Adams’ rookie deal should leave his family secure, plus more notes. Andrew Brandt
News arrived Sunday that the NFL had lost another player, its second in several weeks. After the tragic death last month of the Bengals’ Chris Henry, word arrived that Gaines Adams, the defensive end who was recently traded from the Buccaneers to the Bears, had passed away, reportedly due to cardiac arrest resulting from an enlarged heart. We at the National Football Post send our condolences to Gaines’ family and to those he touched at the Bucs and Bears. So young, so sad.
The hope here is that Adams’ family is financially secure, as they certainly should be from his contract. As the fourth pick in the 2007 NFL Draft, Adams received one of the contracts that have become so much discussed in the rookie compensation debate. The contract was heavily front-loaded, as the Bucs had assumed the bulk of its value in the first two years.
At the time of his trade, I wrote in an earlier column in October about the contract, but it’s worth restating here:
Adams had just finished the third year of one of those rookie contracts that draw so much attention as financial anomalies – and something that needs to be addressed in the next CBA. The Bucs paid him $16 million before trading him to the Bears:
Signing bonus: $13 million
2007 roster bonus: $2.1 million
2007 salary: $285,000
2008 salary: $370,000
2009 salary: $265,000
Adams was paid the balance of his 2009 salary ($635,000) by the Bears, who, at the time of the trade, also assumed the remaining salaries of $1.08M in 2010, $1.1M in 2011, and $1.15M in 2012. The salaries for 2010 and 2011 are guaranteed for injury only. The common language requires a football-injury that prevents the player from playing the following season. Whether a cardiac arrest away from the football field will trigger the guarantee may be more of a moral and sentimental obligation for the Bears than a legal one. We’ll see.
We can only hope for Adams’ family that the $16M he received from the Bucs has not been wasted.
A couple other notes from the weekend:
• Speaking of the importance of a player's financial security, the signing of Deuce McAllister by the Saints for the divisional playoff game was a warm gesture, although playoff money is probably going to satisfy many financial debts. I’m sure Deuce appreciates the tribute but would have preferred to actually have been signed while the real paychecks were in play and the team was playing during the 17 weeks of the season. Of course, McAllister didn’t really retire from the Saints; rather, the Saints retired him from football prior to the season. Last week, it was reported that Nissan had sued McAllister after his dealership in Jackson, Miss., closed and defaulted on loans, seeking more than $1.5 million. McAllister has counter sued, claiming Nissan’s financing division failed to help his struggling dealership succeed. This is one of dozens of examples around the NFL of players getting involved in businesses without the proper background or, more important, counsel and trusted advisers to succeed. McAllister was out of football until this week, so here's hoping he finds his way through this mess. His playoff checks will help.
• I thought the bye teams were going to have an easy time this weekend, especially the Saints, who were the big winners in the emotionally draining game between the Packers and Cardinals six days prior to the winner walking into the Superdome. I understand in the past that there have been many upsets on divisional weekend, but this year set up differently. And can we lose the chatter about going into the playoffs hot or cold, playing starters or not, etc. All that is extraneous. Congrats to the Jets for breaking through the byes.
• I'm happy for Brett Favre, as most people are. Having been with him in the NFC Championship two years ago in the freezing cold at Lambeau Field, I think he'll play better in this game than he did in that one (even though the Packers had the ball in overtime with a chance to win). He seems very calm with this team. The Packers are definitely comfortable with the choice they made, and Aaron Rodgers is certainly the real deal, but Brett is not showing the decline or risk tolerance that many at the Packers offices felt was coming in Minnesota.
• Didn't LaDainian Tomlinson look lonely on the Chargers’ bench yesterday?
Happy Martin Luther King Day to all.
Follow me on Twitter: adbrandt
"The Packers are definitely comfortable with the choice they made". Agreed, but that's because they're too arrogant to aknowlege a mistake, not because it was the right choice. They reached the NFC championship with Favre, he's back 2 years later and they never went back, so in terms of results it hasn't worked out.
In terms of bettering the team, the money saved by not paying his salary hasn't really been used since T.Thompson doesn't believe in free agency. They did gain Rodgers who might have left the organization if he had to be behind Favre in the depth chart for a few more years. Rodgers is a great quarterback statistically, but he doesn't seem to be an exceptional winner. Will he develop into one? Maybe, but by then the team may have other holes (their OL is bad, their best DBs are old). If Ted Thompson was trying to build a team that is consistently good, he's probably on the right track, however the NFL is not about that, it's about winning SBs, and I really think his and M.McCarthy's decision hurt the Packers in that respect.
