Magnetic Curses

I don't see how you can watch football games and not notice that Favre has declined. The guy has always taken risks, and as his body falls apart they are starting to haunt him. He was at his best in the mid to late 90's. He's not at his best anymore. It's completely asinine to look at GB's season and not put any blame on Favre and to look at his career and pretend he's the exact same player he used to be. how can you even judge him with the subtractions to the offense? before he lost 3 Rbs and his pro-bowl TE, he was at or above his career numbers in almost every category. that's even without his starting guards. i'd like to see what urlacher does without competent linemen in front of him. he'd probably have a bad season, like he did in 2003-04. but he must have been declining, too. The hero worship of Favre is almost as disgusting as that of Eric Bedard in the Prior talks. How can I judge him? The same way I judge any football player, watch him play and look at the results. Favre from 1999 to 2005 has not been as good as Favre from 1993 to 1998, with his peak likely around 1995-1997. The guy has been linked to retirement talks for 3 years, and never went out of his way to deny the thoughts. There's a reason, he's not the same player he used to be. He is 2-5 in the playoffs since the super bowl loss. He's been good enough to own the Bears for a decade and to keep his team in contention for the division most of the time. But he is no longer the player he once was. As unlucky as they have been with injuries this year, not many people were picking them to win more than 9 games this year, with many considering them an afterthought for the division. Part of that is the realization that Brett Favre can't do what he once did. sure, it had nothing to do with the pack losing their all-pro safety, 2 sturdy o-lineman, paired with an apparently ineffective running attack. i've listed statistics to support my claim, i see nothing but gut-hunches and feelings from you. his team sucks, it has sucked all year and has gotten progressively worse while favre has managed to really only be gravely below his career average in INT's. the other stats speak for themselves. what does all this point to? well, you've missed this so many times i'm concerned that the words are invisible to you. i'll post in caps: THE RISKS HE'S TAKING ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE DECLINE OF HIS TEAM AND THE OVERCOMPENSATION HE HAS MADE FOR HIS TEAM'S MAJOR LOSSES. NOTHING MORE. why in the hell is it so hard for you to understand that concept?

well, for one, the niners have thrown nearly 250 less times than the packers (7 TD, 20 INT, how's that for a ration? open mouth, insert foot). the texans have thrown roughly 200 less times than the packers. and the titans have an offense that's based on taking few risks, very TE friendly.

I don't see how you can watch football games and not notice that Favre has declined. The guy has always taken risks, and as his body falls apart they are starting to haunt him. He was at his best in the mid to late 90's. He's not at his best anymore. It's completely asinine to look at GB's season and not put any blame on Favre and to look at his career and pretend he's the exact same player he used to be. how can you even judge him with the subtractions to the offense? before he lost 3 Rbs and his pro-bowl TE, he was at or above his career numbers in almost every category. that's even without his starting guards. i'd like to see what urlacher does without competent linemen in front of him. he'd probably have a bad season, like he did in 2003-04. but he must have been declining, too.

this is great. hendry thinks that the sox won with their offense and not with their pitching and is trying to duplicate their hitting model without any regard for the pitching staff.

let's see here. the packers have had 405 passes attempted against them, that's 27 attempts per game, good for 2nd fewest in the NFL. but, i guess the exact opposite in your eyes? they've also had 21 passing TDs against them, good for 24th in the NFL, and only 9 INT's, good for 29th in the NFL. meaning that their passing defense is terrible, but no one passes on them, unless in the red zone. so both of my points are made. they're passing defense looks good, but is not good, and their rush defense is non-existent. did you actually want to talk about the weather or were you just making chit-chat? i'm not sticking up for packer players, i'm sticking up for favre, whom i've never met. i said that mostly what my contacts within the organization tell me is that the playbook is complicated and not conducive to backups or rookie plug-ins. that's all i said, and it's not really an emotional issue for me. i've already stated NUMEROUS times that the turnovers are directly related to favre trying to do too much with too little behind him. he has one serviceable receiver, a 30th ranked rushing attack, an injured TE and no interior OL. you tell me how he's supposed to have a great turnover ratio with help like that? and if i were concerned about defending my friends, why would i say that favre has no one around him to help him? that doesn't make a lick of sense.

