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.

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.

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.

John Madden Retires

---

---

It was inevitable that this day would come, but it is nevertheless one that I never wanted to see.

John Madden has retired from broadcasting.

He just made the announcement yesterday, and the tributes have been pouring in.

Art Spander writes that Madden was a great announcer and an even better man. "We'll miss you, John," he concludes.

Peter King, one of the foremost authorities on professional football, writes for Sports Illustrated that Madden's influence on football is unequaled.

And he agrees with Spander, but he elaborates. "Madden will be missed, but we've seen too many people who die too young, who likely would have wanted a few years to do what they wanted, when they wanted. Good for Madden. Bad for us."

Indeed.

Thankfully, Madden still lives. Perhaps he will make occasional guest appearances at important football games in the future. Maybe he will come back for a Super Bowl or two, maybe a Thanksgiving game.

Hope springs eternal, I guess, that this is not the absolute end — although he did walk away from coaching in his 40s, never to return. He can still spend time with his family, yet give football fans occasional, if rare, opportunities to listen to his insights.

And, as Darren Rovell points out for CNBC.com, there are still video clips of commercials Madden has done over the years.

Rovell has posted some of the best — Ace Hardware, Tinactin, Miller Lite, McDonald's and, of course, EA Sports — for us to enjoy.

But I can't help wondering, what will become of Frank Caliendo? He does some great impressions — more than a hundred, I've heard — but his takeoff on Madden is, in my opinion, one of his best.

---

---

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."