Favre is a Viking

June 24, 2009

Image Courtesy of Gridiron Girl

According to WISN in Milwaukee, B-Fav has agreed to terms with the Vikings. Best part:

An ESPN reporter asked Packers General Manager Ted Thompson if he was taking it personally that Favre plans to play for Minnesota.

Thomspon’s reply was, “No, no, no, no.”

Translation: Yes.

And for the fun of it, here’s some stats from last year:

  • Brett Favre Rating: 81.0, Int: 22, Sacks: 30, Pct 65.7
  • Gus Ferotte Rating: 73.7, Int: 15, Sacks: 29, Pct 59.1
  • Tavaris Jackson Rating: 95.4, Int: 2, Sacks: 14, Pct 59.1

Brett Favre to Re-Unretire

May 4, 2009

Just when you think he’s teared up at a press conference for the last time, yet ANOTHER rumor pops up that Brett “Journeyman” Favre now wants to play for the Vikings.  Hmmm.  Is it because he’s got “something left in the tank”, maybe, or maybe the economy is such that it’s too soon to open a car dealership.

Had to post this. Original is Law Blog RLHB.

Either way, he wants in, and Mike & Mike on EPSN seemed to hint that it’s purely to get revenge on his old team — the Green Bay Packers.  That should work out for everyone, as we all know through centuries of theater, books and movies — aging gladiators called into battle for revenge’s sake and fueled by blind ambition usually succeed without much difficulty, agnorisis, etc.

What’s sad is that Wisconsin has gone mute on the subject (not that is has a say anyway).  Scanning the most recent headlines on google The Frozen Tundra is frozen still.  There’s a national frenzy but Milwaukee is mum… there is NO mention of Favre on the Journal-Sentinel front page and BARELY even a mention of this anywhere on the sports page. Hmmm. This from the paper that would run a picture of Favre above the fold instead of  Afghan war coverage.

Maybe it’s a McCarthy-era strategy — don’t publish stories about him and maybe he’ll just go away.  Meanwhile, Chicago Sun Times and Tribune both had stuff to say about it.

A few other thoughts:

  • Brett should look for a new shoe endorsement.
  • Green Bay is not quarantined with swine flu — they just don’t have the will to get out of bed this week.
  • Internet-friend Ryan thought: “If [this] … happens the NFC North will be land of the QBs with Cutler here, Stafford at Detroit, Farve at Minnesota and Rodgers in Green Bay, could be interesting.”  It’s true.  Would the NFC North not be the butt of jokes for once?  Maybe they could shake that guaranteed noon start time pattern.
  • Internet-friend Kenny thought: “….if Brett Favre goes to Minnesota, his legacy will be somewhat tarnished. This is the guy that replaced Bart Starr as the face of the franchise historically, and he is going to go wear purple and play in a dome? Just stick to playing football with a posse of country folk at a field in the middle of nowhere while wearing Wranglers.

Five Stars Kenny.  Real. Comfortable. Blog.


NFL Power Rankings and No Love for Team X

October 1, 2008

Leave it to Bristol Connecticut-based ESPN to release a Week 5 Power Ranking that puts the entire NFC East Division in the top ten: New York Giants (1), Dallas Cowboys (3), Washington Redskins (6), and the Philadelphia Eagles (9), while their troubled .500 Patriots still get to linger near the NFL elite.

Obviously, the Giants look hella-good right now but prime-time darlings, the Cowboys, are over-rated as usual. The Redskins did well in Week 4 by beating Dallas but in my opinion, that should devalue “Americas Favorite Team” more than improve Washington’s standing. Keeping Philly in the top 10 after their loss to the Bears is also strange — granted they were sans Brian Westbrook, but that injury situation won’t be resolved before the next kickoff.  What’s more, shouldn’t the Eagles loss to an out-of-conference 1-2 team sink the East’s much-vaunted elite status?  Guess not.

 ***

Let’s do some abstract math. Let’s call a team, “Team X“. Mind you, this is all hypothetical…

Here is how Team X had fared so far:

  • Week 1: Beats #17 Ranked team (away)
  • Week 2: Loses to #7 Ranked team by 3 (away)
  • Week 3: Loses to #10 Ranked team by 3 in OT (home)
  • Week 4: Beats #9 Ranked team (home)

By these stats alone, where would you rank Team X? A team that has beaten the #9 and #17 teams, and has narrowly lost to the #7 and #10 teams. Well, certainly not at #18th (ranked BELOW the two teams they have defeated), right? RIGHT?!?!?! 

 ***

Purely coincidentally, Team X is exactly where the Chicago Bears find themselves in these rankings. As a local fan, this is very off-putting. The Bears are a 2-2 team, ranked 18th, which seems about right until you compare who sits above and below them…  They remain in the lower tier of .500 teams, just above the Jets (19), and Cardinals ( 20), with the 49ers (22) and Falcons (24) bringing up the rear.  What’s MORE questionable in the rankings is the SEVEN two-win teams ahead of them, and even a sub-.500 club, the 1-2 Colts (17), still ahead of them. 

What’s going on? You lose two games by the margin of a field goal to two top-10 teams (Bucs, Panthers) then you beat the Eagles and you wind up below ALL FOUR of them in the rankings?! It makes very little sense outside the NFL Buzz Bubble.

Meanwhile NFC North Rivals, the Favre-less (and now Rodgers-less) Green Bay Packers sit at #15 in the power rankings. The Pack went 2-0 early after two divisional games, beating the sputtering Vikings and lowly Lions. Then they lose to the Cowboys (who narrowly beat the Eagles), and then lost decisively to the Buccaneers, winding up at 2-2.

Would you not think that (*ahem*) Team X should be ranked above them? Considering Team X‘s wins came at the hands of lesser opponents and their losses were to teams that are on-par with those Team X has played. No?  Well then, you must live around Bristol.

***

For instance, the dude over at BeatPaths has a different way of visually-representing NFL Power Rankings which is easy to read, and even, dare I say, borders on functional art.  I’m really enjoying this site:

BeatPaths’ Post Week 4 Visual Ranking:

2008-4-Nfl-Clean

The site ranks team SOLELY on record, eliminating and subjectivity, and ranking teams directly based on two criteria: Number of wins & number of losses. It goes futher by color-coding the teams by divison, so if you’ll note, the NFC East is strong (but not ESPN strong), and the AFC North is being dragged down by the horrible play of both Ohio teams.  Meanwhile, the mediocre NFC North is just that — at about 5th/6th Tier with both 2-2 teams sitting alongside most other 2-2 teams.

These rankings are based on “beat paths” (strings of teams which successivly beat one another), and “beat loops” (groups of teams which have both won or lost to eachother).  

The divisional aspect comes into play because only teams in the save division play eachother twice in the regular season, “beat loops” in which teams split their divisional  help give us insight on how competetive each individual division is.  Click here for more details.

Also, the peeps over at BeatPath were inspired to do there thing because they have the same issues I have with subjectivity:

Seems like all the other major power ranking lists out there are in this category. A sportswriter or a committee applies their subjective judgment to all the teams and ranks them however the hell they want. You’ll see huge changes in the lineup every week because of the upsets. The main flaw with these lists is that they aren’t scientific, have huge variance in week-to-week performance, and aren’t really reflective of the overall quality of a team.

 Rah-rah, BeatPath.  Please meet my “Add To Favorites” button.


Take Heart Brett…

August 7, 2008

you could’ve wound up in Minnesota.