Factslingin'

Last night, the Minnesota Vikings defeated the Green Bay Packers by a score of 30-23. Ho hum. What's that? Brett Favre played? FOR THE VIKINGS??! How did I not know of this startling development?!

In all seriousness, I doubt there's any way anyone missed the sports media's collective Favregasm leading up to last night's game. And, much to my chagrin, Favre played well--271 yards on 24 of 31 attempts, for three touchdowns. Lost in the hype is the fact that Aaron Rodgers also played well--384 yards on 26 of 37 attempts, for two touchdowns and one interception. If Rodgers hadn't been sacked eight times, this could have been a different game.

Even so, the media ignores Rodgers while continuing to sing Favre's hosannas. As I returned to the office from lunch at home, I listened to Colin Cowherd's radio show. Now, it's probably my fault for expecting actual sports insight from a paid ESPN analyst. But, Colin blew my mind by attempting to argue that the Green Bay Packers would have been better off with Favre last year. He said the Packers "may not have been 13-3 [as they were in 2007], but they would have been better than 6-10." Because, as we all know, Favre is capable of playing every position on the field and/or willing his teammates to be better. He could have shored up the shaky offensive line the nation saw on display last night. He could have played both sides of the ball and made damn sure that the defense wasn't one of the worst in the NFL last year. He could have returned punts and punted. Oh, yes, I almost forgot--HE COULD NOT HAVE DONE ANY OF THAT. The only thing Favre could have done is play quarterback to the best of his ability--and the best of his ability was not that great in 2008. Aaron Rodgers had a markedly better 2008 than did Favre:

Rodgers: 4038 yards, 63.6% completion rate, 28 touchdowns, 13 interceptions, 93.8 passer rating, 207 yards rushing, 4 rushing touchdowns, 10 fumbles

Favre: 3472 yards, 65.7% completion rate, 22 touchdowns, 22 interceptions, 81.0 passer rating, 43 yards rushing, 1 rushing touchdown, 10 fumbles

In other words, Favre completed a higher percentage of his passes but in every other metric performed worse than Rodgers. In other words, you would have to be a willfully blind fool to state that the Packers would have been better off with Favre than with Rodgers in 2008. This is objectively true. And it is (somewhat less) objectively true that Favre out-gunslung Rodgers last night. But subjective platitudes from the Colin Cowherds and Jon Grudens of the world--"He's just like a kid out there!" "He just wins games!" "He makes his teammates better!"--obscure the fact that there may, just may, be more involved in a typical game of football than whether or not your quarterback is a grizzled beard-havin' truck-drivin' blue jean-wearin' land-workin' salt-of-the-earth flat-out by-God winner.

As usual, I don't really have a point and should probably have used the time and energy it took to write this in my actual job.

UPDATE 10/8/09: The Onion gets in on the fun, and in a much better manner than I could ever muster.