PDA

View Full Version : Brett Favre = Jagov


Ivhon
05-04-2010, 05:11 PM
EITHER:

1. Brett Favre is not retiring for good - in which case he is a jagov for letting the is he/isn't he game start up AGAIN.

OR:

2. Brett Favre IS retiring for good - in which case he is a jagov for not letting his team know in time to take some appropriate action in the draft.

Jagov.

Sinistrum
05-04-2010, 05:51 PM
Meh its his career, and as long as a team is willing to sign him and start him, he can do whatever he wants. When you have a specialized skill set like that, you have more power in dictating employment terms.

Ivhon
05-04-2010, 08:32 PM
Meh its his career, and as long as a team is willing to sign him and start him, he can do whatever he wants. When you have a specialized skill set like that, you have more power in dictating employment terms.

Dudn't mean he ain't a jagov....

Frenzy
05-04-2010, 08:38 PM
He must hang out with Ricky Henderson.

Sinistrum
05-04-2010, 08:55 PM
Meh, once again, if he can get away with it, then why not do it? I mean its not like the Viks are entirely blameless here. If its such a big deal then they should have done what the Packers did two years ago and moved on without him. As long as teams are willing to put up with it, I don't see the problem. He should be able to play as long as he wants, or not, and make that decision whenever he wants as long as there is a team willing to sign him. Its his career.

Ivhon
05-04-2010, 09:05 PM
Meh, once again, if he can get away with it, then why not do it? I mean its not like the Viks are entirely blameless here. If its such a big deal then they should have done what the Packers did two years ago and moved on without him. As long as teams are willing to put up with it, I don't see the problem. He should be able to play as long as he wants, or not, and make that decision whenever he wants as long as there is a team willing to sign him. Its his career.

All true.
.
.
.
.
And I still call him jagov. Cuz that's what I think of him

Birgitte
05-04-2010, 11:36 PM
All true.
.
.
.
.
And I still call him jagov. Cuz that's what I think of him

What he said. Except, ya know, I said it two years ago when he screwed the Packers over with his retarded indecision.

Seriously, dude, make up your mind. Just because you CAN screw around with people's livelihood's like that, doesn't mean you should. It's a dick move.

Frenzy
05-04-2010, 11:41 PM
Seriously, dude, make up your mind. Just because you CAN screw around with people's livelihood's like that, doesn't mean you should. It's a dick move.
He must hang out with Ross Perot.

irerancincpkc
05-05-2010, 07:01 AM
Brett Favre isn't that bad... he just can't make up his mind. He loves the game. Hard to fault a guy for that...

Ivhon
05-05-2010, 07:10 AM
Brett Favre isn't that bad... he just can't make up his mind. He loves the game. Hard to fault a guy for that...

I disagree. Aaron Rogers + not having to put your entire operations on hold while Brett Favre is being a jagov > Brett Favre.

Who is a jagov.

Gilshalos Sedai
05-05-2010, 07:50 AM
These are not the actions of someone who loves "the game." These are the actions of someone who likes his paycheck and wants it to go higher.

Sinistrum
05-05-2010, 11:51 AM
Aaron Rogers + not having to put your entire operations on hold while Brett Favre is being a jagov > Brett Favre.

And the Packers just couldn't cut bait on the whole situation why? No one forced them to put their whole operations on hold. They could have just released him and moved on.

Ivhon
05-05-2010, 12:02 PM
And the Packers just couldn't cut bait on the whole situation why? No one forced them to put their whole operations on hold. They could have just released him and moved on.

I think you mean Vikings. And, in my opinion, they are idiots taking a huge gamble on an otherwise intact team. Because if Brett Favre pulls a jagov move like waiting till the last minute to say that no he wont be playing after all then they have an outstanding intact team....with no QB.

Vikings organization being idiots has nothing to do with the fact that Brett Favre is a jagov. The two are not mutually exclusive propositions.

Ozymandias
05-05-2010, 03:28 PM
And the Packers just couldn't cut bait on the whole situation why? No one forced them to put their whole operations on hold. They could have just released him and moved on.

That is not true, AT ALL. It displays a fundamental ignorance of how professional sports teams, and especially the Packers, who are owned by their fans (quite literally), operate.

If it was a lesser player, fine. But Favre WAS the Packers. I mean, he's going to end up being the most prominent Packer except Lombardi, I'm guessing. For a franchise QB who represents your entire organization and has for almost two decades, you can't just cut bait; Favre had to make the first dick move for them to be able to move on.

Favre's image has been ruined, in my eyes at least, in the last few years. Firstly, it became clear in the aftermath of his divorce with the Packers that he's a diva who isn't interested in the game as much as he's interested in himself. He could easily stay around the game; any network would hire him in a heartbeat, as would the Packers have to have him as a coach of some sort, I'm guessing. But we heard about how he had his own office for answering fan mail, how he got multiple lockers, etc etc.

Not to mention that on the field, he's now sunk two teams because he's a glory hog. The Jets lost a year because he decided to play through injury stupidly, and he blew their season. The Vikes were happy with him, except that he made the worst pass I've seen a veteran QB make to lose the playoff game against the Saints. All he had to do was run forward an easy 3 yards on that scramble to set up a field goal that pro kickers make about 80% of the time at the worst. Instead, he threw across the field, off his back foot, into the middle of a pack of Saints. And so instead of an easy FG, his desire to be the hero led to his team losing. Oh, and did I mention how he lost the 2007 NFC Championship game, too? If he was more of a team player and less of a guy who thinks his team exists to glorify him, they would have won those games. Certainly the Saints game.

Whewww. Rant over.

Sinistrum
05-05-2010, 03:54 PM
That is not true, AT ALL. It displays a fundamental ignorance of how professional sports teams, and especially the Packers, who are owned by their fans (quite literally), operate.

If it was a lesser player, fine. But Favre WAS the Packers. I mean, he's going to end up being the most prominent Packer except Lombardi, I'm guessing. For a franchise QB who represents your entire organization and has for almost two decades, you can't just cut bait; Favre had to make the first dick move for them to be able to move on.

What? You mean they can't do like the Eagles did with McNabb, or the 49ers did with Montana, or the Rams did with Warner, or the Cowboys did with Emmitt Smith, or the Bills did with Bruce Smith? Those were all franchise players that were the face of a team that were cut once they became past their usefulness to the team. Your argument is nothing but sentimentality. Football is a business, and it requires business decisions, such as cutting a veteran QB who still may want to play, putting a banged up QB in IR against his wishes, or drafting a QB instead of waiting for a veteran one to make up his mind about coming back. If teams don't have the cajones to make those decisions, and instead choose to cater to the whims of someone like Favre, the only place the blame lies is on the teams. As long as people are willing to put up with Favre's antics, still pay him, and still play him, then I say he has the right to indulge in said antics. Favre has screwed exactly zero people in doing what he does. These organizations have screwed themselves by letting him get away with it.

Firseal
05-05-2010, 05:42 PM
I say the same thing to this that I did to to the local TV station a couple weeks back that put a transfer to the Redskins on a special warning banner across the screen, like them signing some guy to chase balls ranked with major storms and political disasters. Notably, countries having disasters that cost hundreds if not thousands of lives and billions in damage don't get news strips - but the Redskins sign some guy who I never heard of and can't remember the name of? News strips.

This sort of thing is ridiculous.

I particularly like the comment upwards in this thread that this Farve characters has 'Specialized Skills' which let him negotiate his own contract. Like Football is brain surgery. He's a popular sports figure in a sport that is just barely past barbarism, and somehow otherwise rational folks go nuts about this. Heck, I am not half as emotional about the sports where I give a rat's undertail.

The question isn't will he or won't he. The question is why we are made so emotional either way. If he does, fine, if he doesn't, fine. There is not enough moments life to bugger one's mind over something so petty as whatever this man is doing to get more money out of the populace by throwing a ball and trying to outrun a bunch of big guys. Or whatever the heck he does in regards to the sport.