Once again, Packer fans astonish me. Rodgers battles his team back from 17-0 on the road to score 45 points and force overtime, loses the game on a horrific no-call, doesn't call out his defense, and that guy isn't a winner? If the Vikings had Rodgers would they not be in the NFC championship game? Did Ted Thompson run around Green Bay systematically killing all of your pets or something? How has Seattle's drafts and free agency signings been since he left? I just don't understand fans of a team who went from a first ballot hall of fame QB to a player who already looks like a franchise player in his second year starting. Well, I'm old enough to remember people who hated Steve Young because he wasn't Super Joe, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised, even though I still am.
Once again, Packer fans astonish me. Rodgers battles his team back from 17-0 on the road to score 45 points and force overtime, loses the game on a horrific no-call, doesn't call out his defense, and that guy isn't a winner? If the Vikings had Rodgers would they not be in the NFC championship game? Did Ted Thompson run around Green Bay systematically killing all of your pets or something? How has Seattle's drafts and free agency signings been since he left? I just don't understand fans of a team who went from a first ballot hall of fame QB to a player who already looks like a franchise player in his second year starting. Well, I'm old enough to remember people who hated Steve Young because he wasn't Super Joe, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised, even though I still am.
Bull Hickey
Were Rodgers playing in Minnesota they'd still be in the championship game and were Favre in GB they'd still be sitting home -- on the whole and despite a few bad plays the defensive effort is why the Packers lost, not Rodgers (now you're supposed to say: but you blamed Favre in 2007! Yes, I do blame a 15 year vet for making a throw that makes him look like a rookie -- and a bad one at that).
This whole: "he's not a winner!" garbage (he won't last the season, he's fragile, he can't win in pressure games [his very first game was a pressure game and a win]) is just the latest in a long string of anti-Rodgers stuff that's born purely of dislike for the guy who replaced Favre. It's his second darn season starting. Remember all the talk about Peyton Manning not being able to win in the playoffs? He certainly didn't start getting that thrown at him as early as his 2nd season starting or after 1 playoff appearance. It might turn out that Rodgers never wins anything of consequence but I've never seen people try to tag a guy as early as this, it's pretty darn transparent.
Hey CHRIS C - careful - don't use such offensive language .
Rogers appears to be an "all about me" guy whereas Brett just wants to win. Rogers' beyond lame Championship Belt celebration does not even rise to the level of pathetic. Favre celebrates the the team whereas Rogers celebrates himself. The Packers and all their supporters merely keep propping this guy up who has done nothing in order to justify the shameless dumping of a 16 year employeeF. Rogers has done nothing except put up statistics - big deal. Even those are questionable because while he is a two year starter he also had the benefit of those years behind Favre on the bench which Favre never had.. I am not down on Rogers - he was put into a tough spot but let's not make him out to be what he isn't yet. That's not to say he won't be but he isn't there yet so all the false praise from Packer Management and the fans who hate Favre and the false bravado from Rogers himself is a real put off to many fans. I'll always be a Packer fan but I'll always be a fan of Favre's too because you'll never see another like him - ever.
Please elaborate on where I'm using offensive language if you would.
The rest of your post looks to me like a lot of projection. You don't know either of the quarterbacks in any meaningful way and you don't know the dynamics of the locker room in any meaningful way. Therefore how can you possibly claim to know that Rodgers "celebrates himself" while Favre "celebrates the team"? I've seen Rodgers celebrating with and without team mates and I've seen Favre run to team mates to celebrate and simply run off the field celebrating himself. I draw no conclusions one way or the other from any of it, I don't know the people involved and I won't imagine that seeing 1% of their interactions gives me any insight at all.
Please elaborate on where I'm using offensive language if you would.
The rest of your post looks to me like a lot of projection. You don't know either of the quarterbacks in any meaningful way and you don't know the dynamics of the locker room in any meaningful way. Therefore how can you possibly claim to know that Rodgers "celebrates himself" while Favre "celebrates the team"? I've seen Rodgers celebrating with and without team mates and I've seen Favre run to team mates to celebrate and simply run off the field celebrating himself. I draw no conclusions one way or the other from any of it, I don't know the people involved and I won't imagine that seeing 1% of their interactions gives me any insight at all.
@ Chris C. -
I was joking about your use of the phrase "Bull Hickey" - just a joke, no offense intended. What I mean by Rogers celebrating himself is referring strictly to his on field celebrations of when he throws a touchdown pass or makes a good play. I remember one play earlier this year when he made a good fake to suck the defense up and then ran through them into the endzone for a score at St. Louis. After he scores he then goes into this incredibly stupid gun holster bit finished off by not one but two lame fist pumps. Rogers is not the only one to do this - look at when Barnett makes a tackle or Driver makes a catch. Their celebrations just all seem so contrived whereas Favre, yeah who puts is arms up, is always running around looking for someone to jump on or hug to embrace the moment for the team. Again, I'm not down on Rogers I just think he's been given way too much credit to date and he hasn't done anything and the Favre haters use Rogers' stats to criticize a player who has started 300 plus games in a row! Beyond amazing to me.
Fair enough.
But I'm not using Rodgers stats to criticize Favre who after all right now is going into the hall with his majority argument being stats - any QB would be happy with a super bowl win period but in that important category he's still well behind Bradshaw, Montana, Aikman, Brady. I don't consider myself a Favre "hater", I've got Favre games on DVD and I put them on occasionally in the off-season, guy was a ton of fun to watch for a long time. But, though he ground out a lot of wins it's also been a long time since he's sustained a run of quality play in the post-season (maybe this year will be different). From the '98 season to the 2007 season the Packers went to 6 post seasons, 5 out of the 6 ended with a game where Favre put up a QB rating below 80 (70, 55, 82, 54, 53, 79) -- so people criticize Rodgers for not doing anything . Well, a Packer fan's perspective in 2008 with Favre could have reasonably been: "what have you done for me lately?" Most of the things that Favre had done in that stretch Rodgers has now done as well, the thing that Rodgers hasn't done (sustained post-season success) Favre hadn't been doing either. 2007 is where Favre had come the closest in a long time, but in the NFCC he was ineffective.
By the way if you remember back a decade+ in the past, Favre did the gun holster thing as well once upon a time.
You mention Driver, do you think he's not a good team player because he loves signaling first down along with a little shake?
Here we go, everytime Andrew posts an article that talks about Favre the comparisons come (and I'm not helping the situation here):
Favre talked about retirement for years. When you hold a retirement press conference and say you may not want to play again, that tells every GM that this guy has doubts to play. If he comes back and the season starts 1-4, what's not to say he still has those same feelings. Can't allow that in the locker room. ARodge fell in the Packers lap and after seeing him in practice everyday they knew what they had. Hmmm, it's either an old quarterback that is waffling about retirement, or a young quarterback that can be locked up for the next decade and has skills to win a Super Bowl. Nine times out of ten a team that scores 45 points will win the game.
The Vikings made the playoffs last year w/o Favre, and the Packers Dfense is what forced them out of the playoffs. Anytime you score 45 points in a gam
Here we go, everytime Andrew posts an article that talks about Favre the comparisons come (and I'm not helping the situation here):
Favre talked about retirement for years. When you hold a retirement press conference and say you may not want to play again, that tells every GM that this guy has doubts to play. If he comes back and the season starts 1-4, what's not to say he still has those same feelings. Can't allow that in the locker room. ARodge fell in the Packers lap and after seeing him in practice everyday they knew what they had. Hmmm, it's either an old quarterback that is waffling about retirement, or a young quarterback that can be locked up for the next decade and has skills to win a Super Bowl. Nine times out of ten a team that scores 45 points will win the game.
The Vikings made the playoffs last year w/o Favre, and the Packers Dfense is what forced them out of the playoffs. Anytime you score 45 points in a gam
Here we go, everytime Andrew posts an article that talks about Favre the comparisons come (and I'm not helping the situation here):
Favre talked about retirement for years. When you hold a retirement press conference and say you may not want to play again, that tells every GM that this guy has doubts to play. If he comes back and the season starts 1-4, what's not to say he still has those same feelings. Can't allow that in the locker room. ARodge fell in the Packers lap and after seeing him in practice everyday they knew what they had. Hmmm, it's either an old quarterback that is waffling about retirement, or a young quarterback that can be locked up for the next decade and has skills to win a Super Bowl. Nine times out of ten a team that scores 45 points will win the game.
The Vikings made the playoffs last year w/o Favre, and the Packers Dfense is what forced them out of the playoffs. Anytime you score 45 points in a gam
Ben you're right, you really are not helping the situation here....
I only hit submit once, I swear! Something is wrong with the site....
I think if you hit refresh it commonly resubmits, click the column link again instead.
Hey Ben - I was only kidding
Not a Packers fan, so your theory doesn't apply (to me at least).
