Jesus christ, what a bunch of candyasses. "Oh, don't say anything unkind about Brett, you're just bashing him!" "Oh, heavens, don't criticize Brett, you're just a hater!" "Oh, mercy, only a troll would say that Brett is anything less than perfect!" "Gosh - he pointed out one of Brett's flaws! He must hate Brett, what other explanation could there possibly be?" Look, you Favre cultists want to believe Brett is the son of god, go ahead. Don't let me stop you. I've probably said as many positive things about the man as I have negative, but if all you see is the negative, that speaks volumes about the black and white thinking and total lack of objectivity that typifies hero worshippers. If you simply cannot bear to hear an unflattering word about your idol, you've got two choices - grow a sack and rent a pair of balls to stuff inside it, or put me on ignore. Because until they rename this the "Only Post Nice Things About Saint Brett" forum, I'm going to continue to post both the good and the bad. If that's too complicated for your simple minds to grasp, there's not much i can do for you unless I can figure out some way to post in crayon. If you Favreheads want to run around posting bullshit affirmations of your hero's noble nature, and equally bullshit condemnations of the team's management, then I'm going to feel free to come along every now and then and poke holes in your bullshit. I would like to take a moment to point out, however, that thus far in this thread, I've been the only one who's offered any actual data to support my position, whereas the Favreheads have (true to form) responded only with their usual "Stop bashing Brett! I don't want to hear it!" If you've got an argument, bring it. If you don't, stop your fucking crying. It's very unbecoming, and serves only to fuel my contempt and validate my already-dismal evaluation of the maturity and mental faculties of the typical Favre-worshipper.
Again.....you're at the wrong forum. That shit belongs at a GB messageboards with the rest of the ingrates.
Is it just me, or... as a long-suffering Jets fan, do I enjoy all the attention the Jets get from ESPN and the rest of the media? Last year the Jets were relegated to the back pages of our local newspapers after the SpyGate controversy slowed down. Since the team lost a lot of games it was sort of understandable, but because they were a playoff team the year before I hoped for more. Then again, the Giants won the damn Super Bowl, so I was prepared for another ten years of "invisible Jets." Are Jets fans getting spoiled already? Are we expecting the media to give us favorable coverage before a single, meaningful game has been played? Do we really expect Favre to lead the team to the Super Bowl? Let's just calm down, OK?
And again I ask you, specifically what shit? Will just one of you people man up and say exactly what it is you are unable to tolerate about what I have to say about Favre? What shit belongs on the Packer forums? Support of Packer management? Any sort of disagreement with anyone who insists on worshipping at the altar of Farve? Will just one of you people have the balls to come out and say it so I at least know what I'm arguing against? Or are you guys even capable of elevating your emotional reaction to a verbal level? The way I look at it, it's your shit that belongs on the Packer boards. It's you and your crew who have dragged your personal vendettas against Packer management into the Jets forum. I haven't said one word about Thompson or McCarthy except in response to some of the unfair and inaccurate insults that have been leveled here at those two highly competent people. And every time some Favrehead posts one of their cheap shots, and i disagree with it, I'm the one you call a troll? Leave your TT hatred in the Packer boards, and leave this one for discussion of the Jets and Brett Favre. I'm here to have open discussions about football, and about Favre. I think most Jets fans here feel the same way. All you guys want to do is fawn over Favre like he's some sort of deity, and claw the eyes out of anyone who dares to mention that he's got flaws in his game. There are already forums with that particular format; I don't think the Jets fans want their board to be turned into something so grade-schoolish. If I'm wrong, they can tell me so, but I don't think that's the case. The thing that bothers me the most about this is that you guys are embarrassing the rest of the Packer fans with this shit. You're making us all look like a bunch of tiny-minded bumpkins who don't know shit about football except that Brett Favre Is The Greatest Quarterback Who Ever Lived, and that does every one of us real Packer fans a disservice. I wish you'd cut it out.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the support and the feedback. You guys really have some great, knowledgeable football fans here. I'm looking forward to a lot of good football talk with you folks as the season progresses.