...

Wow. I... really needed to rant that out.

Ivhon
05-05-2010, 05:51 PM
I say the same thing to this that I did to to the local TV station a couple weeks back that put a transfer to the Redskins on a special warning banner across the screen, like them signing some guy to chase balls ranked with major storms and political disasters. Notably, countries having disasters that cost hundreds if not thousands of lives and billions in damage don't get news strips - but the Redskins sign some guy who I never heard of and can't remember the name of? News strips.

This sort of thing is ridiculous.

I particularly like the comment upwards in this thread that this Farve characters has 'Specialized Skills' which let him negotiate his own contract. Like Football is brain surgery. He's a popular sports figure in a sport that is just barely past barbarism, and somehow otherwise rational folks go nuts about this. Heck, I am not half as emotional about the sports where I give a rat's undertail.

The question isn't will he or won't he. The question is why we are made so emotional either way. If he does, fine, if he doesn't, fine. There is not enough moments life to bugger one's mind over something so petty as whatever this man is doing to get more money out of the populace by throwing a ball and trying to outrun a bunch of big guys. Or whatever the heck he does in regards to the sport.

...

Wow. I... really needed to rant that out.

He's a jagov, dude. All there is to it.

Sinistrum
05-05-2010, 06:48 PM
The question isn't will he or won't he. The question is why we are made so emotional either way.

Now I know this may be a foreign concept to you, but look up the word "fun" in the dictionary. Why do people like to talk and argue about sports you ask? Because its fun. F.U.N. So yeah, if arguing about sports is not your cup of tea, that's fine, but don't piss on everyone else's party just because you don't enjoy it.

I particularly like the comment upwards in this thread that this Farve characters has 'Specialized Skills' which let him negotiate his own contract.

Oh yeah this is entirely ridiculous, except as pertains to his profession its entirely true. Tell me, is a brain surgeon fresh out of med school or a brain surgeon who's been doing it for twenty years going to command a higher salary, more perks, and have a great choice in which jobs he takes? How about two guys fresh out of med school and one graduated near the bottom and one was magna cum laude? Experience and skill set matter regardless of profession. It matters even in sports.

Firseal
05-05-2010, 08:41 PM
Perhaps I am 'pissing on everyone's party' because I've seen one too many sports stories treated as more important than anything else happening? I have no problem with fun. I find putting sports in the same headlines as anything else to be something else entirely, and I regard it less as pissing and more as an unemotional persepective.

Forgive my hideous, terrible machine logic.

As to your question, as to who is worth more taking my example of doctors one step further? Let's take a look at what I've scared up on Farve in a minute of research. He is a forty-year old playing in a sport where the average retirement age is 35. Meaning if we stay with doctors as the reference - who on average retire at 62, (and are probably, to be fair, in school until they are about 28-30, rather than 22), let's see...
I am rusty with my math. Correct me if I am wrong.

35-22=13(x) / 40-22=18(y).
y is 1.384615 greater than x
62-29=33
33 x 1.384615 = 45.692308 (which I then round up to 46)
29+46=75

So, yeah, if I am looking to pay top billing for an experienced brain surgeon, I wouldn't look at one that far past retirement age.

On the difference between top of the class and bottom, give me another minute to research- yes, he had a great career in college. Now, I may not particularly be enthused about sports, but I know that talking about early careers doesn't always mean anything. Moreover, we aren't even talking about recruitment, or people out of college, so that point of yours, while enforcing that he is a good player, is nineteen? Huh. Just checked, nineteen - damn, he even started young, he must be getting tired - anyhow, nineteen years out of date. It stopped mattering as a point of argument on his virtue or vice as a professional player in 1992.

However, it does matter that he had an exemplary career afterwards. To be fair, I give him that.

He also literally tried retiring once. Which is usually a sign an athlete is done, at least in his own mind. Their heart doesn't always get the message, though, and lots of careers which were superb became anywhere from 'good' to 'terrible' the further the athlete ignores their head over their heart.

His head knows that he's done. Further negotiations at this point is his heart - and perhaps his wallet - trying to overrule what, somewhere inside know, he even knows. He's done. May not want to be, but is.

There you go, both points rebutted. Now I go back to asking why we are emotional about this? Oh, and also, while I compared doctors to athletes, there is a difference in how carefully I look. If I want a doctor, it is because I am sick and injured. If I need something fun to watch - heck, I have never seen a game of Football, Baseball, or Hockey that was more fun played professionally than it was by two dedicated groups of amatuers, or even folks picked off the street. What's the value in paying this man, or stressing over his contracts, if I think touch football done by random assortment of guys #28 at any given sports field is by far more interesting if I ever get the urge to watch?

Bonus points. I looked it up. The average Football player's career is 4 years at the professional level. Favre has been playing 18 years (1991-2009) That means y is 4.5 as large as x. Provided 62-29=33 is a fair average (haven't found the age of average graduation from med school) Favre the nuerosurgeon would be... 177.5 years old.

No. I would not want him operating on me, if we continue to use this comparison.

Sinistrum
05-05-2010, 10:54 PM
Perhaps I am 'pissing on everyone's party' because I've seen one too many sports stories treated as more important than anything else happening? I have no problem with fun. I find putting sports in the same headlines as anything else to be something else entirely, and I regard it less as pissing and more as an unemotional persepective.

ZOMG WE ALL HAVE TO BE SERIOUS AND NEVER HAVE TO HAVE ANY FUN OR DISCUSS ANYTHING THAT ISN'T SERIOUS EVER! According to this, I guess we should just shut down theoryland now. I mean after all, some piddling book series isn't nearly as important as the SERIOUS BUSINESS that is whatever news story put the stick up your bum about sports. :rolleyes: Seriously, stop being a buzzkill. If you want to talk about something else, start your own thread on it. Nobody is forcing you to read or participate in this one.

So, yeah, if I am looking to pay top billing for an experienced brain surgeon, I wouldn't look at one that far past retirement age.

His head knows that he's done. Further negotiations at this point is his heart - and perhaps his wallet - trying to overrule what, somewhere inside know, he even knows. He's done. May not want to be, but is.

Except Favre had the best stastical season of his career last year, made the Pro Bowl AGAIN, and got his team to the NFC championship game. Sounds like a pretty good surgeon to me. What, precisely, did you rebut again? ;)

Now I go back to asking why we are emotional about this?

I already answered this. Its called F.U.N. You still haven't looked up that word, have you?

Firseal
05-05-2010, 11:26 PM
No dearie. I meant why do you consider this important enough to be treating it like SERIOUS BUSINESS and not enjoyable activity, which is what you've been doing - though you are cracking a little. That last post was the first time this thread that you even seemed to be having fun yourself. Yes, you were yelling at me (again, some more) which made all of this worthwhile. Less anger and supporting a guy who is a jerk just because he's supposedly better and more just having fun - and don't make me do a third minute of research on his stats, please.

The first two were positive torture. Torture!!! ( <-the three !s mean they were bad.)

Other than that, you just seemed angry. Which is how a lot of people seem to be about sports, an awful lot of the time. Unless they are winning, of course. Countries have gotten into wars over sports (though admittably, most of the wars were over soccer, which is one of the good sports) and people stab each other with forks or throw riots over games. Where in that is the fun?

Also supports my sports aren't 'fun' thing, but bygones.

My point, aside from the ridiciousliness of comparing any sort of entertainment celebrity to someone who provides a health or other key service, is that I find the idolization of the althete (whomever they may be) to be the worst breach of what you yourself accused me of.

Celebrity athletes are no better than celebrity authors or singers or such. Yes, some people go ga-ga over pop starlets, movie actors get way too much press, and what attention people pay to illiterate morons who somehow gain popular fame is astonishing. The celebrity athlete, though, is by and large in a league of their own in this, particularly if they play Baseball, Football, or Basketball. They don't care about their own games, they are in it for paychecks, and other folks would be more fun to watch even if they aren't as technically superb. I learned a lot about Brett Favre in the two minutes I was forced to care enough to research him - he doesn't give a crap about the game, he gives a crap about his paycheck.

I once heard a charge leveled at folks like him. They ruin the game.

Someone I was talking to earlier: "The point is that sports celebrities are no more important than other celebrities and shouldn't be treated as such."

Word.
Have fun.
You need it.

Sinistrum
05-06-2010, 07:40 PM
Uh Firseal, the only thing I'm getting pissy at is you for being a killjoy. If you interpreted anything I've posted as "angry" you pretty much have admitted you don't know what you're talking about. Part of having fun when talking about sports is getting into it. I'm sorry not all of us have the conversational skills of a robot, but that's just something you'll have to get over.

My point, aside from the ridiciousliness of comparing any sort of entertainment celebrity to someone who provides a health or other key service, is that I find the idolization of the althete (whomever they may be) to be the worst breach of what you yourself accused me of.

And who, precisely, is idolizing anyone here? Certainly not me. Oh my god, I paid someone a compliment and recognized their skill at a game. That must mean I WORSHIP THEM. Seriously, get some perspective. I really don't care what Brett Favre had for breakfast, wears, or what football type he uses and if I saw him in public, I'd probably just ignore him. Me arguing that he's a good football player by drawing an analogy to another profession or defending his right to form contracts and market his skill set within his profession doesn't mean I've got an alter devoted to him in my closet or that I've somehow blown his importance out of proportion. So I guess in addition to trying to shit on a discussion, you've also read far too much in terms of emotional import into said discussion to do your shitting. Bottom line is you need to cut both erroneous habits out.

Ivhon
05-06-2010, 09:19 PM
We have discussed this and that, here. Yet no-where do I see anyone saying that Brett Favre is NOT a jagov.

Can I take it we are resolved, then?

Brett Favre is, indeed and so decreed, a jagove.

Great.

Next order of business...

RogueSavior
05-07-2010, 04:36 PM
Okay, Ivhon. As the only REAL Packer fan in residence, I'm going to bite on the Brett Favre bait.

A. Brett Favre is bigger than Lombardi in the state of Wisconsin. Still. Even after he became a Viking. After all, it's not like he became a BEAR (which, to 90% of Packer fans, is far more unforgiveable)! Even those family members I have who remember the Lombardi-era Packers love Favre over any other Packer, ever.

And the reason why is simple - the Packers were AWFUL in the years right before Favre arrived. It's similar to the reason Manny Ramirez and Big Papi are still loved in Boston - they were convinced the Packers might never be Great again. And Favre not only cured all that, but was fun, and Human, and damn it, the Packers won a LOT with him under center!

2. If you really think Brett Favre needs Training Camp to work out the kinks of the West Coast offense he's been running for 20 years, I've got some oceanfront property in Smallville, Kansas to sell you at a great price. That'd be like sending an accountant to payroll clerk school. He doesn't need the reps, anymore - he has several thousand reps in the same offense, at this point. What he needs is staying fresh, if he's going to play. Not two months of drills which are unnecessary - it's not like Brett Favre is going to develop beyond being the greatest Quarterback of all time. Training Camp is to get better, and ready for the NFL season. Favre isn't going to get better, and he isn't going to show up out of shape and unprepared when he plays.

Also - if you think the Vikings don't know what he's doing at this point, the neighbors to that first property are looking to sell, too. It's real simple - if he's doing what he did last summer at this point, and working out with the local High School team, and doing the other things guys do to get ready for the season, then he'll play. If he isn't, he won't. Not even Favre can hop off the couch and face down Charles Woodson.

Ozymandias
05-07-2010, 06:05 PM
it's not like Brett Favre is going to develop beyond being the greatest Quarterback of all time. isn't going to show up out of shape and unprepared when he plays.


He's not. He's not even the greatest QB of his generation. Nor second best. Manning and Brady will take those honors, in some order. Favre can slip behind them.

Secondly, Sini, Favre is a bigger deal EVERYWHERE than Smith, certainly than McNabb, and maybe even bigger than Montana. Favre has been the face of the game for a long time now, you don't just cut a player like that.

And, as I said, given that the fans literally have an ownership stake in the team, its not wise to anger them. Besides, not many in Philly were sad to see McNabb go. I'm guessing it was a LOT different in GB.

Sinistrum
05-07-2010, 06:46 PM
Wasn't this the same team that let Vince Lombardi go to the Redskins? Yanno, the guy who the Super Bowl trophy is named after? Football is still a business, no matter the emotional attachments involved. And Favre is no where near as big as Montana. The dude was the QB of the 80's, hands down. And he was still let go by the 49ers. Business is business.

RogueSavior
05-07-2010, 09:13 PM
He's not. He's not even the greatest QB of his generation. Nor second best. Manning and Brady will take those honors, in some order. Favre can slip behind them.

Secondly, Sini, Favre is a bigger deal EVERYWHERE than Smith, certainly than McNabb, and maybe even bigger than Montana. Favre has been the face of the game for a long time now, you don't just cut a player like that.

And, as I said, given that the fans literally have an ownership stake in the team, its not wise to anger them. Besides, not many in Philly were sad to see McNabb go. I'm guessing it was a LOT different in GB.

A. Peyton and Brady are both QBs of the generation after Favre. And Favre was better than Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Mark Brunell, Drew Bledsoe, etc - the Quarterbacks of his generation who leap immediately to mind.

B. Favre holds pretty much every record an NFL Quarterback can hold.

C. Favre was a 3 Time MVP during a time when there was such a thing as a feature back in the NFL, and the NFL was largely a run-first league. Also, touching a wide receiver wasn't a Class B Felony during Favre's prime, like it is now.

D. I will concede that eventually Peyton will be unanimously regarded as the best Quarterback ever, and Favre's just keeping most of the passing records warm for him. However, if Peyton went down now to some bad luck or a freak injury, his career can't touch Favres.

E. Jamarcus Russell could have thrown 50 TDs on the 2007 Pats team that gets Brady tossed into the Greatest Ever debate. It isn't hard to stand still and toss it to wide open receivers every play. Not to say Brady isn't good, but his leap from a Great Game Manager to a TD Slinging phenom is the product of Welker and Moss - not his own sudden leap in skill. See also, Matt Cassel.

RogueSavior
05-07-2010, 09:14 PM
Wasn't this the same team that let Vince Lombardi go to the Redskins? Yanno, the guy who the Super Bowl trophy is named after? Football is still a business, no matter the emotional attachments involved. And Favre is no where near as big as Montana. The dude was the QB of the 80's, hands down. And he was still let go by the 49ers. Business is business.


Also, Favre is way bigger than Little Joe Montana. Only 49ers fans think otherwise.

Ivhon
05-09-2010, 02:20 PM
Also, Favre is way bigger than Little Joe Montana. Only 49ers fans think otherwise.

Think you got that backwards, champ.

Everybody knows that Montana is WAY bigger than Favre....except a few Packers fans who can't see that Favre is....



....wait for it....





....a complete and total jagov.

Yellowbeard
05-11-2010, 01:06 PM
Johnny Unitas? Terry Bradshaw? Anyone?

I saw a clip of Bradshaw get creamed so bad he got his helmet knocked off, get up, and go running downfield to try to get back in on the action. Think any of today's pansy QB's would do that?

The rules are different and the game is different, but there are past-era QB's that would have done as well or better in today's game because they were just as talented athleticly, and they weren't pansy's like QB's today.

And I agree that Favre is a jagov. No matter your past history with any team or your past success, it's just rude to keep whichever team he's messing with hanging like he does. The success and efforts of too many others are at stake. His past history of success doesn't give him the right to treat anyone else so cavalierly like he does every offseason now.

And yeah, the teams are at fault for putting up with it, too. However, just because the teams put up with it doesn't mean that Favre is not a jagov in his own right.