At some point there have to be criteria to evaluate the situation. I wrote that Rodgers is not an exceptional winner, i.e he is not a player who will lead a team to a better result than their overall talent (and yes, talent evaluation is very subjective) suggests. P.Manning has been hailed for winning with new receivers (and rightly so), while Rodgers in the two years he's been the starter hasn't really elevated his team. Their record in 2008 was rather disappointing, and their result in 2009 was slightly below predictions (they were considered frontrunners for the NFC North and were even a hot Superbowl pick afteir their impressive preseason). So overall, the Packers haven't overachieved with Rodgers at the helm. Now, the Vikings were also considered a team that's a player away from a serious Superbowl run, so they haven't overachieved either, but I think there's no denying the positive impact of Favre on his receivers.
The point I was (and still am) trying to make is that in the two years since he's left Green Bay, Favre has won more than the Packers (and Rodgers), despite going to two different teams, and regardless of what people may think of him as a person, Favre proven to be a better winning quarterback than Rodgers in that span. It looks like Ted Thompson sacrificed present success for potential, and while that move may very well pay off, it simply hasn't yet.
If Favre is so adept at making the players around him better why hasn't he won more super bowls?
It doesn't matter any more. I'm tired of the entire arguement
Favre is gone, Rogers is there.
Both played well. Favre got to a stronger team with an immediate chance. He was right
Rogers got his team to the playoffs and the outlook is bright for him and the Packers.
He can put up scores like a pin ball machine. That decision was right too.
Whine about Thompson and McCarthy all you want and envision Favre behind the Packer
line last year and this year. Is he as super productive on the Packers? Doubt it
Think of all those sacks this year and how many could an imobile Favre avoid? The Vikings would have wone at least eleven games on the trot with that defense, O-line, Rice, Harvin and Peterson
McCarthy rallied his young team to play well. Thompson had a draft of amazing productivity.
Both performed well. Thompson owes the team a sacking defensive end and a new tackle. If he does not get them, his squad will level off. Make the changes like Wolf did between 95 and 96 so the team makes the next step up.
@Chris C. -
Favre or any quarterback for that matter can't make defensive players better - only on their side of the ball.
Very true -- but the Packers had plenty of good D's in the 90s and a couple of times in the 00's. So again, why only one title? Partially because in the 00's Favre himself couldn't string together good games in the playoffs.
That doesn't lessen the crazy numbers he's put up in his career, or the MVPs, or the title in '96. But in the 00's Favre was a big reason they'd get to the playoffs but then he was also commonly one of the reasons they'd bow out. That hardly means he was a failure in the 00's, but neither was he racking up wins in meaningful games at the same rate as a Brady, Manning (though he's iffy in this category too), or even a Roethlisberger. In the 00's in a Packers uniform he was in the second tier of QBs.
One can say very easily "but look how well he's doing now!". The thing is, it's kind of the exception that's proving the rule. The play that the Vikings got out of him this year is better than the Packers got out of him in any season in the 00's.
I think though that Mack has the right of it. He's not the first to say it for sure but it probably needs to be said in any thread like this (and I'll rest on this post so as to not belabor it any more than I already have) -- namely that in the end the Vikings and the Packers have both ended up doing well out of the way things unfolded.
So, wouldn't it be strange if he plays his other ex-Team, the Jets, in the super bowl?
The Packers absolutely made the right choice. Only a dimwit would assume Favre would have played at the same level back in Green Bay. It was time to get Rodgers on the field. Good riddance, his side show was getting tiresome. As for the Bears, the loss of Adams is a disaster. They lost a draft choice and have nothing to show for it.
Nice sentiment about Gaines Adams, thank you. I happened to meet his Dad this summer at the Bucs training camp and the whole family was there supporting Gaines. Quite a crew and a very loving bunch. I am sure their world is rocked by this tragic news. Thanks for reminding us how precious life is for all of us. Andy H
It is a shame for someone so young as Adams to pass away like this. Did noone know of his condition? I may be very cynical here, but it seems rather fortuitous that TB traded him 3 months before he died. Seems to me an enlarged heart doesn't happen overnight, surely someone would have noticed, no? He had obviously passed the Bears physical but TB would have been in a much better position to know if there was a problem. Is it possible they identified it and decided to trade him before anyone else found out? How would the NFL react if this was the case? Hmmmm....food for thought.
I love the assumption that because the Packers don't have Brett Favre they can't win it all.. That distorted logic comes from people who obviously forgot the 4-12 year not too many season ago...with the hero at the helm trying to call all the shots. The fact is the Vikings put 8 players in the Pro Bowl. They have been the most underperforming team for decades. They almost always have a large amount of talent that never gelled.
