Point/Counterpoint

[Randall]

Point-counterpoint: Coverage of Brett Favre

By Journal Sentinel staff

May. 21, 2009

 

What do you think of the soap opera coverage of Brett Favre's possible return to the NFL? Can't get enough? Don't want any? Too much? Don't care? Brett who?

 

Journal Sentinel deputy sports editor Karl Svatek and sports editor Garry Howard present their case in our point-counterpoint debate. After reading both perspectives, submit your own thoughts, comments, rants and raves below.

 

Point: Until he talks, ignore No. 4

 

Brett Favre will have surgery, the report said Monday.

 

No he won't, a different report said the next day.

 

In neither case did Favre, the hero of Green Bay for 16 glorious seasons, say anything publicly, nor was he quoted directly.

 

The conflicting reports were just the latest in a series of similar "developments" in the will he-or-won't he saga that has become so familiar in Wisconsin. Earlier this month, a report said Favre would meet with the Minnesota Vikings to discuss playing for them, only to be contradicted two days later by another report that said he basically told the Vikings, "Never mind."

 

No doubt many fans of the Packers and Favre are frustrated by the uncertain and never-ending speculation about whether the 39-year-old future Hall of Famer will play again in the National Football League. And these seemingly endless, conflicting reports add nothing to anyone's understanding.

 

One thing has become clear, however. Favre has become a master at playing us like a violin.

 

Heaven knows what motivates his behavior - heaven knows whether that motivation is even relevant to the rest of us - but the aging icon is masterfully manipulating the story and keeping everyone guessing. Even his agent is clueless, if those reports are to be believed.

 

Every one of these reports has come from anonymous sources and because they are so often contradictory and always lacking in substance, there is only one avenue to follow.

 

Ignore them.

 

Not just you. This newspaper, and any other news outlet that cares to join in, should simply ignore further reports about Favre's future that come from anonymous sources. We're all in competition to get the story first, but what have we gotten from all these conflicting tales?

 

Nothing.

 

Sure, if Favre speaks publicly about his plans, even to one reporter in an on-the-record session, we'll report it. If he has surgery or simply elects to grab a steak knife in the kitchen and cut out his score biceps tendon all by himself, we'll let you know. If he pulls on a Vikings uniform and joins the Packers' archrival, you can count on reading it here as soon as we can get it to you.

 

Until then?

 

Back off, and wait for something of substance.

 

Karl Svatek is the Journal Sentinel's deputy sports editor.

 

Counterpoint: Readers demand, we supply

 

Brett Favre changed his T-shirt Monday.

 

Sure he did, but it was not reported by any reputable news organization because that is not news.

 

What does pass for news where Mr. Favre is concerned is any speculation about his return to the National Football League because after spending 16 eye-opening seasons in Green Bay, he has morphed into an icon.

 

Remember the three most valuable players? What about the Super Bowl victory over the New England Patriots in the 1996 season?

 

And don't forget that this aging-before-your-very-eyes quarterback holds just about every conceivable record at his position, not just in Packers history but the entire NFL.

 

Bottom line is this: You have to cover an icon's every step because the insatiable interest of Packers fans when it comes to the team's stars - those in uniform and others who have made an indelible mark on the franchise - dictates just that.

 

My astute colleague argues that "every one of these reports has come from anonymous sources and because they are so often contradictory and always lacking in substance, there is only one avenue to follow. Ignore them."

 

Well, you just can't do that.

 

If we have learned anything from Favre's serendipitous journey since he departed, it's that this man has almost an unexplainable desire to leave on terms he feels he doesn't have to explain, and he has his own personal way (hand-picked reporters) of delivering news related to his return.

 

Those in Wisconsin who clamor for news, on his every move, might not say it publicly, but they read us in the Journal Sentinel sports pages and at jsonline.com daily, faithfully, making it the most-read Packers news on the Web in the world.

 

It is the duty of daily newspapers to report on local news that interests our readership, and moves by Mr. Favre definitely fall under that category. If the news organization is reputable - and I consider the St. Paul Pioneer Press to be legitimate, along with ESPN.com and ESPN's television reporters who cover football for the self-proclaimed worldwide leader of sports - then I feel it should run in our newspaper.

 

What makes it seem fishy is that Mr. Favre changes his story every day. So what is reported early Monday morning might be old news by late afternoon, necessitating a fresh perspective on that day's Favre revelation. . . .

 

And we owe that to our readers.

 

Garry D. Howard is the Journal Sentinel's sports editor

[Savage Beatings]

Enough people are interested in his possible comeback, so there are a number of supposed journalists who are desperately trying to get information, but are failing miserably. Its that failure of being able to retrieve ANY accurate information on Favre that ticks me off more than anything else. Not only do Favre and Cook refuse to divluge any information (which frankly I just don't understand) but they also seem to get off on misinformation. This feeds all of the people trying to scoop the story.

 

Someone please explain to me what kind of strategic position is being protected by Favre and Cook in remaining silent. What could they possilby compromise by just coming out and saying, "Yep, we're interested in playing for the Vikes, but we want to make sure the arm is ok first."?

