Some Favre Hate, Orton's New Contract, and a Peter King Mailbag

This is the daily reminder I have set up a College Football Pick 'Em League for Yahoo. I have set it up against the spread and the games we will be choosing are Top 25 games and games the Yahoo editors choose as "worthy" of being chosen. The ID is 1704 and the password is "asu." Feel free to join and it doesn't take long each week to pick the games.

Also, don't forget the BotB Fantasy Baseball draft is tomorrow. Those who want to attend feel free to. I probably do better when I am not drafting the players and just get the players the computer gives me.

I didn't have one article I wanted to cover today so I thought I would go ahead and cover three articles. Besides, it is Saturday and the few people who read what I write probably don't read on the weekend anyway, so I could pretty much write anything I want. I am covering the Peter King mailbag from this past week today, and I don't plan on doing this every week, but I thought it was relevant this week.

1. I am going to start off with Mark Bradley who continues to please me with his unabashed Favre hatred. He is one of the many who recognize the Favre-drama has a partner in ESPN, yet this is something ESPN doesn't seem to really care about. I think they just want Favre to work for them as an NFL analyst once he decides to retire.

Because I was feeling guilty over my sudden dislike for LeBron James, who up until “The Decision” had done nothing to make me think he was a bad guy, and now my default dislike position has been reset.

LeBron James has been dropped to second on the list. Brett Favre is again the athlete against whom I root the hardest.

This is a consensus among NFL fans. Favre has gotten to the point where I actively root against him and many others do too. The difference is that six years from now everyone else will remember Favre for being a great player and not recall the soap operas he dragged the public through for three summers. I will still think of him as a selfish asshole because really that's what he seems to be. He and ESPN can't seem to recognize this.

Brett Favre is a handy combination of everything I value least in sports. He’s not as good as advertised,

I disagree with this statement as it pertains to last year. Last year, Favre was as good as advertised, but the few years before that he wasn't that great. So I can believe he wasn't as good as advertised a few years over the past five years, but not last year. I think Favre is going to go back to the "not great" level this upcoming year. That's my personal opinion, even if that also happens to be my wish as well.

and yet he’s one of the handful of neo-athletes — LeBron, Tiger, T.O. and A-Rod would make up the remainder of the top five — around whom the Worldwide Leader has decided the world indeed revolves.

It is annoying, but I can't completely blame ESPN. They get ratings with these players because those who love them and those who hate them feel strongly, so they tune in. ESPN follows the money and the advertising dollars, so from a business standpoint I can't really criticize them for that.

The problem is that ESPN is a sports network, even though they do have the word "entertainment" in the title, they are mostly a sports network...or they should be. The network is built around "SportsCenter" which is a sports show, but over the years they have seemed to care less and less about sports and more about creating corporate synergy with ABC and focusing on certain stories the rest of the world is tired of. They really have no interest anymore in leading off "SportsCenter" with the most popular or most exciting sports event of the day if there is a soap opera they can follow instead.

It is a sports network, but when it comes to Favre-Watch or "The Decision" journalistic integrity and the sports aspect takes a back seat to following a soap opera and getting in bed with the most popular basketball player in the NBA. They not only report on the stories, but now they are giving the athletes a forum to create the story. So ESPN is the reporter of the story and the facilitator of the story. They gave LeBron James and Brett Favre a forum to create news and essentially have tied ESPN's reputation (in the case of James) to how well "The Decision" was handled by those people who run LeBron James' life.

There are times when I think that if Favre didn’t exist, ESPN would have just invented him. Then I correct myself: ESPN did invent him, like Dr. Frankenstein and his henchman Igor conjured up their monster.

Don't get me wrong, other news outlets reported on the Favre story, but no other outlets reported with the fervor and saturated the airwaves with coverage of the Favre story. The story became overblown because ESPN and Brett Favre let the story become overblown. It got to the point, ESPN was running AS NEWS on their "bottom line" that Favre had not made up his mind. In other words, they reported there was nothing to report.

Favre is to blame for his selfish, drama-queen tendencies, but it doesn't become a story if he doesn't have a microphone to talk into. If Favre talks and no one is there to listen, the outcome of the story doesn't change, just the maze of shit the public has to go through to get to the outcome changes.