When you get so enamored with Favre, remember the two games he blew that could have led the Packers to the Super Bowl(including the infamous 4th and 26 game against Philly a few years back), the 6 interceptions against St. Louis in a playoff game, quitting in the cold against Chicago his last season in Green Bay, and take a look a the all-time interception leader in the NFL.
Favre provided the Vikings with veteran experience they lacked at a key position.. The Packers are largely the same team as a couple of years ago when Captain America was at the helm. Quite frankly, Aaron Rodgers just had a remarkable season. The defense failed the Packers.
Favre is not a one-man team. He waltzed into a situation(which he knew) where he could potentially win. He didn't pull his cry-baby(much) with the Vikings, Childress kept him (mostly)under control, and he stayed healthy behind a very good line. Don't think the Packers miss his childish behavior, and good luck Vikings in the off-season. The Packers are fine without him. The Vikings are doing good things(right now) with him. Win-win.....but here's one more win I'd like to see: GO SAINTS!
A GM's job is to make sure there's a replacement when a player is done. Thompson drafted a first round QB, and 4 years later his then-starting QB (Favre) had a career season and is one game away from the SB. He doesn't seem finished, so on paper Thompson seems to have pulled the trigger too soon. In Thompson's defense, Favre didn't help with his talk of retirement for several years, so maybe he felt compelled to draft Rodgers as insurance.
Who knows, maybe with another 1st round talent GB might have won the superbowl in 2007, or he may have drafted a complete bust, it's all hypothetical at this point. What is NOT hypothetical is that Thompson and McCarthy went out of their way to get rid of a QB who can still play, and who in the time since he was shown the door in GB has achieved more than his successor.
Steve Young won two league MVPs and still couldn't get out of Montana's shadow until he won the Superbowl, that's just how it is in the NFL. What I really don't get is people who dislike Favre (fair enough, he's shown a lot of selfishness in the past few years) and project their dislike to his play. Being disliked doesn't prevent someone from throwing a football accurately 40 yards down the field, and Favre has spent this year proving that.
Mr. Walker, perfectly stated. I'm a Packers' fan that has no idea why everyone's so down on Thompson, and more so Rodgers! Clearly this team doesn't yet have quite the horses around our QB that Minnesota has, particularly on D, and Rodgers has done as much or more than Favre ever would've done these last couple years.
To "jackson" who says Rodgers seems to be "all about me", you clearly have never listened to him speak or heard from anyone around him. He's already become the leader of that team, is respected by everyone involved and generally by all opponents as well, including Favre. His championship belt thing is a bit showy but certainly nothing Chad Johnson-esque, and if anything it's an abberation from his usual humble personality. Aside from Steve Young, no legendary QB has ever been immediately replaced this quickly by someone this good.
Just to add one thing...
"gphotopoulos" - in your effort to discredit Ted Thompson's decision to move on a couple years ago, you left out a major detail... Favre didn't just "talk about retirement" leading up to that, he actually DID retire!! There was a press conference, some tears, a scheduled date to retire his # and everything. They even tried to talk him out of it shortly thereafter and he still said no. Add to that the fact that Rodgers was CLEARLY ready (and they've been proven to be more than right on that call), then how can they still be blamed for moving on when he finally decided he wanted back in a couple months later? It's ridiculous. In the end, everyone came out in good shape so we should all just drop it!
Jackson, you must not watch much or live in GB by the comments you made about Rodgers (not Rogers). He is not "all about himself" and that comment only means you are possibly disgruntled that Favre still isn't a Packer? Why else would you say something so uneducated? If I remember right, when the Packers were Super Bowl contenders in the mid 90's Favre used the "gun holster" tactic when they scored touchdowns as well! But that is a mute point! After we won the 96 Super Bowl, Ron Wolf, and especially Mike Sherman put Favre on a pedestal he couldn't live up to. They put that team on his shoulders and he couldn't lead them. (Proof: 01 playoff loss to the Rams (6 INT's), 02 playoff loss at home to Atlanta, 03 playoff game against Philly... INT in OT led to winning FG, 04 playoff game at home against Minnesota... 4 turnovers, and 07 game against Giants,another INT). Favre is old news. Rodgers actually had the whole team over to his home in 2008 before the season began (his first year as starter) to "get involved" with his teammates! Did Favre ever do that? No, he had his locker in a separate room away from the rest of the team, like Barry Bonds! See where I am going with this? Get your facts straight, before you talk about the Packers! I don't discount anything Favre did, but he put up stats as well? Doesn't he hold most of the QB all time records? And only one SB ring? I don't think your comparisons jive! And what did Favre do after 2007 to justify the Packers keeping him? I was a HUGE Favre fan, still will be! But a fact is a fact, and Rodgers took his time on the bench and learned a lot about the game. He involves his teammates in team meetings where as Favre kept to himself. He learned to be accountable, a professional and a great team player. Those 3 traits, Favre hasn't shown all three consistently! GO PACK on 2010!!! Favre will be remembered as a Packer great, but don't hold him above anyone else in Packer history!
