I think I have them figured out.
So I keep hearing this argument from Favre lovers about "If he wants to play football, let him play football." Could this non-analytical, everything-is-black-or-white comment be any further from the truth? It just shows a laziness in information gathering or an utter lack of understanding of the situation to even come to that conclusion. It's like people know they've got no leg to stand on anymore in supporting this guy and so they just throw up something they ate from earlier in the day, point at it and go: "See, there's proof that Favre woulda won at least three of them seven games Rodgers lost by four points or less."
*sigh*
I understand it's a business and I probably take it too much to heart the things that happen. I've always been a guy who wore his heart on his sleeve - for real, not fictitiously as part of my agent-created persona for some public charade, typical of someone else we know. Had Favre decided back in March of last year: "I'm tired, but I'm coming back. We made a great run, but I don't think we finished the job. I want one more chance to win a Super Bowl." I would have said, "Cool. Let's go." But he didn't. He said he was going to quit because he was tired and didn't think he had anymore to give. I appreciated his candor and willingness to go out on his own terms. It made up for a lot of the waffling from the previous two years. Heck, even a couple of months later when it came about that he was considering coming back, I thought: "Probably wouldn't be the worst thing in the world." I forgave him one more indiscretion. But when it came out that he rebuffed a couple of attempts the Packers made to reach out to him, it was over. Plain and simple. The guy didn't deserve the attention or credit I had given him. And we know how the rest of this plays out. We've been over it a thousand times.
But to hear people say "Let him play if he wants to play" gives no intelligent thought to the idea that it has nothing to do with Brett Favre wanting to simply play football. He wants payback. He wants to prove the naysayers wrong like the typical "bet against me" Favre of the Super Bowl team. The thing that's at the heart of this, though, is that I think these folks who have given him every free pass in the book are now starting to have that inkling of darkness swirl into their thought process. "Is this guy really a "me guy" and not the gunslinger we knew and loved?" And it hurts them to think they've been duped. So they don't argue anymore. They throw out a non sequitur to disarm rather than engage in debate. Because who wants to admit they've been duped when they've fought so hard to pitch their position? No one. And this is the worst scenario because it's become so vitriolic on both sides. There's no "I'm glad you admitted being wrong, come on over to our side." It'd play out more like: "I told you all along you were wrong and you're still wrong." Worse, arguing his position is a bit like being OK with your spouse cheating on you. You don't care that your hero has now donned the uniform of your most hated rival? In fact, you're going to CHEER for him, now? It's just wrong in every way, shape or form.
And so with this creeping suspicion that you've gone too far in protecting this guy's antics and fall-throughs, you simply give the debate over to a pat: "If he wants to play, let him play."
