Edward or Jacob?
Jack or Locke?
Packers or Favre?
The thousands of Orcs who were just doing their job or those pesky Hobbits who were literally hell-bent on destroying a nice-looking piece of jewelry?
Once in awhile, life forces people to choose sides, even if making such a decision isn’t easy or clear.
The most obvious example in which people have to choose sides is the whole Team Edward or Team Jacob debate stirred up by the “Twilight” films and books. I’ll proclaim I’m above reading those books, as I can’t imagine devoting any of my schedule to doing so, but when it comes to films I’ll admit that taking two hours out of my schedule for a good laugh isn’t below me
The first two films in the “Twilight” series are great entertainment in that they can suck a person in quickly, just by watching a minute or so. My wife, Jenny, fell victim this way when I noticed the first film was on Showtime and I teased her that she wanted to watch it. When I tried to change the channel, she wouldn’t allow me, forcing me to watch it a second time. (The first time I did so was to review it for The Gazette. For the record, I gave it passing marks, but barely).
Since the second film was available to rent, she tricked me into renting it, simply by asking me if I were for Team Edward or Team Jacob. Jacob only had a minor role in the first film, so I chose Edward. She was all about Jacob, and this clash of opinions, which I’m always a fan of when it occurs, caused me to pick it up at the video store.
It was just as cheesy as the first film, with special effects so bad they made the ones in the 1970s television show “Buck Rogers in the 25th Century” look like “Avatar” by comparison. But the story, much like the shows on Telemundo and some of the dying soap operas on American television, is told in such a way people not only want to see what’s next, they develop a need to see the next development.
The same applies to the other examples I provided at the top of this column. Fans of “Lost,” many who have probably been lost for the last four years while watching this show, are now learning they have to choose between Jack Shepherd, the man of science, and John Locke, the man of faith. The show, in its final season, has made it seem as though Shepherd is the correct choice, but a big part of me believes the writers are going to turn it around at the end to show the man of faith is the right one.
The Packers or Brett Favre debate is one of loyalty vs. fandom. Does one commit to the team he or she has been loyal to since birth, or does one stick with the person he or she has followed fervently since 1992? I went with Favre in the debate, because the Packers will be there the rest of my life while Favre’s football playing years are probably limited (I say probably because, well, you never know with him).
With my “Lord of the Rings” example, people assume the Orcs are evil and don’t even deserve consideration, but they only did what they were created to do, which was to be evil. I guess the Hobbits had a right to fight back, but they probably could have lived the rest of their lives in the corner of their world without much disruption from the Orcs. Then again, the Orcs may have murdered them in their sleep, played football with their carcasses and then eaten them for breakfast.
People who make wrong choices are sometimes unwilling to admit it. No one likes to admit he or she is wrong, and when there is no definite answer, people don’t necessarily have to, even if others make more convincing arguments for an opposing side. That’s why I’ll never like a Hobbit again.
Showing posts with label Brett Favre. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brett Favre. Show all posts
Friday, April 16, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Favre vs. Schwarzenegger debate comes to self-ending conclusion
If Brett Favre, the quarterback the vast majority of this country thinks is the greatest of all time except for the people in Wisconsin, and Arnold Schwarzenegger were to get in a fight, who would win?
I’ll admit, it’s a stupid question that probably shouldn’t take up valuable space in a newspaper with limited space that could be used for better things, but I ask because it’s become a 13-year-long argument I’ve had with former co-workers at another newspaper, and I want it settled.
It began innocently enough in 1997, when the Green Bay Packers, under Favre’s leadership, were in the midst of a failed campaign to defend the Super Bowl title they had won earlier in the year. One of those co-workers, Bonnie, kept talking about Favre as though he was mankind’s salvation for all of its problems. This, of course, was before Bono from U2 unofficially took on that role.
I politely listened to her rhetoric, nodding approval to the things she said mainly because, as the new guy there, I didn’t want to get on her bad side, nor the bad side of our boss, Mary, who wholeheartedly agreed with everything she said. In fact, Mary often added points Bonnie may have missed to make the argument about Favre’s greatness stronger.
One day, in a bad mood about something I can’t recall, I finally spoke up when I couldn’t take their spiel anymore. “Brett Favre is not a god,” I said. “Practically anybody could beat him in a fight.”
