...by the awesome Larry B (he thinks I'm a cokehead!) over at Fire Jay Mariotti. So I'm not going to bother doing a full thing on Dr. Z's Favre piece. Because apparently Larry is capable of positivity and compassion, he chooses to actually laud Dr. Z, instead of just shitting on him on principle.
I think my main issue with Dr. Z's piece is that he keys in on the least offensive parts of the Brett Favre mythos. I mean, the 4th and 26 was a pretty terrible fucking play on the part of the Packers defense, plain and simple.
Also, there's some weird stuff about Mike Holmgren:
Holmgren knew how to handle greatness. He had worked with Montana, who could get into streaks of almost surreal accuracy, plus he had outstanding athletic ability to fall back on.
So he knew how to handle greatness, huh? Because Seattle seems to suggest he doesn't know shit about handling above-averageness. Or whatever.
And how about this?
His fourth quarter and overtime meltdown against the Giants last season, which put a sad end to a remarkably classy season? Never mind ... the redemption of the Giants' field-goal kicker was the angle.
I am never, ever going to criticize people for making the winning player the angle. I think you earn that by winning, and I get really tired when certain teams (read: the Yankees) dominate the headlines win or lose. I think I'd be just as irritated if that was the time all the sportswriters chose to shit all over Favre and ignore the Giants.
Also, what's with all the talk about "angles"? What is this, a 1930s newsroom? Because from what I've heard, they could get pretty weird.
Actually, I think Dr. Z would fit right in over there. He's certainly got the name for it.
I dunno, I'd go further into this, but I don't want to look like I'm just picking up the scraps of others. I mean, I am, no question about it, but I don't like to look that way.