A Thanksgiving Thrill

---

---

I've been a Green Bay Packer fan just about all my life, ever since I started collecting football cards in first grade.

I was born on Thanksgiving so every once in awhile, my birthday falls on Thanksgiving, as it did this year. But the Packers don't always play on Thanksgiving — nor, for that matter, do they always play on my birthday when it falls on a Sunday.

This year, however, they played the Chicago Bears tonight, which is both Thanksgiving and my birthday, in order to honor Brett Favre by inducting him into the Packers' Ring of Honor. (Actually, the game is still in progress as I write this so referring to it in the past tense really isn't appropriate, is it?).

And one of the highlights for me — probably the greatest highlight for me — was to see Bart Starr and Brett Favre embrace each other on the turf of Lambeau Field. My two favorite quarterbacks of all time.

I have known for a long time what a struggle it was for Starr to be able to be in Green Bay. He's been battling the effects of some pretty severe strokes, but he looked pretty good tonight.

The two quarterbacks could hardly be more different, I suppose.

I have always admired Bart Starr, going back to when I was a kid. He was the kind of guy who is worthy of admiration. He didn't seek the spotlight the way so many players do today. He didn't put up gaudy numbers — except on the scoreboard, where he was the perfect captain for Vince Lombardi's offense. Lombardi devised the game plan, and Starr carried it out. All he did was win.

Favre was a free spirit, a winner who made the people around him winners by sheer force of will. Favre was a force of nature, refusing to be benched during his phenomenal consecutive games played streak even if you thought there was no way he could be playing.

I suppose my ideal quarterback would be a combination of Bart Starr and Brett Favre.

But since that will never happen, I'll settle for the next best thing. That was what I got tonight.

For this I am truly thankful.

Elway's First Championship

---

---

On this day 15 years ago, John Elway finally stood at the peak of his profession in the twilight of his career.

Elway had been in the NFL for 15 years. He had played in three Super Bowls — and lost them all. It was widely believed that Super Bowl XXXII would be his last opportunity to win one.

Standing in his way were the Green Bay Packers, the defending Super Bowl champions led by three–time MVP Brett Favre. The oddsmakers made Green Bay an 11–point favorite.

Of course, it wasn't unusual for an AFC team to lose the Super Bowl in those days. The NFC enjoyed a 13–year winning streak in the big game, and, on average, the NFC team outgained the AFC squad 2 to 1 and outscored the AFC team by more than 20 points in those 13 games.

It was a considerable mountain, therefore, that the fates required Elway and the Denver Broncos to climb on that day, and there were many who believed they could not do it.

That in itself was a bit strange because the Broncos had already overcome long odds to get to the Super Bowl in San Diego.

They didn't win their division and had to get into the postseason via the wild–card route. They faced another wild card team, the Jacksonville Jaguars, at home in the first round and won easily, 42–17.

But then they had to travel to Kansas City to face the champions of their division and won, 14–10, on a fourth–quarter touchdown.

And then they had to travel to Pittsburgh to face the Steelers in the AFC championship. The Broncos' late–season loss to the Steelers ultimately was partly responsible for Denver's loss of the division crown, but they turned back the Steelers in the rematch in spite of being shut out in the second half, giving Elway his fourth try at a Super Bowl ring.

What really made this attempt different was the fact that the offense wasn't so heavily focused on Elway and the passing game. Elway was armed with a pretty good running game, too, thanks mostly to halfback Terrell Davis, who ran for more than 1,700 yards.

Davis gave opposing defenses a lot to think about.

Super Bowl XXXII has been mentioned frequently as one of the best Super Bowls ever played. I would have to agree with that — even though I am a Packers fan and Super Bowl XXXII is the only Super Bowl the Packers have lost.

I believed at the time — and I still believe today — that the Packers shouldn't have lost that game.

With the score tied 24–24 late in the game, the Broncos were driving and doing pretty well. A field goal would have been enough to grab the lead, but, with Favre running the Green Bay offense, the Packers could have moved down the field quickly and either tied the game with a field goal of their own or taken the lead with a touchdown.

Elway, no doubt realizing that he might not have another opportunity to win an NFL title, practically willed his team to victory.

And, as Denver faced second and goal at the 1 with 1:47 to play, Green Bay coach Mike Holmgren told his players to allow the Broncos to score, giving the Packers more time for a game–tying drive. They had two timeouts remaining.

So Davis scored for the third time, and the Packers had 1:45 to work with. For awhile, it looked like the strategy might work. The Packers managed to drive to Denver's 31.

But then the drive fizzled out, and Elway had his championship at the age of 37.

As I have written here before, I am a Packers fan. At the time that game's finale was playing out, I didn't know that Holmgren had instructed his players to allow Davis to score. I thought it was a plausible outcome for Denver's drive, given that, all season, Davis had been providing the kind of ground game that Elway had lacked in his three previous trips to the Super Bowl.

And, as I watched the finish of that game, I felt disappointed that the Packers had lost, but I did not feel that the game had been given away. Well, not initially. After I heard about Holmgren's instructions, though, I did.

To be fair, Holmgren claimed that he thought it was first and goal, not second and goal, and, in that context, such a decision would make sense. It would preserve time and timeouts, and it is easy to see how sideline chaos in the final minutes of a Super Bowl could lead to all sorts of mistakes.

Return to Titletown

---

---

I remember, as a child, watching the Green Bay Packers play on TV.