2. Here is another story I have talked about a lot on this blog and that is the Broncos quarterback situation. Much to the chagrin of Woody Paige, Kyle Orton has signed a contract extension worth $9 million next year. It is only for one year and $5 million of it is guaranteed. It is not a long term commitment, but I wonder if this tells us Tebow isn't progressing as fast as the Broncos had hoped?

This surprised me and told me a little bit about the rose-colored glasses Woody Paige and other Tebow-devotees are looking through. Orton was a free agent after this year. There will most likely be some labor strife in the NFL. As has been described many times, Orton is not a franchise quarterback, so I imagine if there was no labor stoppage the Broncos could have re-signed Orton after this year. I have talked at length about how certain journalists can't be impartial when it comes to Tim Tebow because they tend to get personally involved with his place as the future starting quarterback for the Broncos.

Woody Paige thinks Tim Tebow should start now. If Tebow is ready to start NFL games now, why would the Broncos sign Kyle Orton to a $9 million extension for next season before even knowing if there will be a next season? This deal didn't need to get done immediately, they could have waited another month or two and gotten the deal done. It tells me that those who looked impartially at Tim Tebow saw that he was a project quarterback who would need some work before he is ready to start in the NFL. He may be a great NFL quarterback, but it doesn't look like he will be great this year.

If Tebow was on the cusp of starting for the Broncos, why sign Orton and make him one of the most expensive backups in the NFL? I am not knocking Tim Tebow, just again focusing on the way the media has portrayed him as the franchise savior for the Broncos when that doesn't seem to be the case right now. From seeing Orton signed for next year at such a high price ($5 million of it is guaranteed), it tells me the Broncos aren't sure Tebow is ready to start right now and somehow I think that puts them in the minority. This deal didn't need to be done right now, yet it got done right now. A good backup is important, but I am not sure it is this important, especially for a head coach who prides himself on grooming quarterbacks.

Here is what a Tebow-devotee (Woody Paige) has to say about Kyle Orton:

Last year, his numbers were impressive — 3,802 yards passing, 21 touchdowns, 12 interceptions, a 62.1 percent completion average and a QB rating of 86.8.

But the only number that really mattered was the same as jersey No. 8.

When Orton played in 2009, the Broncos won eight games.

Orton is not a star quarterback and isn't the only player who played for the Broncos on offense last year, so naturally we should blame him for the Broncos going 8-8.

Yet, with all those accomplishments, Orton has appeared in this number of postseason games: zero.

This is what Orton has to deal with in Denver. Bears fans will remember Orton would have appeared in a postseason game against the Panthers in 2006 if the Bears hadn't given the job to Rex Grossman prior to the game, despite the fact Orton had started for most of the season. So as bad as Orton was that year, he led the Bears to a postseason game even if he didn't get to appear in the game.

Tebow is a winner and Kyle Orton isn't. That seems to be the argument to start Tebow this year.

3. Now on to Peter's mailbag for this week.

No Sidney Rice after hip surgery, maybe for half the season. Maybe no Percy Harvin in any particular week because of his migraines.

The fairy tale season from last year doesn't seem to be happening for the Vikings this year. The Vikings had some good luck last year in the injury department and counting on Bernard Berrian and Greg Camarillo isn't something they will want to do all year.

You're Brad Childress game-planning for the season, knowing Brett Favre's two favorite targets are major health questions. You're Favre, knowing the same thing. And you're nervous.

How much do we want to bet that Favre will unretire this year or that ankle injury will start acting up on him? I know Favre is already going through a mental list of reasons why he didn't have a good year.

Now, Favre and Rice bonded in a short period last fall as well and as quickly as I've seen a quarterback and receiver bond. I'll never forget their 45-second embrace in the locker room after the loss to New Orleans in the NFC title game.

I can see Peter hiding behind a column in the locker room, peeking around the corner of the column and spying on Favre and Rice watching them embrace. I have $100 that says Peter teared up at some point.

It was clear how close they had gotten in just five months, and there's no doubt in my mind that losing Rice will have a major impact on Favre's season, and the Vikings' ability to do multiple things in the passing game.

We all know if Rice misses the first half of this season it will be the first time in the history of the NFL a team has had to play ANY part of the season without their best receiver. I can't believe the Vikings were the first team to lose their best receiver during Brett Favre's (possibly) last year as a professional player. They are cursed! Call Bill Simmons so he can create a fake corollary that pertains to this!