like who? john elway, who after the age of 35 won 2 super bowls, threw for 3600 yards and 27 Tds and 2800 yards and 22 TDs? or warren moon who threw for over 4000 yards 4 times after reaching 34? or dan marino, who threw for 3500 yards and 23 Tds at the age of 37? or steve young, who threw for 4200 yards and 36 TD's at the age of 37? or rich gannon, who threw for 4600 yards and 26 Tds at the age of 37? or steve deberg, who threw for 3400 yards 23 TDs vs. only 4 INTs at the age of 36? i know you have this bias against old players, no matter what the sport--but in some sports it simply does not apply. favre could play for 3 more years at the same level he's been at, and be very valuable to the pack. Let's hope for GBs sake that the 3 years of same level you are talking about doesn't include the high amount of INTs he has thrown this year. I could care less what other QBs have done at what age. Everybody ages differently. How do you know what you will get in Favre 3 years from now? Like i said this year could be an anamoly or it could be a start of diminished skills. You don't know that. so, he's thrown a lot of picks this year? he's also lost all of those players, why not talk about them? i keep bringing those up and you keep sidestepping them. the only stat that he's set a negative career mark in is INT's, and that's directly attributable to trying to do too much based on the talent around him. he's also above his career average in attempts and completions, which goes further to my argument. he's right on his career averages for CP% and yards. below average in TDs and Y/A. as for all QB's aging differently, the great ones remain great well into their late 30'2, that's the point i've made, and amply.

Just because you make the argument doesn't mean you have an argument. He's thrown for more yards, high completion percentage, more tds, a better TD/INT ratio and had higher ranking. not in the same season. you can cherry pick those stats from all over his sheet, but you can't put them together, can you? his best CP% was 65.3 in 2003, yet he put up more yards. he's thrown for more yards 3 times, but never had the CP%. furthermore, in 2004, he was well above his career averages in CP%, yards, TD's, INT's, and yards per attempt. i don't see how you can remain intellectually honest and tell me that he's declining after looking at thos stats. that's absolute nonsense. you're trying to make an anomaly fit your overall theory of age in sports, and it's not working. for great QB's, on the average, you CANNOT necessarily expect a decline at this stage, and repeating it over and over like some sort of mantra doesn't make it so.

yep, a joke with acareer record of 56-39 with no losing seasons before this season. jeez, i wish the bears could hire that kind of joke. one of your key freaking points was that their defense was good. why change horses in mid-stream? are you trying to make the point that the packers don't have a good team, now, so favre hasn't declined? either they have a good defense or they don't, don't change your mind to satisfy conflicting points. if i were you, i'd concentrate on one point at once. speaking as a guy who talks to actual packer players, i can assure you that the young players have a very hard time learning the playbook. one of their main criticisms of sherman's approach is that his system is so complicated. but don't take it from someone who knows anything. if you read the post in the first place, you would know that i wasn't dicounting what he did. just that he was a perfect fill-in for the job, he could run over defenders (i don't know, for the life of me, how saying that is "discounting what he did") if he missed the holes that he was supposed to hit. you can't expect gado to come in and hit every hole without knowing the playbook forward and backward. but who cares? i'm "dicounting" what he did. that's the JOKE. oh, okay. subtract his top receiver, top 3 RBs, 2 starting guards, and his pro-bowl TE and "numbers don't lie?" are you serious?

like who? john elway, who after the age of 35 won 2 super bowls, threw for 3600 yards and 27 Tds and 2800 yards and 22 TDs? or warren moon who threw for over 4000 yards 4 times after reaching 34? or dan marino, who threw for 3500 yards and 23 Tds at the age of 37? or steve young, who threw for 4200 yards and 36 TD's at the age of 37? or rich gannon, who threw for 4600 yards and 26 Tds at the age of 37? or steve deberg, who threw for 3400 yards 23 TDs vs. only 4 INTs at the age of 36? i know you have this bias against old players, no matter what the sport--but in some sports it simply does not apply. favre could play for 3 more years at the same level he's been at, and be very valuable to the pack.

why not? his numbers from 2004 are, at the very least, on par with the rest of his career. his completion percentage was 64%, he threw for over 4,000 yards and 30 Tds. one could at least make an argument, and a very good one, that 2004 was his best season. but that's not the point, the point is that he gave no sign that he was slipping--which would make this year's performance all the more noteworthy in his rapid decline. favre's skills have not declined, his team has. but i thought that the defensive players were faster. your own words. he never carried a team that had so little around him as this team, that's what i'm saying. you can't judge whether he's declining based on this team. whether he's had sterling sharpe, robert brooks, antonio freeman, or javon walker, he's always had a #1 receiver that could run the routes and gain yards after the catch. is he going to get better? probably not, but you cannot prove that he's declining, and you can't point to other great QB's at his age and say that they've declined significantly in the ensuing seasons because many great QB's have had the best seasons of their careers after the age of 35. brett favre is not that old compared to his hitorical peers at this stage of his career.

it's not that simple, though. address my points. if the best you can do is say "we agree to disagree" then at least think about what i'm saying and ponder changing your stance. if you can't even give yourself a decent enough reason to believe what you do, then it may be time to change what you think.

i don't know where you got the idea that i'm a green bay fan. i know a lot about the team because i chat with corey williams and nick collins every monday or tuesday night. i'm also forced listen to packer radio and watch every packer game. most of my friends are packer fans, as well as most of the people that i have interactions with. but i'm about the biggest bear fan on the planet.

can't blame anything on sherman either. the players might hate him, but players hate most coaches. you can read my arguments for favre in the above post, i don't think i need to say much more about him. the pass defense for green bay has been successful because no one passes on them, why should they when they can run all over the field? generally, teams gain less yards on the ground than in the air, but the yards are more important because of the ball possession game that the teams in the NFC north and NFC south employ. there really should be a separate statistic for rushing yards in conjuntion with total offense. if a team can't stop the run, they may give up less total yards, but their offense is, in turn, more effected--so the greater effect is more devastating. let's also not forget that the green bay offense is VERY complicated--difficult to learn for new players thrown into the fray, gado has excelled because he's a bruising back that often misses holes but can simply run over smaller players. receivers cannot easily step in and expect to get 100 yards per game. this offense is geared for a veteran receiving corps that run great routes and can turn the intermediate pass plays into big gainers. driver and walker are the perfect tandem, but when walker went down, DBs can simply sit on the Driver's routes and bait Favre's throws.

I disagree. His arm is not as good. He's always been a risk taker, but he was so quick from the decision to make the throw to the time it got to the receiver that it didn't hurt him much. He's not as quick anymore. And the league's defensive players are faster than they were in the 90's. I don't think he's done by any means. But his poor play this season cannot be blamed solely on teammates. Green Bay lost a lot of close games this year, it's not like they were always way behind and he was forced to take stupid chances. Without many of those INTs they could have won 3-4 more games, including either Bears game. But then again, maybe he purposefully played like crap to get a better draft pick to help him next year. his arm, imo, is just as good. i've seen him make the same accurate, crazy throws this season as he's made his entire career, his arm is the same. green bay lost a lot of close games BECAUSE favre was playing and making them close. you can't put that much pressure on a player and expect him to win very much. he was doing everything in his power to win those games, they lost because he's all they got, quite frankly. the games have been close because favre was taking those risks in the first place, if he doesn't take those risks, the packers are getting beat badly, because they can't stop the run. i'll give you that the players are faster than they were in the 90's, but that only makes what favre did last year more amazing. don't forget that he had arguably his best year statistically in 2004. what's the difference between this year and last? has favre slowed down SO significantly that he's just losing games left and right for the pack? i doubt it. what i see when i look at this year's team as opposed to last year's team is really what i don't see: mike wahle, marco rivera, javon walker, a healthy bubba franks, and an effective ahman green. that's why the packers are terrible, that's why favre is having his worst season to date. subtracting his best players and then expecting him to win games by taking way more risks than he's taken in any year of his career, all the while also expecting him to keep his INT's low and TD's high, is foolish. favre is what he is, a qb that can be effective with minimal help, but when he has no help at all, even he can't do it.

favre's career isn't over. if he insists on playing for the packers, it probably is. but the pack had a ton of injuries this season and not much to start with. favre's really not that old. Injuries or not his decisions are very questionable. He throws passes that no matter who you have as your WR they won't make. I highly doubt all of his INTs have to do with the talent around him. well, first take into account the departures of wahle and rivera-- two excellent guards, the loss of his best receiver, the loss of his 3 top running backs, the periodic absences of bubba franks. then, take into account that he's generally playing from behind because his defense can't stop the run at all--and you can start to understand why he's taking so many risks and why he's throwing so many picks. he's desperate, and he's taking ridiculous chances--not unnecessarily. favre is like 35 years old, his mind hasn't all of a sudden deserted him, he's not at risk for alzheimer's yet, his arm is just as good as it was during the 90's. i don't see what's changed other than his team, which is terrible, favre has been forced to do it all--and he nearly did it for the packers against a much superior bears team on Christmas day.

a joke, right?

I'm not sure who it was that told me this, but i learned this here. It may have been Coach C or some other baseball coach that relayed this info to me. a few years back the poster in question was coaching some wildly talented pitcher who could hit the low 90's with his fastball. i think the kid went to college and lost his control, or got hurt or something, but anyways, the poster in question said that the kid went to Marshall and adopted his technique. he saw the kid pitch after he'd changed his mechanics and said that the kid had lost all of what made him special, his windup and delivery looked very awkward and strange, he couldn't hit the 80's on the gun, and he was pretty much totally ineffective. bottom line is: prior made it this far with his mechanics, with his velocity and stuff, he's been very successful, he's also had some freak injuries. now, do we really want prior to change his mechanics, velocity, and stuff, you know, the things that make him special, risking that marshall will make him into a human being? marshll's processes may be good for turning average pitchers into above average, very durable pitchers, but i do not want dr. tom marshall anywhere near a guy like prior.

IMO, to most players, the only thing that matters is the "Benjamins". For the right price just about any player will sign anywhere. however, if you perceive one organization as having treated you poorly, you are less likely to return to that team if offered the same money by a different team.

favre's career isn't over. if he insists on playing for the packers, it probably is. but the pack had a ton of injuries this season and not much to start with. favre's really not that old.

Deer had 25 HRs, 89 BBs, and had an OPS right at .700. allowing a .179 hitter to get 537 PA's is criminally stupid. and actually, a .179 hitter having a .700 OPS is pretty amazing, too.

hawk harrelson walked 99 times in 1969 and only posted a .336 OBP. what's more, is that he hit 30 home runs, walked 99 times, and posted a meager .755 OPS. that has to be some sort of record. 30 home runs, nearly 100 walks and didn't even come close to .800.

hendry not doing the best job he can might be opinion, but jacque jones is not an upgrade to burnitz at all, and that's statistical fact. Comparing last year's numbers, yes, but projecting forward I would say jj is a slight upgrade. Upgrade enough, most definitely not, but in 2006 most likely a slight upgrade. that remains to be seen. as of right now, he's not an upgrade. He's neither an upgrade or a downgrade, until JJ's 06' season is played out. It's is strictly opinion & pure speculation to think otherwise. judging from last year, and his career numbers, he's definitely not an upgrade. using your logic, we would have no way of knowing whether jones would be an upgrade to miguel cabrera. one cannot predict that jones will have a better year than burntiz based on anything but the age argument.

hendry not doing the best job he can might be opinion, but jacque jones is not an upgrade to burnitz at all, and that's statistical fact. Comparing last year's numbers, yes, but projecting forward I would say jj is a slight upgrade. Upgrade enough, most definitely not, but in 2006 most likely a slight upgrade. that remains to be seen. as of right now, he's not an upgrade.

hendry not doing the best job he can might be opinion, but jacque jones is not an upgrade to burnitz at all, and that's statistical fact.

i'd take either, it's a tossup as i've never heard of any character issues with cabrera, other than he's 22 years-old.