's written about Favre and it's all about the end of the year with the Jets.

 

STG, believe me, I've had countless - let's call them discussions - with people on why Favre is NOT the answer to getting the Vikings to the Super Bowl. I hate his prima donna facade, I hate the slobbering over him like he's the second coming of the Lord himself, and if he is The Anointed One, it wouldn't be more than ten years since the Packers went to a Super Bowl.

As has been mentioned previously, Favre's tendency to play like crap later in the season must not be discounted.

I blame Childress for T-Jack's implosion. The first time I saw him play, I figured he had a lot of potential - the raw talent was certainly there - but Childress is not a talented coach in any way, shape or form, and pretty much wrecked a kid who could have, with proper development, been a starter in the NFL.

Derek_W, I'm curious how long you've been a Vikings fan. This team has broken my heart too many times in 40 years for me to hold any illusions that they will win the Super Bowl on the arm of an aging quarterback.d

The only - ONLY - good thing about Favre being a Viking is now the Slacker Backers have to listen to the same blithering crap Vikings fans have been subject to for too many years.

 

Agree completely on Brad "Kick-ass offense" Childress. But I still wouldn't have much faith in Jackson, even if a staff of Mike Shanahan, Sean Payton and Bill Walsh were tutoring him.

Rosie, you're like an abused puppy, beaten down by Drew Pearson's push-off, Super Bowl IV (cue Hank Stram's sideline commentary, followed by my dad cursing at the mention of that man's name), Old Man Willie streaking down the sideline, Les Steckel, Darrin Nelson's drop, Gary Anderson's miss, the kneel-down 41-0.

But have faith. This could be the year!