Look for far more reliance on Visanthe Shiancoe --and the hope that a miracle drug can be found for migraines. Because Minnesota needs Harvin to have a clear head for at least the first half of the season.

One other thing: Check out the Vikings' schedule for the first two months of the season: at New Orleans, Miami, Detroit, bye, at the Jets, Dallas, at Green Bay, at New England. You tell me how big a loss Sidney Rice is, staring down the gun at the toughest first two months of any team in football.

This is why it is so hard for NFL teams to do well from year to year. The best teams get the hardest schedules the next year and have to hope they don't have injuries that can affect the talent level and depth of the team. The Vikings almost made the Super Bowl last year, naturally they will get a more difficult schedule.

There have been plenty of other teams that are dealing with injury issues on their team, so it is not like the Vikings are the only team that have to use their backups. At least they have a Hall of Fame quarterback who can make the other receivers better, right?

I know Kurt Warner has said he's retired, and he's never given one iota of a hint that he'd reconsider. But if I'm Arizona coach Ken Whisenhunt, and I've just watched the horror show at quarterback that I watched last night, I've got to at least call Warner today and ask if there's any way he'd reconsider his decision.

(Now I will somewhat defend Matt Leinart and as I wrote this, I saw this had happened. I remain firmly unconvinced the Cardinals will start Derek Anderson over Matt Leinart in the first game of the season. I'm not saying Leinart may not get released or traded, but I don't believe Anderson will start over Leinart. As bad Leinart has looked in the preseason, from what I have seen Anderson has looked worse.)

I have to agree the Cardinals offense looked terrible, but it is the preseason. I don't know what the fine line between getting into a panic and realizing it is preseason so not worrying too much. There have been many quarterbacks who look bad in the preseason, but few teams are game-planning and the games don't count. I realize Peter probably secretly wants Kurt Warner to come back so his good buddy Brett Favre isn't the only quarterback who waffles about retirement, but would Warner even be in playing shape?

A better idea would be to give the Vikings compensation for Tarvaris Jackson (as noted by Dylan in the podcast) or even Sage Rosenfels. Either of these players could compete for the starting quarterback job in Arizona if given a few weeks in the system. They wouldn't be ready to play immediately, but it is an idea. I think this is a better idea than hoping Warner comes out of retirement. That's if the Cardinals are really worried, which I am not sure they should be at this point.

Leinart looked uneasy against Tennessee in his three series with the first unit; he showed little confidence.

I watched the 2005 National Championship game and saw Leinart throwing bullets all over the field to his receivers. He didn't make just the easy throws either and he even made some good reads. So I am saying I still sort of believe in him a bit. I know I may be the last person to believe in Matt Leinart, but I don't know if his performance in the preseason means he will be terrible in the regular season. It may, I guess we will find out.

Warner twice last night tried to throw cold water via Twitter on any chance he'd play again. "OK, y'all... I am watching game... I am not coming back... and I would still appreciate your help! LOL, sorry guys, u know def of 'retire'?'' Meaning, "Do you guys know the definition of 'retire?' '' I'd still make the call if I were Whisenhunt.

At this point, could Warner even come back and play at the level he played at before? Why would he come back? He has a history of concussions and in his last game as a pro he was popped very hard by a Saints player and laid on the ground for a while. I think Warner is done.

It's nearly too late in the season now to trade for a quarterback, though if I were the Cardinals I would dig around, but if Warner isn't coming back, then the Cardinals are stuck with Leinart and Anderson. I don't know how much the preseason really means when it comes to judging these quarterbacks.

Ross Tucker and I had former Redskins Executive VP Vinny Cerrato, who signed Albert Haynesworth, on Sirius NFL Radio this morning. I asked him if he still thought the Haynesworth signing was a good idea, with all the hubbub between the unhappy defensive tackle and coach Mike Shanahan now. "At the time, we did it, yes,'' said Cerrato, who was dismissed by Dan Snyder last December and replaced by Bruce Allen. "We had been struggling on defense, and getting the most dominant player [in free-agency] at the time to upgrade the defense, yes, it was a wise move.''