“Name one?” they asked.
My brain immediately conjured up someone with some of the biggest muscles of all time: Arnold Schwarzenegger. At the time, he was already past his prime, and his films hadn’t been doing well at the box office. People suspected he had political aspirations, but he was still more than six years away from becoming governor of California. Thinking back, I should have chosen a better opponent for Favre, one they couldn’t have questioned, but it was still a solid choice any right-minded person wouldn’t question.
But they weren’t right-minded when it came to Favre, and they attacked my response. “He can barely speak English,” Bonnie said.
“He’s foreign and English isn’t his native tongue. How many languages can you speak?” I retorted.
“He doesn’t have any brains,” Mary argued.
“Have you seen ‘Pumping Iron,’ the documentary in which he uses his sharp wit to torment Lou Ferigno, the Incredible Hulk, into losing the Mr. Universe contest? The guy is one of the sharpest minds in Hollywood,” I answered.
“He’s slow,” Bonnie said.
“Favre’s not much faster,” I said, not realizing 13 years later if he would have had any speed he could have ran a few yards, avoided an interception, and most likely returned to the Super Bowl for the third time.
“Favre is street smart,” said Bonnie.
I’m not sure what made her believe he was street smart, as he grew up in rural Mississippi, far away from any streets where he may have needed any such smarts. Most likely, he had a hunting rifle with him at all times, so the ability to defend himself did not rest with physical strength, but rather with the ability to fire a rifle accurately at a target. And judging by the lack of stories out there about Favre ever doing this, I’m sure he never even got in situations he needed to defend himself.
I decided I needed to end the argument.
“He was ‘Conan the Barbarian.’ He knocked out a camel with one punch.”
The argument should have ended with that statement, but Bonnie had to point out “Conan” was just a film.
“Yes, but people seeing it believed it could be real because Arnold had the muscles and looked like a person who could knock out a camel with one punch.”
Again, argument ended.
But, no. They kept insisting Favre’s “street smarts” and “speed” would take down Schwarzenegger’s muscles quickly.
It was clear neither of us was going to back down on our positions.
Relying on others hasn’t helped us settle the argument. Although the majority of people I’ve talked to about this argument agree with me, a few have taken their side.
I’m confident this argument could have ended several times, had they used a few opportunities in which they’ve had conversations with Favre himself to poise the question to him. I’m sure he would have agreed with me.
To this day, when I see my former co-workers, the argument continues to come up. Although they now feel betrayed and hurt by Favre, they still refuse to acknowledge I am the winner in the argument, just like I’ll refuse to ever concede victory to them.
I was supposed to go to the Wisconsin Newspaper Association Annual Convention last week with Mary, but she backed out at the last minute. I’m pretty sure she knew I may have been able to get her to accept my win in the debate. I’m not letting her off that easy, though. This column is my final say in the matter, as I use it to declare victory.
I’ll admit, it’s a stupid question that probably shouldn’t take up valuable space in a newspaper with limited space that could be used for better things, but I ask because it’s become a 13-year-long argument I’ve had with former co-workers at another newspaper, and I want it settled.
It began innocently enough in 1997, when the Green Bay Packers, under Favre’s leadership, were in the midst of a failed campaign to defend the Super Bowl title they had won earlier in the year. One of those co-workers, Bonnie, kept talking about Favre as though he was mankind’s salvation for all of its problems. This, of course, was before Bono from U2 unofficially took on that role.
I politely listened to her rhetoric, nodding approval to the things she said mainly because, as the new guy there, I didn’t want to get on her bad side, nor the bad side of our boss, Mary, who wholeheartedly agreed with everything she said. In fact, Mary often added points Bonnie may have missed to make the argument about Favre’s greatness stronger.
One day, in a bad mood about something I can’t recall, I finally spoke up when I couldn’t take their spiel anymore. “Brett Favre is not a god,” I said. “Practically anybody could beat him in a fight.”
“Name one?” they asked.
My brain immediately conjured up someone with some of the biggest muscles of all time: Arnold Schwarzenegger. At the time, he was already past his prime, and his films hadn’t been doing well at the box office. People suspected he had political aspirations, but he was still more than six years away from becoming governor of California. Thinking back, I should have chosen a better opponent for Favre, one they couldn’t have questioned, but it was still a solid choice any right-minded person wouldn’t question.
