Please, for the love of all that is holy, retire already

And I'm not talking about Favre, I am talking about Wojo.

Just kidding. I am talking about both of them.

Let's add another chapter to the "It's more than numbers, it's about heart. And wins" book of idiocy. This chapter's title? "2008 Aaron Rodgers SUCKS when compared to 2008 Favre."


Rodgers: 3807 YDS/28 TD: 13 INT/93.8 QB Rating

Jeans monger: 3259 YDS/22 TD: 22 INT/81.0 Rating

Pretty cut and dry, right? I mean, what could possibly put Favre ahead of Rodgers when comparing their seasons?

But sorry, there won't be any retractions. Just because Rodgers had a better statistical season doesn't mean the Packers were a better team without Favre.

So: worse QB = better team performance. Dan Orlovsky's phone must be ringing off the hook!

First of all, the numbers don't always make the man.

Never do.

If they did, then six of the top 10 quarterbacks by passing yards and six of the top 10 by touchdowns wouldn't be done with their seasons. But they are, including Rodgers and Favre.

Great, wonderful misuse of "stats."

Those ten by yards: Rivers, Pennington, Warner, Brees, Manning, Rodgers, Schaub, Romo, Garcia, Cassel.

Schaub, Brees and Rodgers were out. But the rest of those missed the playoffs on the last fucking game of the season. Seriously. The Patriots, Bucs and Cowboys were eliminated on the last day of the season.

Rodgers played well this season. He played hurt. He played in the blinding light of the post-Favre era and did so with poise and heart. If he stays healthy (he played much of the season with a shoulder injury), the Packers have themselves a quarterback.

But Favre played well, too -- not as often as Rodgers did,

Doesn't that undermi ... aw forget it.

but well enough that the Jets were 8-3 after beating the then-undefeated Tennessee Titans on the road.

All because of Favre. Football is not a team game played by two seperate 11-man units. It is a game of quarterbacks. Just good, American, white quarterbacks. Gunslingin' and havin' a ball out there.

Thomas Jones, who led the AFC in rushing (the other part of offense that is not throwing) with 1312 yards and 13 TDs, had nothing to do with the Jets being good during one random stretch of the season.

Also, in that wonderful game against the Titans, Favre threw for 224 yards, two TDs and a pick. A typical Favre game. But the Jets won 34-13. How can that be? Without Favre throwing four TDs, kicking every PAT and picking off two passes while playing cornerback?

Leon Washington ran for 82 yards and two TDs on eight (!) carries and Jones had over 100 total yards (96 rushing) and a rec. TD. That's how. They ran for 192 yards.

You remember: That was the same week the Packers got beat 51-29 by New Orleans to drop to 5-6 and start a five-game losing streak. Weird. I don't remember getting any "Favre's washed up" e-mails then.

I know it's hard for you to believe Wojo, but luck is an element in sports. A big one. One that the Packers had a lot of the bad variety this season. Look at their losses:

16-27, 21-30, 24-27, 16-19, 27-28, 29-51, 31-35, 21-24, 16-20, 17-20.

That's a crazy five games decided by three points or less. Two by four-seven and three by seven points or more. That sucks. I would be pissed if I was a Packers fan.

Now, of course, the Jets' losses:

10-19, 29-48, 13-16, 17-34, 14-24, 3-13, 17-24.

One by three or less. One by four-seven and five by seven or more.

This all means the Packers could have easily been 11-5 if they win a few more of the really close ones and one or two of the kind of close ones. The Jets, meanwhile, are pretty much where they should be.

The mistake people make is trying to compare Rodgers' season with Favre's. ... But do wins count for anything?

No. They count for everything.

Favre's Jets had nine compared to the Packers' six.

See above long-winded loss breakdown.

They beat three playoff-bound teams; the Packers defeated one. Favre's Jets gagged away their division lead in the last month, but they still had a chance at the playoffs. The Packers were officially eliminated with two weeks remaining in the season.

I'll give you the division thing, but counter with the AFC East played the AFC and NFC West. Those teams are garbage.