Vince Lombardi was their coach, and I was becoming interested in football cards. My cards of Bart Starr, Ray Nitschke, Willie Wood, Donny Anderson and all the others were my prized possessions.

I believed the Packers were the best in football — and they were. But I believed it would always be that way — and it wasn't.

Frankly, it seemed like kind of a dirty trick to me, hooking me as a Packers fan at an early age and then reducing the Packers to NFL bottom feeders for many years.

I can't tell you how often I longed on Super Sunday — as I watched the Dolphins or Steelers or Cowboys or 49ers win it all time after time — for the Packers to just get to a Super Bowl.

I always told myself I wouldn't mind if they lost the game. I just wanted them to play in the Super Bowl, the game everyone watched.

Of course, that wasn't true. The longer I waited, the more I wanted to see the Packers win. Just getting there wouldn't be enough. Eventually, I had to acknowledge that.

But, for a long time, the possibility of the Packers being in the Super Bowl was extremely remote. The Packers usually failed even to make the playoffs. In fact, they typically did so spectacularly. They were frequently among the first to be mathematically eliminated from the playoff discussion.

A Packers Super Bowl appearance was strictly hypothetical for Green Bay fans.

That changed 20 years ago. With a few exceptions, the Packers have become fixtures in the NFL playoffs, and they have actually been to three Super Bowls in those two decades, winning two and losing the NFC Championship game on two other occasions.

It changed when Brett Favre took over as the Packers' quarterback. Not right away. Favre led Green Bay to the playoffs almost from the start, but the Packers in those days reminded me of the Tin Woodman in "The Wizard of Oz" — a little creaky at first but gradually picking up speed as the oil spread to its extremities.

The Packers of the early '90s returned to the playoffs as a wild–card team in 1993 and 1994, then won their division in 1995 and made it to the NFC title game, where they lost to Dallas.

It was 15 years ago that the Packers finally returned to the Super Bowl for the first time since Lombardi's day. Their opponent in the New Orleans Superdome was the New England Patriots.

That might seem rather unremarkable to modern football fans, who have seen both teams in multiple Super Bowls in recent years, but it certainly made Super Bowl XXXI intriguing. At the time, the Patriots had only been to one other Super Bowl more than a decade earlier and had lost in rather spectacular fashion to the Chicago Bears. And the Packers, of course, hadn't been to the Super Bowl in three decades. On the basis of that, I wasn't sure that either team had an advantage.

The Packers, however, had made an impression on the guys who determine the point spreads in athletic contests, presumably based on Green Bay's recent upward trajectory in the playoffs. New England, on the other hand, was considered something of a flash in the pan, having rarely been seen in the postseason since losing the Super Bowl to Chicago.

Anyway, the Packers went into the game favored by 14 points. As a lifelong Packers fan, I felt a certain amount of gratification, naturally, but I also felt a bit anxious as Super Sunday approached. Everyone was treating the outcome as a foregone conclusion, and the last thing I wanted the Packers to do was to treat the game as if victory was assured.

Initially, it seemed my fears were justified. At the end of the first quarter, New England led, 14–10, but the Packers scored 17 unanswered points in the second quarter and went to the locker room with a 27–14 halftime lead.

In hindsight, I needn't have worried. As it turned out, the Packers won by precisely 14 points, thanks to a jaw–dropping 99–yard third–quarter kickoff return for a touchdown by Desmond Howard, who became the first special teams player to win the Super Bowl MVP.

Howard's return certainly deserved recognition, but I always felt that Green Bay's victory on that day was more of a team effort, with many people making significant contributions.

Howard's return did, in fact, stop New England's momentum dead in its tracks. The Patriots had just scored a touchdown that brought them within six points of the Packers, and Howard's return took all the wind from their sails.

But defensive lineman Reggie White did his part as well, setting a Super Bowl record for sacks. I can vividly remember seeing White pick up Patriot offensive linemen and toss them aside as if they were rag dolls.

And Favre, who is considered by nearly everyone to be a lock for the Hall of Fame, threw for two touchdowns and ran for another. He was the first Super Bowl–winning quarterback to account for three touchdowns or more and not be named MVP.

That didn't seem to bother Favre at the time. "We etched our place in history today," he said after the game, putting the team's accomplishment over everything else.

Favre, like most observers, probably figured he would have other opportunities to be named the Super Bowl's MVP. But he didn't.

He did play in another Super Bowl — the following year — and lost it. Only once has the Super Bowl MVP come from the losing team — and it wasn't Favre.

When Favre is inducted into the Hall of Fame, there will be many achievements to be listed beneath his name — but Super Bowl MVP will not be among them. And, in some ways, that seems unfair. All the other Green Bay quarterbacks who took the Packers to the Super Bowl were named Super Bowl MVP — including Aaron Rodgers, Favre's successor.

But Favre has a special distinction that may not always get the attention it deserves. He revived a proud but moribund franchise — as did Bart Starr in the 1960s — and is responsible for the virtually dynastic status the Packers enjoy today.

It sure is a different world from the one in which I grew up.

I'm Ready For Some Football

For me, writing has always been my passion.

Sometimes, I have been paid to write. Other times, I have been paid to help others write better. Most of the time, I guess, my writing has been for my personal benefit.

It's my passion, though. It is what has always given meaning to my existence — whether I have been paid for it or not — and it is why I have gravitated to blogging. In blogs, I can devote my passion for writing to my passion for other things.

My readers know that I also write blogs on other subjects — but, even with three blogs, I don't always write of the things about which I am truly passionate.

For instance ...