But they weren’t right-minded when it came to Favre, and they attacked my response. “He can barely speak English,” Bonnie said.
“He’s foreign and English isn’t his native tongue. How many languages can you speak?” I retorted.
“He doesn’t have any brains,” Mary argued.
“Have you seen ‘Pumping Iron,’ the documentary in which he uses his sharp wit to torment Lou Ferigno, the Incredible Hulk, into losing the Mr. Universe contest? The guy is one of the sharpest minds in Hollywood,” I answered.
“He’s slow,” Bonnie said.
“Favre’s not much faster,” I said, not realizing 13 years later if he would have had any speed he could have ran a few yards, avoided an interception, and most likely returned to the Super Bowl for the third time.
“Favre is street smart,” said Bonnie.
I’m not sure what made her believe he was street smart, as he grew up in rural Mississippi, far away from any streets where he may have needed any such smarts. Most likely, he had a hunting rifle with him at all times, so the ability to defend himself did not rest with physical strength, but rather with the ability to fire a rifle accurately at a target. And judging by the lack of stories out there about Favre ever doing this, I’m sure he never even got in situations he needed to defend himself.
I decided I needed to end the argument.
“He was ‘Conan the Barbarian.’ He knocked out a camel with one punch.”
The argument should have ended with that statement, but Bonnie had to point out “Conan” was just a film.
“Yes, but people seeing it believed it could be real because Arnold had the muscles and looked like a person who could knock out a camel with one punch.”
Again, argument ended.
But, no. They kept insisting Favre’s “street smarts” and “speed” would take down Schwarzenegger’s muscles quickly.
It was clear neither of us was going to back down on our positions.
Relying on others hasn’t helped us settle the argument. Although the majority of people I’ve talked to about this argument agree with me, a few have taken their side.
I’m confident this argument could have ended several times, had they used a few opportunities in which they’ve had conversations with Favre himself to poise the question to him. I’m sure he would have agreed with me.
To this day, when I see my former co-workers, the argument continues to come up. Although they now feel betrayed and hurt by Favre, they still refuse to acknowledge I am the winner in the argument, just like I’ll refuse to ever concede victory to them.
I was supposed to go to the Wisconsin Newspaper Association Annual Convention last week with Mary, but she backed out at the last minute. I’m pretty sure she knew I may have been able to get her to accept my win in the debate. I’m not letting her off that easy, though. This column is my final say in the matter, as I use it to declare victory.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Favre situation offers plenty of taunting opportunities
Am I a mean person because I occasionally like to taunt people?
When word leaked Tuesday, Aug. 18, that Brett Favre was about to sign with the Minnesota Vikings, I immediately sent an e-mail to former co-workers of mine who are Green Bay Packers fanatics and former obsessed fans of Favre.
The e-mail simply stated: “It’s a lovely day seeing Brett sign with Minnesota. Vikings 42 Packers 17 (first game). Vikings 56 Packers 3 (second game).”
Personally, I hate the Vikings and I do like the Packers; however, I grew up on Brett Favre, and in my humble opinion, he got shafted by the organization last year when he wanted to return after basically being forced to retire by Packers general manager Ted Thompson and his staff.
At my former job, at another newspaper in central Wisconsin, I had to listen to Brett Favre and Packers talk all day. They made him out to be a god, and whenever I pointed out he had some flaws – only one championship, a prescription drug addiction, plenty of interceptions – they scolded me for blasphemy.
When I once suggested that Arnold Schwarzenegger would beat him in a fight, they argued Favre was more street smart and would destroy the Terminator. I couldn’t win when it came to criticizing the quarterback.
That didn’t stop me from trying. At every possible moment I taunted them when he lost a game, threw an interception or did something foolish. It wasn’t because I actually disliked him, but because I enjoyed getting them all fired up in rebutting my arguments.
But when Favre retired, and then wanted to unretire, their entire attitude changed. He was no longer a god, but rather an over-the-hill icon who should step aside and allow someone else to take the reins.
This sudden change in attitude surprised me, as it meant I could no longer taunt them like I continued to do even after changing jobs.
Unless, of course, I took a new approach, and that new approach is to taunt them by being pro-Favre and anti-Packer.