And the Pack beat the Vikings and Colts. That equals two playoff teams, not one.

Anyway, the move from the Packers to Jets doesn't absolve Favre from throwing a league-leading 22 interceptions. Some of those INTs were killers. But the same goes for Rodgers, whose late-game interceptions in Week 14 against Houston and Week 15 against Jacksonville ended comeback attempts. In fact, Rodgers was 0-8 in comeback situations this season.

But he also only threw 13 INTs and 6 more TDs than Favre. And what the fuck are "comeback siutations" anyway? Does being down 7-0 in the first quarter count? I bet it does.

I'm not blaming Rodgers for the mess. He wasn't perfect, but he also wasn't the problem -- just like Favre wasn't the main problem with the Jets. I see why Thompson was willing to make a leap of faith with Rodgers, but Favre's departure could have -- and should have -- been handled better by Packers management.

What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too.

I could live with a six-win season too, as long as at least 70% of those 10 losses were winnable games. Oh, and my quarterback wasn't a 40-year-old dude with a TD to INT ratio of 1:1.

Dumb.

Just like this ... well you get it.

Nostalgia no one cares about and is wrong

I am about to challenge you to solve the easiest mystery ever. Ready?

There's an article. It's about old quarterbacks.

Guess who's in it?

Here's a fogeyish thing to do. It's the sporting equivalent of babbling about those days when we all had to walk five miles to school through the snow, uphill, both ways.

Great way to start an article. "I am about the whine and complain about something that I remember as being great, but probably was just OK." I am riveted.

Still, here goes: Bob Griese wore glasses in Miami; Steve Grogan ran around like mad in New England; Richard Todd was getting booed in New York ... [massive fucking list of QBs and stupid anecdotes shortened at request of attorney general for causing dissociative disorder] Kenny Stabler was the Snake in Oakland; Steve Fuller was boring in Kansas City.

Now, as I mentioned, there is nothing that sounds more grumpy-old-man than rambling on and on about how quarterbacks used to be better. But that's not what I'm saying -- I doubt very seriously that quarterbacks used to be better. I just think they used to be more famous, more easily remembered, more beloved, more representative of their cities.

This is pretty pointless/silly/wrong/a bunch of other negative traits.

Joe Montana: who? Phil Simms: bum. Jim Kelly: worthless. John Elway: John Whoway?

And as far as modern QBs go, guess what? They're still creating memories. Brady has a bunch. Peyton too. Even little Eli. Big Ben should be pretty great for some time. Tony Romo is pretty much the prototypical definition of a quarterback. I could go on.

That has changed, I think. There are only a handful of quarterbacks these days who pierce the imagination --

"Imaginations pierced" is right under TDs (but above comp. %) on the list of important QB stats.

and with Tom Brady going down in New England and Peyton Manning looking just a wee ancient in Indianapolis, it's more like a carpool.

If Peyton is "a wee bit ancient," Favre is fucking Methuselah.

Let's not forget that Peyton's knee is bursa'ing all over and his first game this season was against a defense two years removed from the Super Bowl. He'll be fine.

Favre played the like 0-16 Dolphins and was one play away from losing to the guy his new team cut.

You have Eli Manning in New York, of course, though you get the sense that some Giants fans are waiting impatiently for the statute of limitations on the Super Bowl miracle to end so they can start booing again.* You have Donovan McNabb in Philadelphia, though he has not started every game in a season since 2003.

You have Tony Romo in Dallas, though he might want to win a playoff game at some point.

McNabb is like tier 1.5 and Eli is like tier five.

Romo is fucking awesome. He's 27. Years old, not years of NFL service. His two seasons, combined:

55 TD/64.8 % comp./32 INT/team 19-7 with him starting.

But didn't. Win. A playoff. Game. Two years into his career as a starter. Trash.

You have Drew, Matt, Carson, Jay, Rivers, Roethlisberger -- good quarterbacks all, but they're probably not sweeping the nation.