"jonah", read what I wrote again please, my comment about Favre talking about retirement referred to the period before Rodgers was drafted, not to the time before the "we've moved on" discussion. Also, as I've written several times, I understand and accept that Favre hasn't been very honest the last few years, but Thompson and McCarthy aren't angels either.
Do you remember their argument that Favre's retirement would preserve his legacy? And no, they did not mean that his legacy would be tarnished by playing for another team, especially a rival of GB (that's Frank Tarkenton's argument), they meant it would be tarnished by his playing poorly. How ridiculous does that sound now? Regardless of what happens, has his legacy really taken a hit in 2009? Furthermore, does anyone think that his poor finish in 2008 was due to eroding skills rather than injury? Or what about their marketing deal/"please stay away" bribe?
Yes, Favre was selfish and disingineous, but Packers management also lied in an effort to avoid responsibility for their decision. I'd have had much more respect for them if they said "you know what, we don't want Favre as our QB anymore, we'll suffer through some growing pains with a talented young QB for a few years, but then we'll be able to have sustained success" instead of all the crap they've come up with.
gbphotopoulos... I see your point, and the stuff about protecting Favre's legacy was garbage and everyone (including MM and TT) knew it, but ultimately, they WERE saying what you thought they should say. It was just a really delicate situation and they were essentially trying to say it without being too blunt, given the historical significance that Favre has with the city and organization. Ultimately though, who cares! As a fan, I'm concerned with them making the best choices and I'm convinced that they did, regardless of how well Favre's playing at 40. Teams that sustain themselves know when to move on, and would rather do so a year or two early than a year or two late. This team the last 2 years wasn't super bowl calibre on D whether Rodgers, Favre or Peyton Manning was the QB, so I'm happy TT and MM had the b_lls to make the tough decision they did, because we'll be benefiting from it for a long time (while the Vikes, after losing this week, spend the next few years searching for someone even close to as good as Rodgers).
I love the gb added to my name, everyone assumes I am a GB fan I guess :)
I also see your point about not being left without a serviceable QB. I guess we'll agree to disagree on when it was the right time to cut ties with Favre.
In any case, Favre or no Favre, the NFC North should be interesting for years to come. The Vikings will probably be good (maybe not great, but division contenders at least) for a few more years, and if Cutler works out in Chicago and the Lions surround their young building blocks with adequate talent (two big ifs), you can look forward to some really competitive games.
I hate to get involved in this TT -vs- Favre wrangling, but I feel that I must. I don't think that the "tarnishing his legacy" argument was BS. I feel that Favre HAS tarnished his legacy. I believe that many Packer fans saw Favre and empathized with him... his going through drug rehab, the loss of his father, his wife getting cancer.
People felt a special connection to Favre similar to the connection that they had with Starr, Nitschke, Kramer, and Thurston and thought it was reciprocated. Looking back at it they see that they've been used. That Favre cared more for playing the game regardless of who it might hurt.
I contend that Favre has damaged his legacy, perhaps permanently. Will that prevent him from being inducted into the Packer Hall of Fame? Probably not. At some point, after TT's gone, he'll be asked if he'd like to be part of it... But, it won't be the same. It never will be. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Thompson was right. Favre went to Minnesota to get into a situation where he could prove that he could get past that stuff. He failed. He reverted to his old behavior under pressure. His fatal flaw is always lurking there waiting to rear its ugly head.
Cap and cash ramifications of...
Thoughts on Indy, Eli, Wes, Mario...
The numbers behind the game
Real action is week before the...
Signs point to the end of an era
Jan 18, 2010
10:37 AM
Andrew, save your happy thoughts about Favre. Your comments above are transparently disingenuous. I'm fairly certain Brett didn't call or text you back yesterday though you badly want back on his bandwagon. Oh, my bad - you don't have his number any more - he only gave out his new number to his real friends....