It’s tough being anti-Packer, but it’s quite fun being pro-Favre. It was great last year, until an injury ruined the final part of his season with the New York Jets, because I was able to send my former co-workers plenty of e-mails when the Jets were doing well and the Packers were playing like the team I was expecting them to be without Favre.
I expect more of the same this year, especially when Favre unhinges the Packers season when he blows them away Oct. 5. I’m already contemplating things I can do when this happens.
I could send them a cheesehead with a Minnesota-clad Favre doll staking a hole through it with a Viking spear.
I could write a letter on Favre’s behalf asking for all his memorabilia back, as he’ll be able to sell it for top dollar in Minnesota where the people there truly appreciate him.
I could write an obituary for the Green Bay Packers and say the organization is survived by Favre, a legend that brought life back to the organization after dying in the 1970s and 1980s and who could have kept it alive for at least two more seasons now.
There’s plenty I can do, and all will give me great pleasure. I just better hope Favre lives up to my expectations, or I’ll have to eat my own taunts.
When word leaked Tuesday, Aug. 18, that Brett Favre was about to sign with the Minnesota Vikings, I immediately sent an e-mail to former co-workers of mine who are Green Bay Packers fanatics and former obsessed fans of Favre.
The e-mail simply stated: “It’s a lovely day seeing Brett sign with Minnesota. Vikings 42 Packers 17 (first game). Vikings 56 Packers 3 (second game).”
Personally, I hate the Vikings and I do like the Packers; however, I grew up on Brett Favre, and in my humble opinion, he got shafted by the organization last year when he wanted to return after basically being forced to retire by Packers general manager Ted Thompson and his staff.
At my former job, at another newspaper in central Wisconsin, I had to listen to Brett Favre and Packers talk all day. They made him out to be a god, and whenever I pointed out he had some flaws – only one championship, a prescription drug addiction, plenty of interceptions – they scolded me for blasphemy.
When I once suggested that Arnold Schwarzenegger would beat him in a fight, they argued Favre was more street smart and would destroy the Terminator. I couldn’t win when it came to criticizing the quarterback.
That didn’t stop me from trying. At every possible moment I taunted them when he lost a game, threw an interception or did something foolish. It wasn’t because I actually disliked him, but because I enjoyed getting them all fired up in rebutting my arguments.
But when Favre retired, and then wanted to unretire, their entire attitude changed. He was no longer a god, but rather an over-the-hill icon who should step aside and allow someone else to take the reins.
This sudden change in attitude surprised me, as it meant I could no longer taunt them like I continued to do even after changing jobs.
Unless, of course, I took a new approach, and that new approach is to taunt them by being pro-Favre and anti-Packer.
It’s tough being anti-Packer, but it’s quite fun being pro-Favre. It was great last year, until an injury ruined the final part of his season with the New York Jets, because I was able to send my former co-workers plenty of e-mails when the Jets were doing well and the Packers were playing like the team I was expecting them to be without Favre.
I expect more of the same this year, especially when Favre unhinges the Packers season when he blows them away Oct. 5. I’m already contemplating things I can do when this happens.
I could send them a cheesehead with a Minnesota-clad Favre doll staking a hole through it with a Viking spear.
I could write a letter on Favre’s behalf asking for all his memorabilia back, as he’ll be able to sell it for top dollar in Minnesota where the people there truly appreciate him.
I could write an obituary for the Green Bay Packers and say the organization is survived by Favre, a legend that brought life back to the organization after dying in the 1970s and 1980s and who could have kept it alive for at least two more seasons now.
There’s plenty I can do, and all will give me great pleasure. I just better hope Favre lives up to my expectations, or I’ll have to eat my own taunts.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Conversation becomes more difficult following election
Now that the election is over, what will people talk about?
The election has been a source of a lot of conversations in the last few months. I know I’ve had plenty of political discussions about are sorts of issues, not just the presidential race, with people who both share and disagree with my political views. (Just for the record, I’ll keep that view mum in print, as I always do.)
But now that a new president has been elected, and other issues and races have been decided, debating and talking about the results may provide a few more conversations, although none of them will be nearly as much fun as the ones before the election.
However, it’s hard to get into a nasty political discussion in which you get damned to an eternal hell by someone with an opposing view in talking about election results, although it may be fun to push a few buttons to trigger such a response. What is done is done, and your personal opinion doesn’t really matter anymore.
People could talk about the weather, always an easy conversation, but it’s been pretty mild outside, and unless we get hit up with some of last winter’s weather, this topic is dead with the first uttering of “So, what do you think about this weather?”
Talking about the economy is too depressing, and nobody wants to hear about somebody’s job that’s not their own. I suppose people could always talk about the Green Bay Packers, but I think everybody got their fill during the whole Brett Favre ordeal. Even though I would like to mention his team is 5-3, while the Packers are only 4-4, and his team was definitely the lesser team based on last year’s records.
I’ve never watched “The View” in my life, but it was a subject people could always chime in with an opinion about based on the political arguments those ladies were bickering about. But those ladies won’t have much to argue about now that the election is over.
Fortunately for “The View” ladies, they can bring celebrities onto their show and talk with them. Ordinary people like us don’t have that luxury. We could always talk about celebrities, but even that topic is stale since Britney Spears is no longer driving around without a license and hitting paparazzi while holding her babies and munching on Cheetos as Michael Jackson dangles his from balconies.
What is needed now for a good conversation is some sort of fire starter. And guess what, I’ve got five of them. In no particular order:
1) Ask the person you are attempting to have a conversation with about the exact thought he or she is thinking about at that moment. My wife does this to me all the time, and when we were dating I used to try to think of genius-sounding replies for when she asked me that question. I didn’t want to sound too foolish. Now, I actually tell her what I’m thinking. I’m a guy, so most of the time my thoughts are simple – food, funny, football. Basically, anything the Hulk would say.
2) Pick a subject you know nothing about, research it a little, and then try to impress others with your knowledge about the subject. Make sure it is something they don’t know anything about and one they don’t think you know anything about. For example, headhunters in Africa would be a great topic. It’s interesting and nobody really knows much about them. But the Internet has volumes about the subject. Wikipedia is a great friend here.
3) Talk about a recent bad experience at a restaurant. That’s a topic most everybody has experienced, and it’s one people love to talk about. It’s fun to compare horror stories, and oftentimes people try to outdo each other in terms of who had the worst experience.
4) If you find the adults in your presence are really boring, start a conversation with a young child. I’ve got a 3-year-old and talking with him is always entertaining. Simple questions such as “Well, why is that?” can provoke complicated answers that make absolutely no sense but are hilarious. Or sometimes you might get a question in reply to your question. “You tell me why” is my favorite one. If you don’t know how to talk to young children like this, YouTube “Bill Cosby” and “Children,” and he’ll show you how to master it.
5) If all of these fire starters fail, you could always talk about the next presidential election. “Who should run four years from now?” sounds like a great one. Just don’t be surprised if you get punched in the face. But then you would be a hero, because you would provide plenty of conversation for others around you.
The election has been a source of a lot of conversations in the last few months. I know I’ve had plenty of political discussions about are sorts of issues, not just the presidential race, with people who both share and disagree with my political views. (Just for the record, I’ll keep that view mum in print, as I always do.)
But now that a new president has been elected, and other issues and races have been decided, debating and talking about the results may provide a few more conversations, although none of them will be nearly as much fun as the ones before the election.
However, it’s hard to get into a nasty political discussion in which you get damned to an eternal hell by someone with an opposing view in talking about election results, although it may be fun to push a few buttons to trigger such a response. What is done is done, and your personal opinion doesn’t really matter anymore.
People could talk about the weather, always an easy conversation, but it’s been pretty mild outside, and unless we get hit up with some of last winter’s weather, this topic is dead with the first uttering of “So, what do you think about this weather?”
Talking about the economy is too depressing, and nobody wants to hear about somebody’s job that’s not their own. I suppose people could always talk about the Green Bay Packers, but I think everybody got their fill during the whole Brett Favre ordeal. Even though I would like to mention his team is 5-3, while the Packers are only 4-4, and his team was definitely the lesser team based on last year’s records.
I’ve never watched “The View” in my life, but it was a subject people could always chime in with an opinion about based on the political arguments those ladies were bickering about. But those ladies won’t have much to argue about now that the election is over.
Fortunately for “The View” ladies, they can bring celebrities onto their show and talk with them. Ordinary people like us don’t have that luxury. We could always talk about celebrities, but even that topic is stale since Britney Spears is no longer driving around without a license and hitting paparazzi while holding her babies and munching on Cheetos as Michael Jackson dangles his from balconies.
What is needed now for a good conversation is some sort of fire starter. And guess what, I’ve got five of them. In no particular order:
1) Ask the person you are attempting to have a conversation with about the exact thought he or she is thinking about at that moment. My wife does this to me all the time, and when we were dating I used to try to think of genius-sounding replies for when she asked me that question. I didn’t want to sound too foolish. Now, I actually tell her what I’m thinking. I’m a guy, so most of the time my thoughts are simple – food, funny, football. Basically, anything the Hulk would say.
2) Pick a subject you know nothing about, research it a little, and then try to impress others with your knowledge about the subject. Make sure it is something they don’t know anything about and one they don’t think you know anything about. For example, headhunters in Africa would be a great topic. It’s interesting and nobody really knows much about them. But the Internet has volumes about the subject. Wikipedia is a great friend here.
3) Talk about a recent bad experience at a restaurant. That’s a topic most everybody has experienced, and it’s one people love to talk about. It’s fun to compare horror stories, and oftentimes people try to outdo each other in terms of who had the worst experience.
4) If you find the adults in your presence are really boring, start a conversation with a young child. I’ve got a 3-year-old and talking with him is always entertaining. Simple questions such as “Well, why is that?” can provoke complicated answers that make absolutely no sense but are hilarious. Or sometimes you might get a question in reply to your question. “You tell me why” is my favorite one. If you don’t know how to talk to young children like this, YouTube “Bill Cosby” and “Children,” and he’ll show you how to master it.
5) If all of these fire starters fail, you could always talk about the next presidential election. “Who should run four years from now?” sounds like a great one. Just don’t be surprised if you get punched in the face. But then you would be a hero, because you would provide plenty of conversation for others around you.
Favre should become professional poker player
I am on the verge of owing $5 to our sports editor, John Kemmeter.
I say I’m on the verge because a bet we made with each other in March hasn’t yet come true to his favor, but it is about to, provided the Green Bay Packers don’t cause him to lose on a technicality.
You see, I bet John that Packers quarterback Brett Favre would stay retired. I was sure of it, after watching the emotional press conference in which he announced his retirement.
John, in a column in the March 7 issue of The Gazette, said he was skeptical. “I just don’t think this one is going to stick,” he wrote. “I’ll only believe Brett Favre’s retired when the season starts and he’s not there.”
John compared Favre to other athletes who attempted comebacks after retiring prematurely – great ones like Michael Jordan and Muhammad Ali – and said Favre “has been the NFL’s ultimate warrior, playing through any injury or adversity that was thrown at him. Through a vicodin addiction, injuries that would have kept most quarterbacks on the sideline and personal tragedies, Favre has always shown up on game day to keep his streak of 275 consecutive starts intact.
“I’ve always felt that he would play until they carted him off the field due to injury or when he just couldn’t physically play at a high level any more,” he wrote.
Although I hoped John was right, because I would have liked to see Favre play for the Packers until he literally couldn’t physically do so anymore, I thought he was wrong. At the conclusion of every season, it was always a roller coaster ride as to whether Favre was going to retire or not, but it was always welcome news to hear “not yet.” Eventually, I knew, those words would be replaced with “it’s time to go,” and when he finally said it in March I wasn’t surprised.
However, I was surprised at the emotion at which he said those words, making it seem like he truly had had enough of the game. So when John boldly claimed in print that Favre’s retirement won’t last the off-season, I seized what I thought was an opportunity to make a little money off the foolish thoughts of a hopeful wisher.
I’m not a gambler and rarely make bets with other people. But I do enjoy poker and one of the most important skills a poker player can have is reading your opponent. Although he wasn’t my opponent, Favre seemed sincere about his retirement at his press conference and a $5 bet with John seemed like a sure thing.
Four months later, my poker read was wrong and John is about to become $5 richer. He said he is going to use that money to purchase a Favre poster that he is going to hang in my office to make sure I remember I was the loser of the bet.
I’d happily hang the poster if it meant Favre would play another season for the Green and Gold, but it looks like a “comeback,” if you can even call it that, will probably be with another team. I’m a Packer loyalist, and to see Favre in another uniform would be disheartening, but he’s got to do what is best for him and what the Packers will allow him to do. If that means he plays for the Vikings or some other team I hate next season, I’ll still be a Favre fan.
I may win the bet yet, because the Packers may not allow him to play with them or another team. He has to be suited up in order for John to win, but it would be a hollow victory if I win this way, because John read Favre perfectly.
I don’t know how John was able to accurately predict that Favre would want to return. Maybe he’s clairvoyant or maybe he got lucky. Whatever the case, perhaps he should be the one in charge of running the Packers’ organization. He obviously knew something Packers’ big wigs Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy, who both have better inside knowledge, did not.
But here’s a little knowledge I possess that those two obviously don’t have – the decision to keep Favre out of a Packers uniform will look bad when Aaron Rodgers goes down quickly with an injury and the Packers finish the season 3-13. It’s knowledge most everybody in Wisconsin except those two probably have.
I say I’m on the verge because a bet we made with each other in March hasn’t yet come true to his favor, but it is about to, provided the Green Bay Packers don’t cause him to lose on a technicality.
You see, I bet John that Packers quarterback Brett Favre would stay retired. I was sure of it, after watching the emotional press conference in which he announced his retirement.
John, in a column in the March 7 issue of The Gazette, said he was skeptical. “I just don’t think this one is going to stick,” he wrote. “I’ll only believe Brett Favre’s retired when the season starts and he’s not there.”
John compared Favre to other athletes who attempted comebacks after retiring prematurely – great ones like Michael Jordan and Muhammad Ali – and said Favre “has been the NFL’s ultimate warrior, playing through any injury or adversity that was thrown at him. Through a vicodin addiction, injuries that would have kept most quarterbacks on the sideline and personal tragedies, Favre has always shown up on game day to keep his streak of 275 consecutive starts intact.
“I’ve always felt that he would play until they carted him off the field due to injury or when he just couldn’t physically play at a high level any more,” he wrote.
Although I hoped John was right, because I would have liked to see Favre play for the Packers until he literally couldn’t physically do so anymore, I thought he was wrong. At the conclusion of every season, it was always a roller coaster ride as to whether Favre was going to retire or not, but it was always welcome news to hear “not yet.” Eventually, I knew, those words would be replaced with “it’s time to go,” and when he finally said it in March I wasn’t surprised.
However, I was surprised at the emotion at which he said those words, making it seem like he truly had had enough of the game. So when John boldly claimed in print that Favre’s retirement won’t last the off-season, I seized what I thought was an opportunity to make a little money off the foolish thoughts of a hopeful wisher.
I’m not a gambler and rarely make bets with other people. But I do enjoy poker and one of the most important skills a poker player can have is reading your opponent. Although he wasn’t my opponent, Favre seemed sincere about his retirement at his press conference and a $5 bet with John seemed like a sure thing.
Four months later, my poker read was wrong and John is about to become $5 richer. He said he is going to use that money to purchase a Favre poster that he is going to hang in my office to make sure I remember I was the loser of the bet.
I’d happily hang the poster if it meant Favre would play another season for the Green and Gold, but it looks like a “comeback,” if you can even call it that, will probably be with another team. I’m a Packer loyalist, and to see Favre in another uniform would be disheartening, but he’s got to do what is best for him and what the Packers will allow him to do. If that means he plays for the Vikings or some other team I hate next season, I’ll still be a Favre fan.
I may win the bet yet, because the Packers may not allow him to play with them or another team. He has to be suited up in order for John to win, but it would be a hollow victory if I win this way, because John read Favre perfectly.
I don’t know how John was able to accurately predict that Favre would want to return. Maybe he’s clairvoyant or maybe he got lucky. Whatever the case, perhaps he should be the one in charge of running the Packers’ organization. He obviously knew something Packers’ big wigs Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy, who both have better inside knowledge, did not.
But here’s a little knowledge I possess that those two obviously don’t have – the decision to keep Favre out of a Packers uniform will look bad when Aaron Rodgers goes down quickly with an injury and the Packers finish the season 3-13. It’s knowledge most everybody in Wisconsin except those two probably have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)