[tazinib1]

Don't care.

[Zooty]

Don't care.

 

 

Odd

 

but you took the time to post and probably read it

[tazinib1]

Odd

 

but you took the time to post and probably read it

 

Yes and I'll never get those 2 minutes back.

Edited May 25, 2009 by tazinib1

[Randall]

From Peter King

 

The sands in the hourglass are running out for Brett Favre. This is what I know about the odd little mating dance between Favre and the Vikings as of this weekend:

 

• He's going to have a make a decision whether to join the Vikings very soon, probably by this weekend, because the Vikings want to know what their 2009 future is at quarterback. I'm told the organization won't wait for a decision much longer, and if he has to get a minor operation to snip the damaged right biceps tendon that has been giving him pain, he has to do it soon. Like, within a week.

 

I get the strong sense that if the Vikings are going to do any deal with Favre that coach Brad Childress wants to be assured that Favre will report to training camp in game shape, with no restrictions on throwing or his condition. They'd also like Favre to be involved in the mental part of team activities before camp. He has missed the first week of Organized Team Activities (last week), and he's all but out of this weekend's final mandatory full-squad mini-camp before training camp. Ten OTA practices remain for the Vikings -- June 2-5, June 8-11 and June 15-16.

 

• Favre needs surgery to release the biceps tendon that has been giving him discomfort throwing the ball. I'm told the tendon is hanging on by a thread. One source in the NFL medical establishment told me last week that he understands Favre's tendon is barely attached, and would take a minor arthroscopic procedure to detach it by snipping the tendon. If that happened, Favre would likely be unable to throw the ball for at least two weeks, with a month's rehab before he could throw like the old Favre.

 

I was also told that severing the tendon would have no impact on Favre's velocity or accuracy. Theoretically, if Dr. James Andrews, who appears to be Favre's orthopedist of choice -- and who is a big fan of Favre's -- does the surgery by the end of the week, Favre would be back throwing by the end of June, which would give him about a month to get his arm in NFL shape.

 

• Will he or won't he? I don't know. My best guess is he'll have the minor surgery if the tendon is still nagging him by week's end, and that he'll get his arm right and do a deal with the Vikings. But it's only a guess. As I've said through this whole thing, I've been wrong about Favre staying retired twice, and so I'm out of the Favre prediction business. Let's see what this week brings. We ought to have a better idea by the weekend.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Randall

[Robash]

is it to late to cast his on this show with all the other has beens?

http://www.nbc.com/im-a-celebrity/

[Bronco Billy]

Bottom line is this: You have to cover an icon's every step because the insatiable interest of Packers fans when it comes to the team's stars - those in uniform and others who have made an indelible mark on the franchise - dictates just that.

 

. . . .

 

And we owe that to our readers.

 

Garry D. Howard is the Journal Sentinel's sports editor

 

How in the Seven Hells does a "journalist" with an attitude like this actually get promoted to be an editor? This attitude is exactly what is wrong with the Fourth Estate, why people don't trust them, and why newspapers are going the way of the dinosaur. What happened to research and verification prior to printing of facts? Doesn't matter, I guess, as long as newspapers give the people what they determine is what we want (or what is good for us).

[Randall]

Tarkenton takes on Favre

 

Minnesota Vikings Hall of Fame quarterback Fran Tarkenton had some choice words about Brett Favre when the retired quarterback's name came up during a recent interview with 790 The Zone in Atlanta.

 

"I think it's despicable. What he put the Packers through last year was not good," said Tarkenton. "Here's an organization that was loyal to him for 17, 18 years, provided stability of organization, provided players. It just wasn't about Brett Favre. In this day and time, we have glorified the Brett Favres of the world so much, they think it's about them.

 

"He goes to New York and bombs. He's 39 years old. How would you like Ray Nitschke in his last year (playing with) the Vikings, or I retire, and go play for the Packers? I kind of hope it happens, so he can fail."

 

Tarkenton was traded to the New York Giants after six years with the Vikings because he butted heads with coach Norm Van Brocklin. Tarkenton was traded back to the Vikings in 1972 and led the team to three Super Bowl appearances.

 

"He told the Packers (in March 2008), 'I'm retiring,'" Tarkenton said. "They've got to move on. They’ve got to go through their off-season plan, their workouts, they go with the other quarterback (Aaron Rodgers), who is a good player, and then (Favre) comes back and says, 'I think I want to play.' . . . You build your team in the off-season. Everybody knows that. It’s about team. It’s not about Brett Favre."

 

Bravo Fran

[MikesVikes]

I'll take Ray Nitschke for $500 Alex.

[MikesVikes]

How about if Alan Page plays for the Bears? How about if Jim McMahon plays for the Vikes? How about if Fran "retires" from the Vikes because he doesn't like Norm Van Brocklin and then demands to be traded?

[MikesVikes]

Chuck Foreman Disagrees With Fran On Favre

Posted by Mike Florio on May 28, 2009, 6:18 a.m. EDT

Vikings legends are now lining up to offer their opinions on the potential addition of a quarterback who might be able to help the current version of the team do the one thing that no prior Vikings team has ever been able to do — win a Super Bowl.

