Monday, December 29, 2008

Season in Review I: Favre Again

Shawn Lee, one of the survivors of POL S 325 and a really great guy to boot, is a passionate football fan (who has developed a pronounced interest in pan-Arabism). He popped me an e-mail the other day about, well, Brett Favre. Here’s the text:

You said that you don't see how Favre could've saved the season for the Packers, but I don't know I have to disagree. Sure Favre is having a rough go now, but he has been really good for NYJ, and in spite of what happens tomorrow, the Jets are a better team with Favre than they would've been with Pennington. You don't shove a legend out the door unless you have and absolute stud waiting in the wings (see 49'ers Montana to Young transition). Now Aaron Rogers is a good and serviceable qb, and could have a good career, will it be a Hall of Fame career? Probably not. A charismatic leader behind center, even if he is old an over the hill and overrated, forces d - coordinators, not wanting to look the fool, to overemphasize ("respect") his passing game more which of course opens up the running game. This year Grant was a bigger threat out of the Packers backfield than Rogers was, allowing defenses to key on him. The year before the opposite was true, Favre was more of a threat, which allowed Grant to emerge. Simply put the NFC North might be won by a 9 win team this year, the Jets have 9 wins, and your Packers are on the no. 1 tee box with my Seahawks.

This, of course, requires some sort of response. So, point by point, then:

You said that you don't see how Favre could've saved the season for the Packers, but I don't know I have to disagree.

You share this opinion with many of the most colorful posters to the Green Bay Press Gazette’s Packers page, home to the most vociferous of the Farve fans anywhere.

Sure Favre is having a rough go now,

Let’s compare and contrast his statistical performance for this year with that of Aaron Rodgers:

Note the gap of 566 passing yards. Favre made slightly larger number of attempts and completed 2.1 percent more of his passes. That said, Rodgers averaged 0.8 yards more per pass. As much as I may resent it as on old guy, I attribute this to the “zing” of youth. Indeed, our young gunslinger “zinged” us six more touchdowns than Favre made for the Jets. Moreover, Rodgers did it with nine fewer interceptions than Favre. I think I’d have wanted Rodgers, not Favre, on my fantasy team this year.

And as far as the Packers’ future goes, I really don’t think Rodgers has peaked yet. By the by, let's compare Rodgers with Favre's renaissance year last season:

Note here that Rodgers has nearly as many yards, an equal number of touchdowns and two fewer interceptions. Rodgers, incidentally, was sacked way more often this year than Favre was last year. Rodgers performs under pressure. Plus, the kid, like Favre, isn't made of glass. He played through a shoulder injury and started 16 times. Certainly, QB injury was every cheesehead's big worry going into the season. It turned out to be a red herring. The Kid is tough. Remember when making this comparison that 2007 was an exceptional year for Favre. We don't have enough data yet to be certain that Rodgers can keep this performance up, but you have to admit the numbers are deeply encouraging.

but he has been really good for NYJ, and in spite of what happens tomorrow, the Jets are a better team with Favre than they would've been with Pennington.

Does anyone debate this? Certainly I don’t. Favre was an excellent deal for the Jets even if he retires this coming season. Jersey sales alone probably made the deal a financial success, and I think Favre was a genuine asset for the Jets offense.

You don't shove a legend out the door unless you have and absolute stud waiting in the wings (see 49'ers Montana to Young transition).

Now, I’m not a Niners fan (far from it!), but did everyone know the year Steve Young took over that Steve Young was going to be Steve Young? I’d be interested in reading the first year rhetoric surrounding the young QB and his reception on the Niners.

Now Aaron Rogers is a good and serviceable qb, and could have a good career, will it be a Hall of Fame career? Probably not.

For what it’s worth, let’s compare the Kid’s first year with Favre’s and Young’s. Since Favre didn’t start all sixteen games in 1992, I threw in 1993 as well. Likewise, I threw in 1992 for Young.

First, note that Rodgers threw for more yards this year than either of these giants did in theirs. Of course, in Young’s case, this is an unfair comparison, as he made far fewer attempts. Young's average pass was longer than either Rodgers or Favre. Moreover, his low number of interceptions put both Favre and Rodgers to shame. But note that Rodgers is far more attractive than Favre in his opening two years. I see nothing in his cards that suggests that Rodgers can’t be one of the greats. You are correct that the odds are against him are high simply because of Favre’s exceptional talent (i.e. Favre is already exceptional and has been for a long time. In contrast, it's hard to spot an exceptional player before he has a reputation), but can you see why the Packers would risk a great deal to prevent losing Rodgers to free agency? Favre certainly didn’t start his career with better credentials than Rodgers.

A charismatic leader behind center, even if he is old an over the hill and overrated, forces d - coordinators, not wanting to look the fool, to overemphasize ("respect") his passing game more which of course opens up the running game. This year Grant was a bigger threat out of the Packers backfield than Rogers was, allowing defenses to key on him. The year before the opposite was true, Favre was more of a threat, which allowed Grant to emerge.

I would like to see you provide some sort of evidence that this process actually happened. At the very least, I’d like to see documentation of some sort of coaches arguing that they can relax on the Packers’ passing game and focus on corking up Grant. I watched every Packers game this season except the second Bears game just before Christmas. I saw little to suggest major fault on the offense other than the size of the linesmen and the injuries on the offensive line. Moreover, recall the rhetoric in 2005 and 2006. Everyone (but me, I felt) said Favre was washed up and a has-been. Fantasy guides systematically downgraded him. His reputation is far better now than it was then. No one predicted that Favre would have a blockbuster year in 2007. I need stronger evidence to be persuaded by your theory.

Simply put the NFC North might be won by a 9 win team this year, the Jets have 9 wins, and your Packers are on the no. 1 tee box with my Seahawks.

Compare QB performance on the Packers this year with Rodgers to our even more disastrous year under Favre in 2005, when the O-line collapsed after Wahle and Rivera were lost to free agency. I feel these years are quite comparable:

Rodgers had eight more touchdowns and sixteen fewer interceptions. Favre’s reputation didn’t keep us from going 4-12 in 2005, the last time the O-line collapsed. This time we’re 6-10. Why not admit that Rodgers did a better job than Favre under the real pressure of a no-win situation? It never matters who is behind the O-line when the O-line sucks. Tip steak or filet mignion, once the meat goes through the grinder, it's all hamburger. For what it's worth though, Rodgers, at face value at least, is a greater asset when the O-line falls apart completely. Among other things, this is due to Rodgers' exceptional mobility, an attribute he has in common with Young, not Favre.

I’m so sick of everyone dumping on Aaron Rodgers. The decision at QB this year was probably the most sound decision undertaken by Ted Thompson (I sure wish he could pick a punter). Sorry, Shawn, I just don’t miss Favre. Who needs a freaking prima donna who makes you go through this "will he/won’t he" routine about retirement every fucking year? Who needs a guy who basically comes out and says, "Well, yeah, I retired. But you were supposed to come after me for the next six months, wooing me into coming back, because I'm God's gift to football. I need to feel more special than this!" To be honest, I miss Mike Wahle and Marco Rivera more than I miss Favre. When they left, our O-line died. Favre should have retired. 2007 was an excellent ending. Everything after has been pure ego.

8 comments:

StLee said...