Imagination piercing moments from each:

Drew (Brees?) - passed for 4400+ yards in '06, lifted post-Katrina New Orleans.

Matt (Leinart?) - ruled the campus at USC, beer bonged a bunch of co-eds.

Carson (Palmer?) - suffered one of the most egregious cheap shots ever, was awesome before - not so much now.

Rivers - whiny bastard, has LTD to mask shortcomings.

Jay (Cutler?) - started an NFL game, this is kind of a cherry pick, this is like his second full year.

Roethlisberger - won the damn Super Bowl.

Mixed bag? Sure. But all those guys are younger than 28 (some much younger) and have a lot of time to craft solid careers. So shut it, please.

Finally, there's Brett Favre. He is the last quarterback standing, the one guy out there who inspires some of the feelings of those old-time quarterbacks. This is in part because he IS an old-time quarterback; the guy was flinging passes in the NFL before the Soviet Union collapsed. But there's something else here too, something about the way Favre still plays the game, something in the way he flings footballs into double coverage, the way he seems indestructible, the way he throws TERRIBLE interceptions but then comes back and throws absurd touchdown passes.

Wow. This is a beautiful, beautiful mess of lovely writing.

What was just described there is "bad quarterbacking" and yet, Favre = God. Still, lovely prose.

Why the hell is Favre diefied for being both an idiot and a "genius" when other sports stars (Ryan Howard, Adam Dunn and their ilk come to mind) are ripped for the same "all or nothing" style? Or a basketball player who takes - and misses - a ton of shots, but scores at a prolific rate? (I am sure people don't/won't appreciate Iverson as much as they should).

This is foolish.

That's the way it used to be. It's stunning to go back 30 and 40 years and look at the statistics of the quarterback heroes. In 1979, Terry Bradshaw threw 25 interceptions, and he didn't even lead the NFL in that category (that would be my hero Brian Sipe with 26). The only guy to throw 25 or more interceptions in the last seven years ... yeah, that would be Brett Favre in 2005 when he threw 29 of them.

You know what else was different 30-40 years ago? Everything. In 2048 when A-Rod III leads the New York Yankees (sponsored by Viagra) to their fourth straight World Series (sponsored by Fox) title by hitting 90 homers and posting a .600 OBP (BA has been abolished for being dumb), no one will flinch because that will seem normal.

Go tell a baseball writer in 1968 that someday a certain large headed man will walk 232 times (!!!!!!!!) in a season and he will shoot you for being a stoned-out hippie talkin' jive.

Oh and 'grats to Favre for throwing nearly 30 picks.

That's what it used to mean to be a quarterback. That changed. Coaches took over the game. Geniuses started calling plays. Everyone started demanding more prudent football. Defenses got more sophisticated and specialized. Sackers got bigger and stronger and faster and more dangerous. Quarterbacks were told to "manage" the game rather than "win" the game. Passer rating became the in statistic.* Fantasy football became the rage so that now every David Garrard interception in Jacksonville infuriates some doctor in Ann Arbor, some insurance person in Toledo and some farmer in Kansas and some home builder in Orange County.

There's a lot here but I wanted to let it wash over you like a cool rain.

Coaches took over the game. Geniuses started calling plays.

Could that be because the NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry and coaches get paid a shit load of money to succeed? And you're not really complaining that smarter play-calling is taking place, are you?

Everyone started demanding more prudent football.

The 2007 Patriots. The 2000-01 Rams. The Peyton-era Colts.

Those teams were/are the exact opposite of prudent.

Fantasy football became the rage so that now every David Garrard interception in Jacksonville infuriates some doctor in Ann Arbor, some insurance person in Toledo and some farmer in Kansas and some home builder in Orange County.

Out of all the ludicrous reasons why football sucks today compared to 1969, this is one of the dumbest. Football players could give two shits about said men in random places playing a game.

Garrard is a "game manager" because his defense is nuts, he has two above average RBs and not throwing to a quad-covered, mediocre receiver is considered (by brain possessing humans) a good idea. And he has to be.