 

Hall of Fame quarterback Fran Tarkenton gave Favre a verbal colostomy recently, becoming one of the rate figures attached to the game who has had the nerve to publicly speak ill of the man whose Second Annual Retirement still might yield to a Second Annual Unretirement.

 

But former Vikings running back Chuck Foreman — who might also have a bust in Canton if the Vikes had won a Super Bowl or two in the 1970s — disagrees with Fran.

 

“I wouldn’t expect him to be so demeaning because a guy wants to continue to play football,” Foreman said regarding Tarkenton’s comments, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “Fran’s entitled to his opinion, it’s just that my opinion is totally opposite.”

 

Fran will have a chance to elaborate on his remarks on Thursday, when he appears with our pal Paul Allen of KFAN at 12:30 p.m. EDT.

 

Meanwhile, we assume that the pool of competing opinions soon will expand to include Alan Page, Carl Eller, Jim Marshall, Paul Krause, Bobby Bryant, John Gilliam, Ron Yary, Ed White, Ed Marinaro, Fred Cox, Brent McClanahan, and Stu Voight.

 

Link

[Big John]

How about if Jim McMahon plays for the Vikes?

...and the Packers in the division?

[MTSuper7]

Does anyone even think Favre will be an improvement over Rosenfels or Jackson? Well, I guess I should say Rosenfels, not Jackson. Favre wasn't that impressive last season and would be learning yet another offense. Wondering why they make the Rosenfels deal then pursue Favre like this. Doesn't make sense to me.

[Chavez]

Tommy Kramer was quoted on the Favre situation - "Get me another whiskey sour or get the hell outta my face, you monkey!" He then spit tobacco juice on the reporter's shoe.

[Chavez]

Does anyone even think Favre will be an improvement over Rosenfels or Jackson? Well, I guess I should say Rosenfels, not Jackson. Favre wasn't that impressive last season and would be learning yet another offense. Wondering why they make the Rosenfels deal then pursue Favre like this. Doesn't make sense to me.

Jackson vs Favre - do you want the guy who completed 64% of his passes for about 8 yds a pop with 8 tds and 1 int down the stretch, or the guy who threw 2 tds and 8 ints in his last 5 games?

[MikesVikes]

...and the Packers in the division?

 

 

Good one. I still remember the Bears/Vikes Thursday Night Game when Jimmy McMahon came into the game in the 3rd Qtr to lead the Bears to a come from behind victory. Here is the story on that game from Wikipedia...

 

In an early-season Thursday night game at Minnesota, McMahon was slated to back up Steve Fuller, as McMahon had missed practice time earlier in the week due to a neck injury that required an overnight hospital stay. Midway into the third quarter, the Vikings held a 17–9 lead. McMahon lobbied to get into the game until well into the third quarter. Once finally on the field, his first play was an opportunistic 70 yard touchdown pass to Willie Gault. His very next offensive play was a 25-yard touchdown pass to Dennis McKinnon, making him 2–2 for 95 yards and two major scores. He followed up with another successful offensive drive, including a crucial third and short sneak to set up another 43-yard touchdown pass to McKinnon. The Bears led 30–17 and went on to win the game 33–24.

 

I was listening to that game while traveling for an overnight business stay. I swore under my breath that McMahon coming into the game is not a good thing. It turned out to be not a good thing. Am I PO'd that McMahon wore a purple jersey? He beat the Packers in a last minute drive for the Vikes. nuff said.

[BillyBalata]

Jackson vs Favre - do you want the guy who completed 64% of his passes for about 8 yds a pop with 8 tds and 1 int down the stretch, or the guy who threw 2 tds and 8 ints in his last 5 games?

 

 

Unfortunately, there are plenty of idiots in MN that think the career int leader in his 40's can still be a good qb.

[Chavez]

Unfortunately, there are plenty of idiots in MN that think the career int leader in his 40's can still be a good qb.

The problem is your coach is one of them.

 

Really, Favre, inside OR out, has faded down the stretch - BADLY - for 3 straight years. He isn't the guy to take any team to the promised land, not anymore.

 

Jackson may not be that guy either...I'd even he say he most likely isn't...but there's still a chance he could become that guy. IMO Jackson over Favre at this point is a no-brainer.

[westvirginia]

Fran has been on 790 the zone a bunch down here in the past. He comes across as a bitter old man, just like he comes across here. It's pathetic, really.

 

Of course what's also pathetic, like Chavez and Billy B said, is thinking Favre would be better than what the vikes have on their roster right now. People want to put last year off as an injury aberration, but like Chavez said, it wasn't just last year he faded down the stretch.

[Bronco Billy]

Good one.

 

I think BJ was referring to tha fact that Mcmahon finished his career as a Packer.

[MikesVikes]

I think BJ was referring to tha fact that Mcmahon finished his career as a Packer.

 

Yea, I know that he was adding to my angle.

[tazinib1]

"That's Incredible!!"

[The Wolf]

Way too much freaking coverage. Way. Too. Much. Mr. Favre, please just go away already.

[BeeR]

What Fran Tarkenton said.