Wednesday, May 6, 2009

My Brett Favre's Back and Your Defense Is In Trouble

Admit it Packers fans, you want Brett Favre to come back (again) as a Minnesota Viking. ESPN is reporting that the retired-for-the-second-time, I've-got-nothing-left-to-give, I've-got-nothing-left-to-prove, ruining-my-hall-of-fame-legacy quarterback will meet with Vikes Head Coach Brad Childress to discuss joining the purple this season. According to Ed Werder, Favre is telling friends that he remains angry with the way the Packers treated him in his first retirement--and that he wants to play in Minnesota to "exact his revenge".

I'm guessing there are more than a few fans of the Green and Gold who are saying "Bring it on, Brett". Only the most ardent "Brett is bigger than the Packers fan" is unwilling to admit that it was time for the team to move on and turn over the reins to Aaron Rodgers. And most of those fans are over the fantasy that somehow the team would have won eight more games last year if only Number Four had been at the helm. By signing with the Vikes and vowing "revenge", I doubt Brett will be winning back any of those fans. In fact, I forsee a Philadelphia-type situation where the Packers defense knocks Brett out of the game at Lambeau--and Packers fans cheer as Favre writhes in pain on the Frozen Tundra.

But as I have stated in previous My Two Cents, that is not what Brett Favre is about anyway. He's not about building fan loyalty, or being a good teammate or even always doing what is best for the franchise. Brett Favre is about Brett Favre and that is it. I'll be interested to see if people turn out at the Lindbergh Airport in Minneapolis or the Metrodome with signs of support for Brett--or with signs telling him to get the hell out of town and not treat our team as your latest self-serving prop.

Brett's favorite cheerleaders are behind him once again. The talking heads on ESPN seem to agree that the Vikings are "a quarterback away from winning the NFC and going to the Super Bowl". Is the quarterback the Vikes need the one that led the NFL in interceptions last year? The "leader" who talked to basically no one in the Jets locker room last season? The QB who admitted that he had injured his arm about halfway through the season--yet refused to undergo surgery? I can't believe that every team but Green Bay isn't blazing a trail to Kiln, Mississippi to sign this guy.

So break out the old-style, soap opera organ music, as we get ready for another season of "As the Brett Favre Turns"--every day on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNNEWS and ESPNRADIO.

11 comments:

  1. I've been a Vikings fan for 30+ years, but if that arrogant washed-up hillbilly plays for them, I'm switching to the Green and Gold.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I always admired Brett as a player. He left the Packers with what would probably be the most wonderful legacy anyone could have. He was "beloved" by just about everyone, and could have written his own ticket for endorsements, etc. into the next millenium. Now he's nothing more than a typical arrogant idiot, who has totally lost credibility with the people and the media. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You go Brett.
    Be the man and stick it to Thompson and his crew.
    PayBackTimeTed

    ReplyDelete
  4. "...Favre is telling friends that he remains angry with the way the Packers treated him in his first retirement--and that he wants to play in Minnesota to "exact his revenge".

    Waaa, waaa, waaaaa.
    Lotta class cry baby.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's because of the teachers. The no good, whining, don't get paid enough teachers. Well, not so much the teachers but their union. Yeah, that's what it is. The whole union mentality. The NFL players union is nothing more than an extension of the teachers union, and WEAC, and the NEA. And Brett Favre is all about greed, and his entitlement mentality that he deserves to play, not because of his skills, but because he is who he is. That's all. All because of the union. Yeah, that's it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well you compare private vs public sector unions. BIG difference.

    The crap California is in right now is directly related to the greed of the public sector unions controling the entire state. Not even Da Govenator can Rambo that crew.

    Rockon Brett, You gonna be killer in Purple man.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Funny how you compare the difference between public and private sector unions, but you never compare the difference between public and private sector jobs.

    QUID PRO QUO baby.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Vikings have nothing to lose, with the running game they have and a so called washed up hillbilly that's winner, all I could say is watch out!!!! O-by the way dont forget the Defence the vikings have!!!!!!!!!! Could be the total team they have been missing for years.

    ReplyDelete
  9. QUID PRO QUO baby.

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  10. What Are Teacher's Unions For?

    Richard Kahlenberg, author of a new biography of union giant Albert Shanker, argues for the relevance of teacher's unions and reminds us of their original purpose:

    In the 1950s, prior to when Albert Shanker and other New York City teachers forged the modern teacher union movement, teachers engaged in "collective begging" rather than collective bargaining. They were poorly paid (making less than people who washed cars), forced to eat lunch while supervising students, and told to bring a doctor's note when they were out sick. Collective bargaining increased wages, attracting higher-caliber candidates. Unions also pushed for reduced class size and better discipline policies, which most studies find help students learn better. While many teachers initially feared that joining a union was "unprofessional," most became in fact convinced that lack of voice contributed to their degrading treatment.

    As he says, certain reforms would be welcome, including the loosening of some work rules, the institution of a peer review system, and certain types of merit pay. But the reason teacher's unions have -- against all the evidence -- become the causal factor in the decline of our schools, is the same reason that Republican politicians are so concerned about union member's dues going towards politics, or that trial lawyers are making too much in profits.

    It's because teacher's unions are a powerful part of the Democratic coalition:

    The other big winners [in a world without teacher's unions] would be supporters of privatized education, and opponents of the American labor movement. No single organization is as responsible for the defense of public education in the United States as teacher unions. Other groups oppose private school vouchers, but only teacher unions have the political muscle and organizational and strategic capacity to beat back privatization plans. Likewise, the death of teacher unions would snuff out one of the few bright spots in an otherwise desperate landscape for the American labor movement.

    If there was any evidence -- any at all -- that teacher's unions actually accounted for our suboptimal educational outcomes, then the case could be made that the bizarrely ferocious opposition to their existence was sincerely motivated. But that evidence doesn't exist. Indeed, charter schools, the policy innovation meant to free education from the teacher's unions, have, according to RAND, demonstrated "no measurable impact" on student achievement. Even in the face of this evidence, the loathing for teacher's unions persists. Which is no surprise: The Republicans who go after them do so to improve their electoral chances, and the quasi-liberal pundits do so to prove their independence. The educational outcomes just aren't the issue.

    ReplyDelete