I am a football fan, and I have been a Green Bay Packers fan since I was a child. You would have thought that I would write post after post about the Packers last season. They did win the Super Bowl, after all, and it was played about 25 miles from where I sit writing this.

But if you go back and look at my posts in this blog, you won't see an excess of Packer postings.

I'm also a graduate of the University of Arkansas — but I was a Razorback fan long before I walked into my first class in Fayetteville. I didn't need to enroll in college there to be a Razorback fan. When you're brought up in Arkansas, it goes with the territory.

Sure, there have been times when I have written about the Razorbacks or the Packers, but I never wanted this blog to be solely about the Razorbacks or the Packers. I wanted it to be a little more open than that.

It's kind of the same way with my entertainment blog, although I freely admit that I do tend to use that one to write about the music, the movies, the books that have meant something to me. For example, I'm a Beatles fan, and I have been known to write about the Beatles — as a group or as individuals — from time to time.

But I do strive for some variety.

However ...

I am a football fan. And, by late July, I'm really anticipating the start of the football season. I don't think it would matter what else was happening in the world of sports — but that's sort of like trying to prove a negative, isn't it?

Let's just say that nothing so far — not the Summer Olympics nor anything else — has stolen my attention from the approach of the football season.

Right now, I suppose, it is still up for grabs whether the NFL season will be played or if it will be delayed — the team owners unanimously approved an agreement and, if the players don't do so as well, they will be seen as the obstructionists by the fans.

Never fear. Sources apparently are telling ESPN that a deal has been reached.

Now, as a Packer fan, I will always be interested in what happens to Brett Favre, and I'll always be grateful to him for what he did for the Packers. It sure was a lot more fun to watch Packer games after he came along than it was before.

But Favre is 41 now, and the most recent word from him, after an injury–plagued 2010 season in Minnesota, was that he was retiring from pro football. Now, however, comes word from The Sporting News that he might sign with Philadelphia to serve as Michael Vick's backup.

Will the drama never end?

With the season approaching, I much prefer the drama coming from the keyboard of Kevin Scarbinsky of the Birmingham (Ala.) News, who suggests that Arkansas (currently picked to finish third in the SEC West) could well be "the next Auburn."

The Razorbacks, he writes, are "a team that can leap from something like 8–5 to something like 14–0 in a single bound." That is definitely the kind of thing I like to hear.

Yep, I'm ready for some football.

Say Good Night, Brett

Perhaps this will seem like piling on so I'll keep it short.

As I have mentioned here before, I have been a Packers fan since I was a little boy. I suffered through many bad years ... and then Brett Favre came along.

Favre brought excitement to Packers games, which I seldom saw on TV until he started calling the signals. Then the Packers started winning, and that made them attractive to TV viewers.

In the 1990s, Favre took the Packers to two straight Super Bowls. He was the Most Valuable Player three straight years. The Packers, once a hapless, at times buffoonish franchise, went through 13 consecutive non–losing seasons.

It was a great time to be a Packers fan. Those truly were the days, my friend. I thought they'd never end.

Well, that's not really true. I mean, I knew they would end eventually. But, like all those other Packer fans who suffered through those dismal pre–Favre seasons, knowing it would happen someday and being ready for it when it actually happened were two different things for me.

I remember how I felt the day that Favre called it quits the first time, in March of 2008. I regretted the end of a great career.

But that regret has faded as we have gone through the annual will–he–or–won't–he retire ritual.

And today, Favre's Vikings lost to the Packers in Minnesota by four touchdowns.

Favre's successor, Aaron Rodgers, made plays like Favre used to make — and, in the process, reminded everyone that time marches on.

I hope Favre got the message.

It's time to go, Brett.

Do The Hustle

---

---

Mark Kriegel writes, for FOX Sports, that Brett Favre has turned his now annual public agonizing over whether to retire into some kind of racket.

Favre's Hamlet act, which is now in at least its third incarnation (who knows what kind of maneuvering he may have been up to when he was still wearing the green and gold of Green Bay?), seems to be wearing a bit thin. More and more people appear to be thinking, "Retire already!" And Kriegel is one of them.

"It's not wrong for him to get more money," Kriegel writes. "I'm just sick of the guy pretending he's so damn pure."

Does that seem harsh? I don't really think so. I mean, you'd probably have to look long and hard to find someone who admired Favre more during his Green Bay days than I did. I've been a Packer fan all my life, and Favre is the most exciting thing I've seen wearing a Packer uniform since the Lombardi days of my childhood.

I will take a backseat to no one in my admiration for Favre. Even after he left Green Bay. You really do have to admire a man in his late 30s (now early 40s) who keeps going out there to face defensive players who are nearly half his age. And he can still play at a time in life when nearly all the men who played pro football hung it up long ago.

He's always been kind of the NFL's Peter Pan, forever young (in spirit if not in body), the kind of guy who seems like he would play even if he didn't get paid.

But he does get paid — and quite handsomely, too — as Kriegel points out.

"In 2007, Favre was making about $11 million in base salary," he writes. "After retiring, un–retiring and reporting to the Jets in late August 2008, he went up to $12.8 million. Last summer, he came out of retirement again and got a two–year deal worth $25 million.

"Now he's become the first 40–year–old in America to get an extra $3 mil guaranteed for taking another month off from work."

I understand Kriegel's frustration — especially when Favre says things like "it's not about the money."

As H.L. Mencken said, "Whenever someone says, 'This is not about money' — it's about money."

That certainly seems to be true in Favre's case, all protestations to the contrary. And Kriegel gets that by reading Favre's own words — between the lines, that is.

Favre admitted that he was getting a lot of money from Minnesota to come back for one more year, but, he said, "that in itself was not the biggest factor."

Therefore, concluded Kriegel, "it was a factor."

And, thus, he writes, Favre has made retirement "one hell of a business."

As long as he continues to produce the way he did last season, it may be awhile before he has a going–out–of–business sale.

Will He or Won't He?

As I have mentioned before, I've been a Packers fan since I was a little boy.

Consequently, for some 15 years, I was a big fan of Brett Favre. He did what no one had done since I was a child — take the Packers to a Super Bowl. And he did it in back–to–back seasons.

Along with being a Packers fan, I'm just a fan of football in general. When I see someone having as much fun as Favre had playing for the Packers — and then for the Jets and then, even for the loathed division rival Vikings — it reminds me of when I was a kid.

It's hard not to have fun watching someone else have that much fun.

But, writes Jay Glazer for FOX Sports, that fun might be coming to an end.

Glazer reports that a "source" has said Favre (who turned 40 last fall) is going to retire.

Given his history, though, what can you believe? This is the third summer that Favre has lapsed into his Hamlet shtick. The first two times, he came out of retirement and played — pretty well, too, for a man in his age bracket.

It is the perpetual drama of Brett Favre in recent years. He is an exciting — but flawed — quarterback to watch who long ago reached the age when most pro athletes are thinking about hanging it up. I've seen some who just couldn't accept the verdict of nature at first, but they became persuaded when they realized they weren't capable of what they once were.

Favre's problem is that he thinks these thoughts, but he can't bring himself to follow through on them. And I suspect that the main reason is he is a freak of nature. Even at the age of 40, he was still capable of putting up impressive numbers. Perhaps they weren't quite as gaudy as they had been when he was winning MVP awards, but they were numbers that many quarterbacks half his age would envy.

Not to mention the fact that he damn near got to the Super Bowl again. And I suspect that, if he had, we might not be having this conversation. Because, if he had made it to the Super Bowl at the age of 40, I think he would have retired, win or lose.

But he came up short, just like he did two years earlier in his final game with Green Bay. That's just too tantalizingly frustrating for a guy like Favre. He is not the sort who tends to be satisfied with making it to the conference championship game.

Glazer insists, though, that "this is the strongest indication yet that the legendary quarterback could, in fact, retire for good."

Maybe so. Not everyone agrees, though — and, at this stage, it's probably wise to be skeptical of any suggestions from anyone that Favre's career is, indeed, over.

But, if it is, the Vikings seem likely to face a problem I wrote about last year — a crisis of confidence among the quarterbacks who remain.

Actually, on that occasion, I was agreeing with something that Sports Illustrated's Peter King had written: "I'd have waited until [quarterback] Sage Rosenfels struggled — if he struggled — and then made the call to Favre. By doing it now, [head coach Brad] Childress loses Rosenfels and [quarterback] Tarvaris Jackson; how can they ever trust anything he says now?"

The problem was deferred — but now, having to deal with it may be unavoidable. Jackson only got a handful of snaps in relief of Favre last season. A year he could have spent polishing his skills was squandered, and, unlike Favre, Jackson (who turned 27 in the offseason) has never seemed like the kind of quarterback for whom time was on his side.

So far in training camp, he's reportedly taken most of the snaps with the first team, which may be a sign the Vikings are trying to prepare him to take Favre's place. Too little too late?

I'm inclined to think the Vikings will pay a price for rolling the dice on Favre last season and will slip from the lofty 12–4 regular–season record (and relatively easy 5–1 mark in their division) they had last year.

If Favre calls it quits, I look for the NFC North to be more competitive in 2010.

Sure Enough ...

No sooner had I written about the possibility of Brett Favre signing with Minnesota ...

Well, he did it. Today. I'm sure the TV crews will be on hand for his return to Green Bay with the Vikings.

Of course, this is nothing new. He's done this before.

Judd Zulgad reports, in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, that it was "now or never." I'm not sure "never" is in Favre's vocabulary.

But it might be after he faces some of the defensive players in the NFC North this fall. Especially the ones in Green Bay.

Well, I don't wish anything bad for Favre. I've been a Packer fan most of my life, and I will always appreciate what Favre did for my team. When the Packers play the Vikings, I will pull for the Packers, as always. But I will enjoy watching Favre do what he does on a football field. I can't deny that. I have enjoyed watching him play football for a long time now.

It's hard not to enjoy watching him play. And it's hard not to be thankful that he will be playing for one more season.

But I agree with one of my favorite sportswriters, Peter King of Sports Illustrated, who says it is a mistake.

And even if you are a diehard Brett Favre fan who only cares about seeing him play and doesn't particularly care which team he plays for, you have to agree that there is some sense behind King's words: "I'd have waited until [quarterback] Sage Rosenfels struggled — if he struggled — and then made the call to Favre. By doing it now, [head coach Brad] Childress loses Rosenfels and [quarterback] Tarvaris Jackson; how can they ever trust anything he says now?"

I'm with him on that one. I think Childress has sown the seeds of dissension — and, at the age of 40, it is far from certain that Favre can hold up for the entire season. That "could come back to haunt him if Favre's body breaks down," King writes.

I'm with King all the way. As I say, I don't wish for anything bad to happen to Favre, but I was 40 once and I know my body couldn't do the things it could do when I was 25. And I am certainly not an athlete. It's bound to be more pronounced with them.

And we all saw Favre's December collapse last year. If that happens again, how much confidence will the other QBs on the Minnesota roster have when they're called upon to take over for the team's alleged savior?

I think Minnesota sold its soul for a chance to win a Super Bowl with a 40–year–old quarterback calling the signals. Maybe it will work out. But my hunch is that it won't.

I agree with Peter King. I think it is a mistake.

Please, Not Again ...

Jay Glazer reports, at FOXSports.com, that Brett Favre's decision to stay retired is not a done deal.

---

"After visiting the Vikings for two days, I am convinced — positively convinced — that Brett Favre will soon have talks with the Vikings to return to the team and could be joining them for this season after all. If my instincts are correct, all those purple Favre jerseys will have a home on Minnesota store shelves."

---

He admits that his visit to the Vikings' camp occurred "before Sage Rosenfels lit up the Colts in the preseason opener to the tune of 10–of–13 passing for 91 yards. And if Rosenfels can continue like this, he could squash this prediction as the preseason continues."

But he expresses — with a certain amount of confidence — his belief that Favre soon will be a Viking. And he offers a compelling case:

• Exhibit A) Acceptance within the team that it's pretty much already done.


• Exhibit B) Favre has not closed the door on his decision.


• Exhibit C) Best available option.


• Exhibit D) Favre hates camp.

As I say, Glazer acknowledges that a continued strong performance by Sage Rosenfels could put the kibosh on this idea.

And the flip side, for me, is that I've seen this movie before. I have rarely seen a professional athlete who was as reluctant to accept the end of his career as Favre has been, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him change his mind again before the season starts.

I do believe some of the things I have read about Favre — in particular, that he wants to go out with a Super Bowl appearance and that he felt robbed of that when the Packers lost the 2007 NFC title game to the Giants. I'm not sure if I agree with some of the rhetoric I have heard and read from Minnesota partisans that Favre is the "missing piece" for the Vikings' Super Bowl hopes — perhaps, if we were talking about the 30–year–old version of Favre, that would be true, but the 40–year–old version?

I'll wait and see what happens with Favre. If he is as smart as I think he is, he will stay retired and mostly injury–free.

But, in the last couple of years, Favre has reminded me more and more of something Bill Cosby said on a record I used to listen to when I was a kid. "Never say that things can't get any worse," Cosby cautioned his listeners, "because that is when the gremlins say, 'Worse!' "

If there is one thing I have learned about Brett Favre, it is to never say "never."

The End (?) of the 'Favre-a-palooza'

Minnesota Vikings tight end Visanthe Shiancoe calls it the "Favre–a–palooza."

Well, that's probably as apt a description as any of what appeared, in recent years, to be Brett Favre's annual exercise in ego. But that is too simplistic a summation, it seems to me.

I know many NFL fans have grown weary of this Hamlet in a helmet routine. But I can understand how Favre has felt torn between wanting to play and coming to terms with the fact that his body can't do that kind of thing anymore.

In recent days and weeks, it seemed more and more likely that Favre would take the money, put on the Viking purple and try to lead Minnesota back to the Super Bowl for the first time since Favre was a little boy. And, in the process, possibly give the Vikings their first Super Bowl title in their existence.

Unlike many, I have never been convinced that he was the difference maker, that his presence would put Minnesota in the Super Bowl and save coach Brad Childress. Sure, he got off to a great start in New York last year, but he collapsed in December, which seemed to confirm my suspicion that 39 was really too old for anyone, even someone as talented as Favre, to be starting at quarterback in the NFL.

Now, it seems Favre has reached the same conclusion.

Of course, things may change. Favre may yet throw everyone a curve and change his mind. But, for now, we have to take him at his word.

And, as Judd Zulgad reports for the Minneapolis Star–Tribune, the recently reinstated Michael Vick doesn't appear to be an option the Vikings are considering at quarterback.

So that apparently means that Minnesota will stick with Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels at the quarterback position.

I have to wonder what state of mind those two guys are in, given the fact that their organization has been publicly pursuing Favre this summer. What does that tell them about the franchises's faith in their abilities? Not much, I would guess.

So now begins the really hard part for Childress and his staff — trying to convince Jackson and Rosenfels that the coaches and the players have always had confidence in them.

Sounds like a tough sell to me.

Favre: Will He or Won't He?

One fine day, pro football fans will anticipate the coming of a new season without being subjected to speculation about what Brett Favre will do.

One day, his NFL career will be indisputably over. The countdown to his eligibility for the Hall of Fame will have begun, and he will have settled into his life as a retired quarterback. He may be back in his native Mississippi at that time, or he may be living somewhere else. But he won't be thinking about training camp or opening day or any of that stuff.

This year, as Favre approaches his 40th birthday, does not appear to be that year. Not yet.

Last night, Favre told Joe Buck on HBO that he wants to play again if he is healthy.

And, frankly, it seems to me that it is a done deal, assuming he gets a medical go–ahead on his surgically repaired passing arm.

During his interview with Buck, Favre seemed to be guilty of a verbal slipup, using the pronoun "we" to refer to the Minnesota Vikings. And the Vikings seem eager to have him join them.

Favre left enough room for doubt, saying, "I don't think you can go past anything more than the arm. If that's not up to par, and it's not up to par when the time comes, then I can't play. I went through it last year and I've gutted it out or whatever, but it affected me and it affected our team and I don't want to do that again and I won't do it again."

So, technically, I suppose, it's possible that Favre won't return.

But, unless his doctor tells him that the arthroscopic surgery he had 2½ weeks ago was not successful, I expect to see Favre suiting up in the purple and gold this fall.

And that should make his return to Green Bay as the Vikings' quarterback, on November 1, a memorable occasion for football fans.

The Brett Favre Saga

In my last post, I tended to be somewhat dismissive of Gregg Doyel of CBS Sports for his attitude toward Brett Favre.

I admit that I haven't followed Doyel closely, but my sense, from reading his article, is that he doesn't like Favre, has never liked him and feels the NFL will be better off when he is gone. I could be wrong. I certainly have been before.

Today, someone who does have my respect, Peter King of Sports Illustrated, weighs in on the matter.

King acknowledges that he was wrong last year when he wrote that Favre had hung it up for good "and I could well be wrong again."

There is plenty of speculation these days about how Favre feels about the Green Bay organization. If there is lingering bitterness, perhaps it will subside when Favre thinks about what the Packers did for him.

Think back. Favre only had one scholarship offer — from Southern Mississippi — which he took. He was taken in the second round of the 1991 draft by the Atlanta Falcons. But Atlanta coach Jerry Glanville wasn't sold on him and said it would take a plane crash for him to put Favre into a game. It didn't take anything quite that dramatic, but Favre's single year in Atlanta was hardly distinguished. His first pass was intercepted and returned for a touchdown. He only made four pass attempts with the Falcons and none were completed to a teammate.

The Packers picked up Favre in an offseason trade, and he went on to play 16 seasons with the Packers. Initially, he didn't impress the Packer faithful, but he came in for the injured Don Majkowski in 1992, and, like Lou Gehrig taking over for Wally Pipp, proceeded to shatter the existing record for consecutive starts.

King says he has had three conversations with Favre since he announced he was retiring from the Jets, "and he hasn't conveyed any hatred or venom toward the Packers in any of them. But it's also a topic I haven't probed him on either."

My sense, from what King writes about Favre, is that the man is uncertain about what the future holds. Well, a lot of people feel that way. King writes that he believes Favre "will always feel that for all the years he spent in Green Bay, he deserved to go where he wanted, instead of where the Packers wanted to send him." Perhaps that is true. But I don't think the Packers can be blamed for feeling that, without their intervention in 1992, Favre may never have had the kind of career that he had.

They had a mutually beneficial relationship, the Packers and Favre. But, like all such relationships in professional sports, it had to end.

I do find myself sympathizing more and more with those who feel we've passed the time when Favre should gracefully accept the fact that every professional athlete must eventually accept — that even someone who plays the game with the boyish enthusiasm that Favre has reaches the point where the years have taken their toll. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he can walk away from the game without having had any major injuries. There is no guarantee that he could still do that, at the age of 40, after playing one more season.

I admit, I feel the same sense of loss I have felt when other players I admired ended their careers. It is inevitable. And when Favre is no longer playing, when his retirement is finally official, I will be sorry to see him go.

I will always be grateful for the memories he gave me, as I'm sure other Packer fans will. But I don't blame the Packers for believing last year that their future lay elsewhere, and I feel that Aaron Rodgers showed potential last year as Favre's successor.

As for whether Favre has hung it up for good, that's something only he can answer. Is he going to come back and play for Minnesota? I don't know. I hope not.

But if last year taught us anything, it is that Brett Favre will do things his way.

Is Favre Coming Back ... Again?

---

---

Gregg Doyel writes, for CBS Sports, that Brett Favre is "probably" going to come back, this time to be the quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings.

As I've said many times, I am a Green Bay Packers fan. I've been one as long as I can remember — even though I grew up in the South. I remember watching the Packers on TV when Vince Lombardi was still their coach. I think I "officially" became a Packer fan (the word "Cheesehead" didn't exist yet) when I was collecting football cards in elementary school.

In four decades of pulling for the Packers, I have seen many disappointing seasons. When my friends were aligning themselves with the successful teams of the day — the Dolphins, the Cowboys, the Steelers, the Raiders and, later, the 49ers — I doggedly pulled for the Pack as they struggled through numerous sub–.500 seasons.

So, when Favre came along and began leading the Packers into the playoffs, I rejoiced. At last, a successor to Bart Starr, my childhood idol. In the years to come, I saw Favre take the Packers to two Super Bowls and win three MVP awards.

I knew, in recent years, that his days were numbered, but I always wanted to see him come back for one more year, hoping to see him take the Packers to the promised land once more.

Well, he never did take the Packers back to the Super Bowl, but he gave Packer fans many memorable moments in his final years wearing the green and gold — including the ones captured in the video I have attached to this post.

And last year, his tenure in Green Bay finally came to an end. I mourned his departure but I took it somewhat philosophically. I waited 30 years between Super Bowls, I told myself. If necessary, I will wait another 30.

If anything, his performance with the Jets last season showed two things — 1) he was still capable of giving football fans some memorable performances, and 2) he is no longer capable of single–handedly carrying a team to the Super Bowl. He did some great things for the Jets last year, but he will turn 40 during the coming football season. He's never suffered a major injury, but a 40–year–old quarterback is not as resilient as a 25–year–old quarterback — and if he plays for Minnesota, he will spend at least half the season playing indoors on artificial turf, which has virtually no "give."

Logically, he should retire for good. But that's his choice to make. Not mine or anyone else's.

Doyel insists that Favre is "a liar, a fraud, a creep" who keeps coming back for selfish reasons.

