Posted on: July 30, 2008 3:53 pm
  •  
 

Another Favre Blog...

I've read dozens of articles on this story, as has everyone else. I keep reading comments from fans about how the Packers should let Favre and Rodgers "compete" for the starting job. I've read that the Packers owe it to the fans to have the best player as the starting QB and that it should be decided during training camp.

I respect the whole competition idea and competition usually breeds success, hell look at our country, it's based on the premise of competition in the open market. Unfortunately, when it comes to starting QBs in the NFL and team success, a QB controversy (ie starter being decided during training camp), there is a rather slim if any chance of winning the Super Bowl. Just look at recent Super Bowl champs, how many of them went into training camp with an open QB competition.

2007-08 New York Giants- Eli was the starting QB
2006-07 Indianapolis Colts- no comment necessary (Peyton Manning)
2005-06 Pittsburgh Steelers- Ben Roethlisburger was the starting QB
2004-05 New England Pats- Tom Brady
2003-04 New Engladn Pats- Tom Brady
2002-03 Tampa Bay Bucs- Brad Johnson from start to finish
2001-02 New England Pats- Drew Bledsoe was starter and got injured, no training camp controversy.
2000-01Baltimore Ravens- Tony Banks was the starter going into the season and was benched for Dilfer, not controverys in training camp.

The list goes on and on, with previous seasons including John Elway with the Broncos, Brett Favre with the Packers, Troy Aikman with the Cowboys, etc... Of course things can change over the course of a season, as is seen with Banks being benched for Dilfer and Brady stepping in for the injured Bledsoe. BUT, a team needs to go into training camp with a starter. That player needs to be under center to perfect his timing with receivers, the offensive line, play calling and leadership. With the QB position, there needs to be consistency and stability and a training camp without a declared startin QB does not breed any of the above.

The Packers have their minds set on Aaron Rodgers as the starting QB and though I do not necessarily believe that they have their best chances of winning with Rodgers under center, bringing Favre in to "compete" for the starting job will do nothing but create distraction and offset the great strides the young receivers made last season.
Posted on: June 23, 2008 4:46 pm
 

Favorites? Underdog? Media's changing influence..

I've noticed a recent trend in how the media is portraying favorites and underdogs and am finding the media's influence to be rather striking.
In the recent NBA finals series between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics, the media found a way to portray the Lakers as the favorites for the series. All of the intangibles pointed to Boston, but somehow they were underestimated and made to be the underdogs.
Let's take a look, the Celtics swept the season series against the Lakers. They had the best record in the NBA, far and away. They had the best road record in the NBA and had just beaten the team with the second best record in the NBA, to reach the finals.
Now, let's take a look at the Lakers, best record in the West, solid counterpoint. They just beat the defending champions, but the Spurs did not have as solid of an NBA season as either the Celtics or the Pistons. The Spurs were essentially playing without their spark, with Manu hurt and underperforming.
The players, Kobe, Odom and Gasol...KG, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen...Come on, Kobe may be the best player on earth, but Odom is nowhere near the quality of KG and Gasol is known to be soft against the more physical Eastern Conference. Ray Allen is one of the best shooters in the NBA. The Lakers were young and had less talent, especially with guys like PJ Brown, James Posey and Sam Cassell coming off the bench.
EVERYTHING pointed to the Celtics, but they were somehow portrayed as the underdogs.
NOW, in tennis, Roger Federer is being portrayed as an underdog, with Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic as the guys to beat. That is simply ludicrous. Federer is the five time defending champion of The Championsips at Wimbledon and just came off of another finals appearance on the Red Clay of Roland Garros. This may not be Federer's most dominant season, but this is his most dominant surface and they guy has to be the clear cut, head and shoulders favorite to win his sixth consecutive Wimbledon championship.
I do not know if this trend has started as a way to explain the loss by the heavy favorite New England Patriots. Maybe it is a way to minimize a strong favorite, in case there is another upset by an underdog. If this is the case, I think it is a great injustice to sports fans and underdogs alike. The American culture loves a big upset and if underdogs are minimized, the great upsets lose luster. Teams like the Giants need to continue to be praised for overcoming long odds to beat a proven champion.
If Roger Federer loses at Wimbledon, it should be a huge story, not something that the media posited, just in case he happens to lose. I certainly hope this is a limited trend that fades, as I would hate to see the dying of a classic American favorite, David versus Goliath and the Cinderella story.
 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com