http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/05/08/mailbag/index.html
Should he stay or should he go? Pondering Favre's future
Got a great question in the e-mail bag, and I've thought about it on and off for a few hours now, and I truly don't know the answer. I'll present it to you, give you my thoughts, and see if it prompts even more thoughts from Packer Nation and beyond. Steve Brown of Burke, Va., writes: "If you were Brett Favre, would you stay another year with the Packers and why?''
Hmmm. I believe Steve means through 2008, because Favre has already said he'd stay this year. And the more I think about it, the more I say: Heck yes ... with an asterisk. And the asterisk has to do with one thing -- Green Bay's record in 2007, and whether the four-game winning streak at the end of 2006 was a mirage or the mark of real progress, which we'll find out around the end of September.
Last season, I remember talking with rookie coach Mike McCarthy after a game and asking him about a report from Jay Glazer that day on the FOX pregame show. Glazer said McCarthy thought Favre could certainly play another year. And McCarthy told me then that there was no doubt in his mind that Favre could not only play and play well in 2007, but also in 2008; that's how physically on top of his game and at one with McCarthy's offense Favre was.
As far as his play and his comfort with McCarthy, there's no reason other than physical decline why Favre couldn't play two more years. Check out how he ranked against his own career bests in the significant passing categories in 2006:
Attempts: 613 (first)
Completions: 343 (fourth)
Percentage: 56.0 (15th)
Yards: 3,885 (seventh)
TDs: 18 (14th)
Interceptions: 18 (10th)
Sacks: 21 (third)
Completions of 20 yards or longer: 49 (sixth)
Rating: 72.7 (13th)
These numbers show a couple of things. Favre, at 37, was still highly mobile and threw the deep ball well. And he was productive even though the numbers say he wasn't as accurate as in the past. But I believe the numbers don't show a very important element -- the sketchy talent around him. Bubba Franks had one of the worst years I've ever seen a tight end have. Remember when Steve Sax couldn't throw to first base anymore, and when Chuck Knoblauch did the same with the Yankees? It essentially ended their careers. Bubba Franks had the worst case of stone hands I've seen in a good player last year. That killed Favre. He needs his two tight ends to catch more than the 46 balls Franks and David Martin combined to snare last year. And the second-round back they picked from Nebraska, Brandon Jackson, is going to have to reprise the role he served last year in Lincoln. It's all well and good that he averaged 5.3 yards per carry out of the backfield, but Favre is going to need him to catch the ball because he loves throwing to his backs. Last year Jackson caught 33 balls for the 'Huskers. The Pack will test him in camp to see if he can keep doing the same.
In the end, though, Ted Thompson made an interesting choice in the draft, gambling that the down-the-line receivers he picked (James Jones was the 13th receiver picked overall, David Clowney the 21st), and one of those wideouts will have to come through. Donald Driver's 32, and generally 32-year-old receivers who've taken the beating he has start to decline. Greg Jennings, the impressive rookie from Western Michigan last year, will have to get tougher and stay on the field more than he did last year.
I know Favre wanted Randy Moss, but there's not much he could do about that once the Patriots began to pursue him because Moss wanted a chance to win the Super Bowl more than he wanted a chance to play with Favre. Overall, I'd say Favre has it in him to play two more years, and I think he'll have the interest -- as long as he sees the Packers making progress toward being a good team. And there's no guarantee that'll happen.
Should he stay or should he go? Pondering Favre's future
Got a great question in the e-mail bag, and I've thought about it on and off for a few hours now, and I truly don't know the answer. I'll present it to you, give you my thoughts, and see if it prompts even more thoughts from Packer Nation and beyond. Steve Brown of Burke, Va., writes: "If you were Brett Favre, would you stay another year with the Packers and why?''
Hmmm. I believe Steve means through 2008, because Favre has already said he'd stay this year. And the more I think about it, the more I say: Heck yes ... with an asterisk. And the asterisk has to do with one thing -- Green Bay's record in 2007, and whether the four-game winning streak at the end of 2006 was a mirage or the mark of real progress, which we'll find out around the end of September.
Last season, I remember talking with rookie coach Mike McCarthy after a game and asking him about a report from Jay Glazer that day on the FOX pregame show. Glazer said McCarthy thought Favre could certainly play another year. And McCarthy told me then that there was no doubt in his mind that Favre could not only play and play well in 2007, but also in 2008; that's how physically on top of his game and at one with McCarthy's offense Favre was.
As far as his play and his comfort with McCarthy, there's no reason other than physical decline why Favre couldn't play two more years. Check out how he ranked against his own career bests in the significant passing categories in 2006:
Attempts: 613 (first)
Completions: 343 (fourth)
Percentage: 56.0 (15th)
Yards: 3,885 (seventh)
TDs: 18 (14th)
Interceptions: 18 (10th)
Sacks: 21 (third)
Completions of 20 yards or longer: 49 (sixth)
Rating: 72.7 (13th)
These numbers show a couple of things. Favre, at 37, was still highly mobile and threw the deep ball well. And he was productive even though the numbers say he wasn't as accurate as in the past. But I believe the numbers don't show a very important element -- the sketchy talent around him. Bubba Franks had one of the worst years I've ever seen a tight end have. Remember when Steve Sax couldn't throw to first base anymore, and when Chuck Knoblauch did the same with the Yankees? It essentially ended their careers. Bubba Franks had the worst case of stone hands I've seen in a good player last year. That killed Favre. He needs his two tight ends to catch more than the 46 balls Franks and David Martin combined to snare last year. And the second-round back they picked from Nebraska, Brandon Jackson, is going to have to reprise the role he served last year in Lincoln. It's all well and good that he averaged 5.3 yards per carry out of the backfield, but Favre is going to need him to catch the ball because he loves throwing to his backs. Last year Jackson caught 33 balls for the 'Huskers. The Pack will test him in camp to see if he can keep doing the same.
In the end, though, Ted Thompson made an interesting choice in the draft, gambling that the down-the-line receivers he picked (James Jones was the 13th receiver picked overall, David Clowney the 21st), and one of those wideouts will have to come through. Donald Driver's 32, and generally 32-year-old receivers who've taken the beating he has start to decline. Greg Jennings, the impressive rookie from Western Michigan last year, will have to get tougher and stay on the field more than he did last year.
I know Favre wanted Randy Moss, but there's not much he could do about that once the Patriots began to pursue him because Moss wanted a chance to win the Super Bowl more than he wanted a chance to play with Favre. Overall, I'd say Favre has it in him to play two more years, and I think he'll have the interest -- as long as he sees the Packers making progress toward being a good team. And there's no guarantee that'll happen.