This is one of the reasons Vinny Cerrato wasn't a great Executive VP for the Redskins. Haynesworth was the most dominant player in free agency, but you can't make decisions like this in a vacuum. The fact Haynesworth had caused the Titans problems in the past, his stepping on the head of Andre Gurode, and the fact he seemed to only play hard in contract years are all reasons why the Haynesworth signing wasn't a no-brainer. These are the type of things that should be weighed before the Redskins decided to sign Haynesworth. It's fine if they decided Haynesworth was worth the risk, but Cerrato can't act like there were never warning signs around Haynesworth before they gave him a huge contract.

But now? Would Cerrato do it again? "Would I do it again, with all this stuff? That's a different story. That's Monday morning quarterbacking.''

No, it is not Monday morning quarterbacking. It is expecting you to do your job as the Executive VP of the Redskins and do all your homework on a player before you sign him to a huge contract. It is not like there were never signs Haynesworth was a malcontent, so there isn't any Monday morning quarterbacking in this situation. The signs were there, the Redskins ignored the signs and decided to give Haynesworth a big contract. The criticism would be unfair if Haynesworth was a perfect citizen with the Titans, but that's not the case. I am not saying anyone could have foreseen this exact scenario but Haynesworth had questions surrounding him when he was a free agent, so any criticism of his signing is just criticism.

It is, but it's still interesting that the Redskins paid an unreliable guy $35 million in the first 17 months of his contract, and he's been, well, unreliable.

Exactly. Vinny Cerrato can't get from under this decision simply because he was blinded by Haynesworth's talent. Problems from Haynesworth wasn't a certainty, but anyone who took a look at his career stats (which the Redskins may not have done) can see he is unreliable.

It irritates me when executives sign a unreliable or previously crappy player who doesn't work out with the team and then acts like it was a shock the player didn't perform well.

"Your discussion of the short shelf life of RBs brought to mind a question I meant to ask Dr. Z: Do you think a one-year sabbatical would help extend the career of a running back? Say after a player's first contract is up, the RB takes a year off to heal. I know it may seem impractical, but would one year off add two or three more productive years on the back end?''

--Bill, South Windsor, Conn.

The problem with this idea is the player has taken a year off from playing in the NFL and one year of recovering may not equal two or three more productive years. It is not like running backs who carry the ball a lot, eventually get 100% healed. Also, why would a player take a year off after his first contract is up, essentially ruining his contract leverage and not maximizing his value by signing a second contract AFTER he has taken a year off?

PK: I think it would obviously help the back heal, but it would also present a difficult problem for planning your roster. Let's say you're a GM, and you draft a back with the plan to have him play every other year, and sit out/train/rehab in the alternate years. First, it's going to create a problem in the locker room, because players at other physically punishing positions will ask: "Hey, what about me? Why's the running back position such a prima donna position?''

I would think some NFL players would understand given the shelf life of a running back, but many of the other players would not understand. More importantly, I don't get why a running back would retire for a year when he is playing for a new contract.

Even more importantly, I don't think Peter understood the question. This guy was asking about a running back taking a one year sabbatical, not only playing every other year like Peter suggested.

And the other problem, I would think, would be if a back came out of his rookie season with just a bump or bruise, and by March 1 is healthy as a horse. Why keep him out of the lineup?

We are talking about a one year sabbatical, not a running back only playing every other year. Obviously if a running back isn't hurt at all then he could play in the upcoming year.

"Do you think the actions by Brett Favre over the last two years (holding out of training camp, on purpose) will result in any new rules set forth by the owners that a player under contract must attend all organized team activities or be fined accordingly? It just seems that Favre is setting a precedent, where other players will follow, that will anger management and the fans alike by putting themselves above the team."

--Paul Haering, Woodbury, Minn.

PK: You raise a great point. And in the future, I think the Vikings might pay for putting one player so far above the team.

Thanks for not answering the question Joe Morgan. Peter didn't answer the question at all.

Players do hold out of training camp and they get fined for it. So there are players who hold out of training camp on purpose, but they get fined. I don't think there should be a rule set forth by the owners or anything like that, but teams should probably know when a player is holding out intentionally and decide if they will let a player get away with it or not. The Vikings decided they would let Favre get away with it and this was a team decision.

Enjoy the weekend (or what's left of it) everyone.