"You know what's beautiful about the being an old quarterback?" Roman Gabriel once asked. Gabriel's a wonderful guy, he was the NFL MVP in 1969 and the comeback player of the year in 1973. He threw 200 touchdown passes, 150 interceptions, completed about 53 percent of his passes and fumbled 105 times in his career. Those were great numbers long ago.

Wonderful guy? Probably. Wonderful QB? Fuck no. 255 turnovers compared to 200 TDs? In no world are those "great numbers." Even "long ago." Those are "shitty numbers" "today."

Gabs played for 16 seasons and only threw more than 25 TDs - never. 25, 24, 23 are his three highest, followed by 19, 17, 16.

Peyton Manning (from the new era of pussy QBs) has thrown 25+ TDs 10 times in his 10 seasons. 49, 33, 31 (twice) are his three highest.

Things were so much better back when.

Connelly and stream of consciousness writing

Did you hear? Some footballer named Tom Brady got hurt. I've never heard of him, but ESPN seems to be shitting themselves. And hey, Tim Rattay and Jeff George are back in the headlines, so it has to be good.

Micheal Connelly - who's "Top Ten" blog is a representation of everything wrong with blogging, filled with random facts, fragmented thoughts and incomplete sentences - is goin' off the rails on a crazy train with Brady knee-Gate (first), and pretty much everything else Boston sports related.

Tom Brady is already a Hall of Famer. But Canton, Ohio and a yellow jacket wasn’t his quest. His mission was to be the greatest quarterback that ever played the game. For seven years the sixth round pick turned out to be a stunning amalgamation of Jack Armstrong, Johnny Unitas and Clark Kent. He won whenever he stood over center and thrived while others melted.

Couldn't we get some more contemporary QBs in there? Montana, Elway, Aikmen maybe?

But then for some reason he deviated.

Lol wut?

Deviated: 50 TDs/one league MVP/one play away from a fourth Super Bowl ring.

He inexplicably ventured from his set course and instead traveled roads that often have transformed immortals to mortals. With Yankee hat on head, he walked the streets of New York with a model on his arm while teammates and fans wondered where their quarterback roamed. Instead of maintaining a routine of excellence - he fathered a child, carried flowers, skipped offseason workouts and attended concerts instead of practices.

Reason Brady got hurt yesterday was NOT Pollard hitting him. No. It was because he
1) wore a Yankees hat (sin)
2) walked in NY (millions and millions of people do that)
3) dated a model (awesome)
4) had a freakin' baby
5) carried flowers

Are you serious? You work for the second biggest publication in Boston and this is what you come up with.

The fact that the Patriot quarterback has spent more time with the paparazzi this offseason

His fault. Do you know he calls the paps to photograph him and interrupt his personal life?

Just minues into a season that he entered distracted,

He sure looked focused completing 7-for-11 and 76 yards.

we discovered that Tom Brady, like ourselves, is vulnerable. The quarterback who once threw like Zeus now limps like Achillies.

ESPN bottom line: Brady, unlike Achillies, was not dipped in the River Styx ... Mets 5, Phillies 3 ...

* At the same time Brady was going down, Favre was throwing a 56 yard touchdown pass

And Micheal Turner was running for 200+ yards, McNabb passed his third TD of the day and a bunch of other shit happened. So yes, other football was being played during this time. Thanks.

* I say this every year but are there more commercials than ever - ads killed the flow of the game - game was boring

Game was boring. Brady hurt got. Ads killed game. Broken writing is broken.

* How many drops did Bowe have for KC

Well question marks are cool. ESPN doesn't list drops, but he had five catches for 55 yards and a TD. He sucks.

* Paul Byrd is 4-1 as a Sox while being provided 8.5 runs of support in his four wins

Evidence that wins are fucking dumb. Bird could have given up 8.4 runs in his starts and be 4-1. I can't wait for his olde timey wind-up, hittable 85 MPH heaters and lack of strikeouts in the playoffs.

* Brett Favre is on pace for 32 TD and 0 Interceptions

Brady for Favre, straight up?