I'd like to know where Doyel was when Michael Jordan kept retiring and then un–retiring. According to his CBS bio, Doyel's 36 years old so he must be old enough to remember those episodes. And he's covered ACC basketball in his career — he's even written a book about Coach K and Duke (Jordan went to North Carolina).

Did he regard Jordan as "a liar, a fraud, a creep" for continually returning to the NBA after retiring? My guess is no, that, like many basketball fans, he welcomed the opportunity to once again see Jordan do what he had always done best.

As a Packer fan, I would be sorry to see Favre playing in the same division as the Packers, but Doyel is wrong when he suggests that the Vikings are the Packers' greatest rivals. Although I have never lived in Green Bay, I think a lifetime of pulling for the Packers qualifies me to say this — the Chicago Bears are the Packers' greatest rivals. The Chicago–Green Bay series is the oldest rivalry in the NFL, and there may never be a head–to–head coaching matchup to rival the one between Lombardi and George Halas.

But if Favre suits up in Viking purple next season, he will make the Minnesota–Green Bay games worth watching.

A Strange Time in Sports

Time was when sports was a way for people to escape the cares of their daily lives.

One of my favorite sports writers, Red Smith, once observed that people went to sporting events to have fun, then they picked up the newspaper the next day to read about it "and have fun all over again."

But these are strange days in sports.

• Last weekend, I wrote on this blog about the trouble Alex Rodriguez was having with the revelation that he tested positive for steroids in 2003.
  
  Joel Sherman of the New York Post writes that the Yankee organization and Rodriguez's teammates will stand by him. Both are committed to him through 2017 because of the rich contract he signed with the Yankees.
  
  "As bizarre as it might sound considering current events," Sherman writes, "A-Rod actually has more job security than anyone in baseball."
  
  The Rodriguez revelation is another opportunity for some to play the race card. Jason Whitlock writes, for Fox Sports, that the "furor" over Rodriguez and Barry Bonds is really about protecting the legacy of a revered white hero, Babe Ruth.
  
  Now, I realize there are some differences between Whitlock and myself that affect our perceptions. He is black, I am white. I am also more than seven years older than he is, which may not be a lot in the great scheme of things, but it means I'm old enough to remember when Ruth's home run record was surpassed by Hank Aaron. I was 14 when that happened, and Whitlock was not yet 7.
  
  Aaron was one home run away from tying Ruth when the 1973 season ended, and he had to endure an offseason filled with the racism and the hate of those who wanted Ruth to remain the all-time home run king before being allowed to take the field and claim the record. But he did so with his natural abilities, just as Ruth did a couple of generations earlier. That, to me, has always been the difference between Ruth and Aaron and today's ball players who have exceeded (in Bonds' case) or who threaten to exceed (in Rodriguez's) the all-time mark with the help of performance-enhancing drugs.
  
  The "furor" has never been about racism for me. It's about cheating. Aaron and Ruth didn't cheat. Bonds and Rodriguez did.
  
  When Whitlock writes, "Barry Bonds threatened Ruth's legacy in a way Hank Aaron never could," it implies a lack of understanding about the reality of the times. In 1974, George Wallace was still a political force in America. School busing was still a prominent issue in America.
  
  If steroids had been a potential factor in the 1970s, I'm sure many in the anti-Aaron camp would have seized on it. But he could not be accused of cheating, so the underlying objection was about race. The passage of time — and the rise of Bonds and Rodriguez — may permit some, like Whitlock, to conveniently overlook that racism was alive and well in the 1970s, even if it was no longer legally sanctioned in places where it had been only a few years earlier.
  
  Rodriguez has been a respected star in baseball, who was often cited as proof that great things can be accomplished if a player relies strictly on his natural abilities. But the revelation of his steroids use has prompted many to second-guess their conclusions. Commissioner Bud Selig suggested, to USA Today, that he would consider reinstating Aaron as baseball's all-time home run king.
  
  Tom Knott writes, in the Washington Times, that, as far as the fans are concerned, there are already asterisks attached to the names of many modern stars.
  
  "Selig's sudden philosophical shift comes about 20 years too late," says Knott. "His anxiety over the record book comes late, too."


• One of the all-time great football players (in my opinion) — Brett Favre — appears to have called it quits — for good, this time. But some continue to raise doubts.
  
  Dennis Dillon of The Sporting News, for example, suggests that Favre, who will turn 40 before the next NFL season ends, may be setting the stage for another return to football, this time with Green Bay's rivals from Minnesota, the Vikings.
  
  Dillon may prove to be right. Perhaps we won't know for certain until training camp opens in the summer. Maybe a few months off to rest will give him time to persuade himself, again, that he can still do things he did when he was 10 years younger. But, as I wrote on this blog in recent days, I think Favre may be finished this time. His December collapse with the Jets may have been the wake-up call he needed.
  
  I disagree with Mark Bradley of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution when he says Favre "is the most overrated athlete of our time."
  
  For nearly two full decades, Favre played football in one of the harshest climates imaginable, but he took the Packers to two consecutive Super Bowls. It was a coaching decision that cost the Packers the second one, not an on-the-field decision. And Favre won three MVPs — more than anyone else in NFL history.
  
  And he also established a record for consecutive starts that may well last forever. In the process, he set many records that may prove just as elusive for future quarterbacks. He revived a franchise that had been given up for dead many times in the decades since Bart Starr was the quarterback and Vince Lombardi was the coach.
  
  Overrated? Hardly.

As I say, these are strange days in the world of sports.

But when hasn't it been a strange time for sports fans? I used to work on the sports copy desk for a metropolitan newspaper. During my days there, a great college basketball player, Len Bias, was thought to be the next star of the Boston Celtics when he was taken second in the NBA draft in 1986. But less than two days later, he died of a heart attack following a cocaine overdose.

When I came in to work that Thursday, I was immediately assigned the job of compiling information from the various wire services. I had envisioned, when I began working for the sports department, editing stories and writing headlines about games and coaching techniques. But that day, my attention was focused on real world issues, like drug abuse and drug laws and the death of an athlete at the tender age of 22.

I felt much the same way four years later. By that time, I had moved to a new state, where I was pursuing my master's degree, and I was working on the sports desk of another newspaper. College basketball star Hank Gathers collapsed and died during a game.

Gathers' death was not brought on by a drug overdose, but I still experienced a sense of "déjà vu." Once again, serious matters intruded into what should have been a pleasurable world.

I guess my point is that you can never completely escape from serious issues, whether you seek that escape through the sport that is in season or the darkness of a movie theater. The escape can only be temporary, and then, eventually, you are faced once again with the issue you sought to escape — be it the untimely death of someone like Bias or Gathers or the unpleasantness of seeking work in a contracting economy.

Escapism is temporary and fleeting. What remains is real, and it will always be there, waiting for you.

Really, Brett? Is It 4 Real This Time?

Brett Favre says his magnificent NFL career is over now.

Of course, it was about this time last year that Favre announced his retirement — then he decided to come back when training camp opened.

So, with Brett Favre, it's always wise to give this kind of thing a little time.

But I'm inclined to believe Favre when he says this time it's the real thing.

Favre has played for 18 seasons now. That's a long career for anyone but especially for a quarterback. What's really amazing about Favre is that he played in so many games, in spite of being sacked by some of the greatest defensive linemen of his time and in spite of being slammed by those same linemen, whether he threw the ball or took the loss.

Emotionally, it was probably more difficult to leave the Packers and leave pro football at the same time — although, in hindsight and in part because I've been a Packers fan longer than Favre has been alive, maybe I felt that way because I was grateful for what he had meant to the franchise and I was reluctant to see it end.

If I, as a fan — and one who has never been to a game at Lambeau Field, either — felt that reluctance, I have no trouble accepting that Favre himself had difficulties with leaving the game he had played for so many years at the same time he left the city where he played it in the majority of those years.

And he couldn't do it. He returned and worked his magic for the New York Jets as well as he could. But he's 39 years old now, and it's harder to overcome aches and pains when you're about to turn 40 than it was when you were 25. He nearly took what had been a 4-12 team to the playoffs, but he ran out of gas in the last month of the season — and that seems to have been the deal breaker.

I'm sure Favre would have liked to win a second Super Bowl ring, but his last best shot at that came with Green Bay the year before — when his Packers lost to the Giants in overtime in the NFC Championship. In hindsight, it would have been better to leave the NFL after narrowly missing the Super Bowl. Favre had two Super Bowl appearances in the 1990s; some of the great NFL quarterbacks never get the chance to play in more than one Super Bowl, and some never play in one at all.

Favre's spot in NFL history is secure. Green Bay has already asserted its intention to retire his number when an appropriate amount of time has passed. And New York's new coach, Rex Ryan, will never have the opportunity to coach Favre, but he summed it up for everyone: "If he's not the best quarterback ever, then he's certainly in the conversation."

Favre's Excellent Adventure

Just when it seems I'm reconciled to proclaiming Brett Favre's NFL career complete, he steps up and does something he's never done before.

I refer, of course, to Favre's six touchdown passes for the New York Jets against Arizona on Sunday.

In his storied career as the record-shattering quarterback of the Green Bay Packers, Favre never threw six TD passes in a game.

That was something I already knew. When Favre joined the Packers in the early 1990s, I had already been a Packer fan for a quarter of a century (I was converted at a young age after watching the Packers and Vince Lombardi on TV), so I've been following his Hall of Fame career for a long time.

And his six TD passes on Sunday carved a brand-new entry in his biography.

"Favre Hasn't Lost the Magic Touch," shouts the headline on Steve Serby's column about Favre in the New York Post.

But this was "magic" that took football fans to an entirely new level of prestidigitation.

In the locker room, Serby says, Jerricho Cotchery, who caught two of the TD passes, asked Favre if he had matched his career best. Favre told him he had never thrown six TD passes in a game.

"'That,' Cotchery was saying now, 'was the end of the conversation,'" Serby writes, "'cause I'm scratching my head like, 'Really? He's never thrown six touchdowns before!' But, he played great today. He was just dialing it up, telling everyone, 'Get ready, the ball is coming.'"

And, as Favre has shown in other record-setting performances — like his almost mythical Monday night performance against the Oakland Raiders the day after his father's death in December 2003 — when "the ball is coming," you'd better be prepared.

Just think. There was a time in the days before the game when it was believed that Favre wouldn't be able to play on Sunday.

"Imagine if it gets closer to perfect," Serby writes. "Imagine when Favre, whose interception came on what he thought was a free play, has two healthy ankles, if Favre and the offensive braintrust, if Favre and his receivers, grow their newfound chemistry."

Even with New England's Tom Brady out for the season, it's still a longshot that the Jets will make it to the playoffs. As brilliantly as he played on Sunday, Favre still will turn 39 in less than two weeks.

Time is not on his side.

But, today, Jets fans are imagining things they haven't imagined in a long time, thanks to Brett Favre.