I agree with the last few sentences “Favre should have retired. 2007 was an excellent ending. Everything after has been pure ego.”
But the main premise of your response is numbers on paper, and that would be all well and good if the game was played by robots ala Cyberball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberball). But it’s not, the game is played by humans, who are emotional. Momentum is paramount in football, and can be a harbinger to the final victor. There is a reason that home teams in pro football traditionally give 3 pts in sports book. It is because the emotion that the home crowd offers is good for at least three points. This is partially the reason that NFL is so harsh on blackouting games in non-sellout home markets, they know that their product excels with a stadium full of fans screaming themselves hoarse over 300lb brutes driving their heads into one another.
Favre – the charismatic, miracle maker figure that he is, provided such emotion especially in GB. Wojciechowsk had it right "Favre's departure could have -- and should have -- been handled better by Packers management." Since it wasn't it created an environment that split Packers fans, making them unable to truly support the club in the same way they had when Favre was taking snaps. I mean Rodgers had signs and ridiculing him and heard boos from fans at trading camp – training camp! Fans either pinned for Favre in NY or engaged in schadenfreude, neither are healthy behavior. As a result "Favre did what he could. So did Rodgers. As it turns out, neither was enough." Would have Favre saved the season for the Packers? It’s impossible to tell, did he peter out at the end of the season? – definitely. One can speculate that if he petered out in a Packer uniform they would have been more likely to pull the QB switch, making Rodger’s transitions in and Favre’s out more natural. By the way, Young got his start in SF after taking over for an injuried Montana in 1991. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Young_(American_football)#Trade_to_the_San_Francisco_49ers)Montana never got that job back and was eventually traded to Kansas City where he did make them competitive for a few years.
And as for the RB evidence requested Thomas Jones had 1 TD last season with Pennington at QB, and 13 this year with Favre at QB, (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=2138) and then he had to nerve to go to the media and lay the blame at Favre’s feet, jeez some people.

Cuphound said...

Are you sure you're not from Wisconsin, Shawn? It seems like you really love Favre.

You're of the opinion that Favre's leadership, an intangible element that eludes the statistics, was responsible for the Jets performance this year. Several points:

(1) I don't see why you believe that it's Favre's intangible leadership qualities as opposed to his statistically measurable skills that contributed to any success the Jets experienced this year. His numbers are far more impressive than Chad Pennington's. Moreover, the media reports suggest that Favre is not a significant leadership factor in the Jets locker room. The reports read more like this:

“There was a lot of resentment in the room about him,” one Jets player told Newsday on Wednesday. The player, who did not want to be named, said Favre made no attempts to gain acceptance from the team, wouldn’t socialize with players and spent most of his down time in an office away from the locker room. Teammates Thomas Jones and Kerry Rhodes also questioned Favre’s commitment to the team.

* * *

His team rapport was better in Green Bay, for sure. But Favre was relatively distant from the men there, too. They're young, single studs and he's a married man who doesn't party anymore. The bond was never there. You can't be a charismatic leader and punch a time clock.

(2) Again, where was this great "difference making leadership" in 2005? We sucked. It wasn't Favre's fault we sucked. The O-line sucked. But still, he couldn't lead us out of the hell of losing close game after close game. Favre wouldn't have saved us this year, either. What makes you think 2008 is markedly different from 2005?

(3) The Jets didn't do that well this year. They're firing their coaches, just like us. Favre is better than Pennington (this is news?) but the Jets aren't in the playoffs. Where's this big difference? "Better than Pennington" is not exactly a very high standard to beat. Aaron Rodgers is better than Pennington, too.

Parallel example: Gamal `abd an-Nasir was a charismatic leader. I believe that Favre is a better QB than Nasir was a statesman. But still, being worshiped for his extraordinary rhetorical powers didn't win the '67 War for the Arabs. And with the consistent injuries in a fairly weak O-line that was luckier than it was good last year, Favre wouldn't have gotten us into the playoffs. Especially as our bigger problem was the defense. Favre is extraordinary, but he couldn't sit on the bench and use his mind crushing death ray to cripple other offenses for our lackluster defensive line.

Shawn, I sincerely think you believe too strongly in Favre's mystique. Yeah, he's magical and brilliant, and goddamn, he's fuckable. But football is won by mastery of the fundamentals, not charisma. Our O-line and D-line suck!. Thank you for making me repeat that for the fifteenth time, by the way, 'cause it's not like I'm bitter about it or anything. Nothing but better coaching could have saved us.

Don't think I'm not wailing and gnashing my teeth.

StLee said...

the bottom line is that the Pack mgmt. screwed the pooch with Favre. In the 1970s and 80s that franchise was a joke, sure it had it's histroy and cute small town charisma, "our team is owned by the city - the fans" -- well, isn't that quaint and adorable. Favre and Holmgren grew that club together from doormat to perennial contender throughout during 1990s. The least the club could've done was to let 4 dictate his own exit. Instaed of learning from Holmgren's departure, who would've stayed in Green Bay if given GM reponsibilities, the Packers simply repeated it with that guy "who is comfortable in jeans". Aaron Rodgers wasn't going anywhere, the team had a great year in '07 (bad o- and d- lines or no) and 4 was no small part of it. But instead of letting the guy change his mind, the club changed the locks, threw all his things in a pile on the front yard in the rain and gave him the bird. He deserved better, and I think you as a fan of that club would certainly agree.
Instead Aaron Rodgers already in the uncomfortable situation of having to replace a legend, had to replace a legend that got shafted. Pity, it didn't have to be like that.

Cuphound said...

Shawn, I think you and I are going to have to disagree on this one.

As for Holmgren, he's a perfect example of where ego gets you. He should have just been patient. Wolf retired a year later and Holmgren would have been our GM. He would have sucked doing both jobs with us, we would have busted him down to coach again, and he would have brought us back to the Super Bowl where we would have actually won.

Wolf had built a superior personnel base, which was why Mike Sherman looked as good as he did for as long as he did. When you think that loser was able to coast for nearly a decade while he destroyed the team from the inside, draft after draft, you see just what a good GM Wolf was.

As is, Holmgren spent a year pouting, not reigning in Favre's ego (he was so fucking cocky walking into into that Super Bowl, talking about how Elway had been his boyhood hero) and we lost the Super Bowl the next year. He then traded what he himself called "the best job in football" to run the--wait for it--Seahawks!

It's a perfect example of where unbridled ego gets you. The truth is he wasn't good enough to do both jobs. If he'd stayed in Green Bay, he'd have led a dynasty. As is, we were one shot wonders and Seattle went nowhere.

But to return to Favre, one of the reasons Holmgren was successful in Green Bay was his ability to reign Favre in. This comes back to the numbers. After Holmgren left, Favre pretty much called his own shots. As a result, we never made it back to the Super Bowl. The closest we got since '98 was last season. The key difference was that McCarthy got Favre to reign it in. Favre threw fewer interceptions. It made a lot of difference last year.

Let's go over the whole debacle. When Favre retired, he changed his mind a month later and wanted to come back. The Packers were ready to roll out the red carpet. They chartered a plane to fly down to Mississippi and have him sign back like a head of state. Favre calls up at the last minute and cancels. Then he decides a week before camp that he wants to play again.

He was being a fucking prima donna. Indeed, how serious was he about playing football? Ten Thompson guessed "Not very," and to be frank, Shawn, Thompson was right. All Favre did with the Jets was sit in his little office and sulk. I think the only reason he went to New York was that the Packers rejected him and he would have looked worse had he headed back to Mississippi having been rebuffed. Spleen, ego. He certainly didn't exhibit this great ability to pull wins out thin air for the Jets.

As a longterm, die-hard fan of the Green Bay Packers, the following is my position: Favre was a fucking god. Virtually no one could compare to his athletic ability. But personally, the truth is that he was often a self-absorbed asshole when it can to people. I never liked that about him. But I wore his shirt every week for ten years because he was the legendary quarterback of the Green Bay Packers. Was he a personal hero? No. I wore his shirt anyway. Why? He may have been a bastard, but he was our bastard. And goddamn it, he worked the magic every fucking Sunday. And he was a joy to watch. And the Packers won.

In 2005, I stood up publicly game after game and supported him while he threw interception after interception. Remember that the media turned the guy into a Fillet O'Fish that year. I stood up for him because he was still a great quarterback and the fact that our O-line fell apart wasn't his fault. And I told everyone he was just as good as he'd always been. And I was right.

But the truth is that Favre let his inner asshole get the better of him at the end of last season. No one asked him to retire. If Favre had wanted to stay, he could have. The first time he changed his mind, they were ready to take him back. The guy's essential issue was he wanted them to chase after him and beg.

Shawn, I honestly ask you: what the hell kind of leadership is that? I don't think the team was unjust because they wouldn't chase after him and beg. Favre is special, but he's not more special than the whole team.

Shawn, I'm a fan of the Green Bay Packers. Always have been; always will be. One guy is never bigger than the team. For me, it's just as simple as that.

You know, Favre may well have been a better quarterback than Bart Starr. It's arguable. But Starr, who got paid way the fuck less than Favre ever did, was a man whose ability was only exceeded by his virtue. He didn't look up to Bart Starr?

Yeah, sure. Favre was a god. But I could never look up to him. The truth was his character reached its zenith after that 2005 season. That was the first time I sincerely started to like him as a person. After his dad died and his wife got cancer, after the Packers went to hell in a hand basket, he stopped being a jerk, and was, for at least ten whole minutes grateful for the fact that he gets to Brett Favre, the legendary quarterback of the Green Bay Packers. He actually started to become a hero to me.

Then he went and blew it on this tirade. I don't hate the guy. I still wear his shirt sometimes. But enough is fucking enough.

Sorry, Shawn. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

StLee said...

Moving on. Got it. Glad you’re not bitter about it.

But there is no need to insult my club, we have suffered enough, haven’t we?

Holmgren made Seattle relevant for the first since the early 1980s. 5 consecutive playoff appearances with 4 consecutive division titles and a Super Bowl appearance (complete with questionable officiating) is hardly “nowhere”.

Cuphound said...

Sorry for the late response--I've been swamped and my poor sclerotic brain handles complexity very poorly.

> Moving on. Got it. Glad
> you’re not bitter about it.

Hardy-har-har. Sadly, I get that way about sports. The more I study violent identity conflict, the more I'm grateful we have sports. Sports is a place where we can let go and channel all those hunter-gatherer pro-ingroup feelings and get them out of politics.

But yeah, it means you wind up bitter about things that aren't really all that important. Of course, I still get bitter about politics, too. But I hope at least my politics are not slavishly and uncritically pro-ingroup. My sports attachment, however, is this way to the point of irrationality and that's pretty much the way I like it. It's very relaxing to know that I'm not morally obliged to correct for bias.

> But there is no need
> to insult my club, we
> have suffered enough,
> haven’t we?

My apologies. It is one of my New Year's resolutions to make a point of screwing up some affection for the home team now that Holmgren is gone. After all, I've lived here for the better part of a decade now. I ought to have some attachment to the place. I definitely like the Seahawks way better than I like the Mariners.

I have to confess, my softest Seattle sports feelings are for the T-Birds. They're as gloriously inconsistent as any minor league team staffed with undergraduate age student must be, but knowing their age makes me soft on them.

StLee said...

Of course, you don't like the Mariners. You probably don't like baseball. You're probably one of those people that mistakenly think it is boring.
Anyhow as for sports and idenity conflict take a look at this from the Australian Open:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jan/23/australian-open-violence-djokovic

Serb and Croat fans fighting at a tennis match between Serb and Bosnian players. A tennis match for F's sake! I guess you can bring the identity conflict to a high-class sporting event, but you can't put high-class into the identity conflict or something like that.

Cuphound said...

> Of course, you don't
> like the Mariners. You
> probably don't like
> baseball. You're probably
> one of those people that
> mistakenly think it is boring.

Actually, I have a long standing challenge out to all of my friends, which no one has ever taken. Yeah, I find baseball boring. But I also think that there's something metaphysical there that I just don't get. And I'd like to get it. So in honor of anyone who can draw me into the mystical web and get me to be a baseball fan, I'll adopt that person's team as my own.

> I guess you can bring
> the identity conflict
> to a high-class sporting
> event, but you can't put
> high-class into the
> identity conflict or
> something like that.

That rocks! May I quote you?