OK. Let me just repost what I was replying to in its entirety, also maybe highlighting some things. Care to explain to us exactly which of the "us" and "this team" references refer to the Jets? Again, this is NOT a Packers forum, and this stuff does not belong here. I appreciate that the Jets fans here have (mostly) welcomed Favre transplants, but we in return have to show equal consideration and not try to turn this site into "PackerReports East." Please don't give the rest of the transplants here a bad name; please just stop it. If you can't post about Favre as a JET, how Farvre does in JETS games, what Favre means to JETS team, how Favre compares to other JETS quarterbacks, or ... at the very least ... if you HAVE to talk and talk and talk only aobut the Packers, there should be at least a WEAK ATTEMPT to tie it somehow to what it means for the Jets somewhere in that post. No one is asking you to fawn over Favre, we're just saying you need to make your posts at least .00001% about the Jets and not 100% about the Packers. Otherwise, please stop it. Or go someplace else to talk about that stuff -- like the rest of us do. Guests should not wear out their welcome when they first arrive. This site is for fans who care about the Jets and want to see them win, for whatever reason (loyalty to organization or specific team members). It's not for trolls to come and go on and on and bash players for what they did or did not do on other teams, and not talk about the Jets at all. You are the only one talking about Favre as the "son of god" (!!! Where I come that's blasphemy dude, so please STOP IT). You are COMPLETELY missing the point. Everyone who has criticized your post has been VERY clear about what's out of line, which you have not responded to at all. Please go back and READ your posts, then READ my & other's concerns about it, THINK about how you kept going on and on about Rodgers, never mentioning Clemens or Pennington at all, and how your post is 100.00% about what is the best answer for the GB QB situation and 0.00% about the Jets QB situation, and THEN come back and try to insist you still think that post belongs here, if you still suffer that delusion for whatever reason. Sheez
By attacking Favre as a team-mate, he is talking about Favre as it relates to the Jets. Perfectly appropriate. I haven't heard much about Packers players or Jets players having any beef with Favre as a team-mate. I also don't see any problem with a team unloading an old expensive player a year to soon rather than a year to late although I'm sure it pisses off a huge amount of Packer fans as evidenced here. My own take on this is this is liable to work out well in the short term for the Jets and good for the Packers in the long term if the fans are willing to take a bump or two with a good young QB.
winstonbigss, other posts by other posters talked about Brett as a teammate, and you'll notice I said nothing about them. I'm talking about this specific post and poster. Read it again. It doesn't say anything about Brett as a teammate, good or bad, it's all about how Rodgers can win a big game better than Favre. Your defense applies only to posts and posters that no one is criticizing.
You could be right it just bugs me when people try to squash debate in general. Maybe I'm tollerant of trolls because I live under a bridge?
No. They have not been clear. In fact, you're the only one who even made an attempt to answer my questions, for which I give you credit. But you're still wrong. I suggest that you go back and read the post you quoted before you start criticizing my reading comprehension, because you're making yourself look foolish here. A man asked me a question about Aaron Rodgers, and I answered it - while at the same time pointing out to him that I didn't know what Aaron Rodgers had to do with the whole issue in the first place. And from that, you draw the conclusion that I am "going on and on about Rodgers"? Did you say one word to the guy who first dragged Rodgers into this debate? If not, why not? Why am I the one you're criticizing for discussing Rodgers? Look, you seem like a decent enough guy. There's obviously a lot we disagree on, but there's probably a lot we do agree on. I'm perfectly happy to have free-ranging discussions with you over the course of the season, and those discussions may sometimes become heated. C'est la vi. I don't care if people disagree with me, but if you're going to level personal criticism at me, I'm going to respectfully ask you to make sure you know what you're talking about. Because if you don't, I'm probably going to become offended. And I'm going t call you on it. As I am here.
I think you're 100% right on that assessment. That's why I think this is a win-win-win for all three parties involved. The Jets get themselves one hell of a regular-season quarterback to keep you entertained and win some games for the next year or two, the Packers get a chance to develop their future starter, and Favre gets a golden opportunity to play another season or two of solid, respectable football. Actually, it's a win-win-win-win, because fans like myself get to watch him play for another year or two. As long as Jets fans keep their expectations realistic, I think everybody wins this one, and that's pretty rare in sports trades. As far as Favre getting along with his teammates, I want to make clear that I'm not agreeing with the ESPN article. I think it's way over the top. Over the years, I've heard an occasional whisper that some of the Packers were a little put off by Favre, but every time a reporter has really pursued the story, it always seems to turn out that it's more a case of Favre feeling just a little isolated because all the guys he came up with are gone and he doesn't have much in common with the younger players on a personal level. Which isn't surprising, considering the man is literally old enough to be the father of some of them. Of course he's not going to relate to them as easily as a bunch of 20-somethings all relate to one another. But I've never really heard much from Favre that would suggest he didn't totally respect and support his younger teammates (except for his occasional public criticisms of players who were involved in contract disputes with the team, and occasional criticisms of receivers who ran the wrong routes), and up until all this offseason drama this year, I've never heard a word from any of his teammates suggesting they felt put off by him in any way. Maybe there has been and I missed it, but I sure didn't see it. I don't think there's any reason at all for Jets fans to fear that he won't get along with his new teammates, and any reporter who's trying to make that case in order to sell copy is probably just fishing. I think the story's bullshit. I think he's going to be a damned good teammate.
Uh ... in the first sentence you're saying that what I said makes you think I didn't even read your original post (which is kind of odd, since in the post I quoted your entire post, and added highlighting to words in almost every sentence .. how on earth does one do that without reading it?), and then in the very next sentence you agree with my words -- that your post is all about Rodgers & the Packers and not at all about the Jets, on a Jets board. So my 'misinformed' words that are simultaneously words that accurately describe your post? Huh? I'm the one "making myself look foolish here" ??? If I understand your latest comment correctly, you are now agreeing that the content your post has nothing to do with this topic, but you use a "he started it first!!! he made me do it!" argument (like my seven year old would) to keep insisting it was OK for you to do it. I really don't know what to say anymore (and I imagine others are sick of both of us anyway). So have the last word on this if you like.
Ouch. I'm not in Kansas (aka flyover country) anymore I can see I jumped into the thick of the Wild Thing thing, but I'm gonna steer clear of this one
I'm going to make this real... real... simple. So that your 7-year old can explain it to you. Ah, screw it. I'm not going to bother. At first, I thought you just didn't have the brains to realize you lost the argument, but after a moment's reflection I realize it's more that you just don't have the balls to admit it. I'll just say this again, and leave it at that - if you're going to direct personal criticism at me, make sure you know what you're talking about. If you genuinely have that much difficulty reading the English language, ask your 7-year old to help you out. Because if you keep attacking me with idiot arguments like this one, I'm just going to hand you your ass again.
Seems to me ... - that people are putting way much into something that is in reality "just a small thing" ... - Having his own locker-room, by no standards what-so-ever, means that any person is a "Primadonna", "Egomaniac", etc etc and <insert what ever else you can come up with here>. - How would you feel, if you were constantly "hounded" down by every person from the media, - who wanted to hear "Your take" on about every possible situation and item at all times ... - I think as someone else stated on this thread, that he had "his own" locker-room for that reason, - so it wouldn't be an over-all distraction to the rest of the team ... - Having said that, becoming and being a "Celebrity" has it flaws and perks, nothing wrong with that. I think people should just "ignore" it and get on with whats important ----> the new Season, and just be content (and happy?) with the fact, that the NY Jets "seem" to be a "Contender" in the AFC now, as opposed to previous season ... - One fact that to me remains important, regardless of where Brett Favre plays or how well he performs "In his Careers "Autumn Years"", is all the charity work he has been doing and is still doing ... That to me tells me a whole lot more about the person he is, than the fact that "He had his own locker-room" in GB ... Just my 2 cents.
Back to the actual topic of this thread ... Favre as a teammate. I never said Favre was an easy teammate, nor a team leader -- nor has any other poster to this thread that I can see, despite the imaginations of some. Actually it's pretty well known by anyone who follows the Pack closely that Rob Davis was the primary team leader of the Pack last year, if Favre led at all it was "by example." But that does not automatically mean he's all "me me me" like the ESPN hack says. I searched around to find a great article about Favre and Jennings that I read last year that I think explains the full complexity of Favre as a teammate -- the good and the bad -- & managed to find it: ... grrr, it's REALLY annoying I can't post links here. Go to espn-dot-com and search on "Wickersham: For Packers' Jennings, seeing is believing" If anyone with "tenure" on this board finds it's a worthwhile read, maybe they can provide the direct link? It's specifically about the struggles Greg Jennings had connecting with Favre, but since it gives background on how Favre simultaneously did & did not "lead" his past teams, I think it's relevant to his current team. It's a long article, but I urge everyone to read the entire thing before reacting to it. I think the reason a lot of GB fans trash Favre as a teammate is because they do the equivalent of reading only the first part, they don't know the whole story. I think the other thread about Favre being a "five-star field general" probably has it right -- I've read biographies of men like Washington and Patton and a theme that comes out of those is their aloofness and distance from most men they led in battle, but that with the few they worked most closely/best with this quickly evolved to a personal loyalty that went even beyond their title (for example it's well documented that men like Nathanial Greene and Henry Knox and Alexander Hamilton, in the darkest days of the revolution, kept fighting more because they did not want to disappoint Washington's faith in them, than they did for the cause). And yes, FYI Washington also openly wept and said he could give no more to the Continental Army and his country when he resigned his commission as general of it. And yes he did ultimately come back out of retirement to resume that leadership. Twice. What a jerk. :wink:
