Okay, I’ve been awake for about half an hour. It’s Sunday, it’s college – whatever. In my brief period of consciousness, I’ve already heard from several sports analysts some version of the following statement:
“Brett Favre is back because now he doesn’t have to compensate for a bad team by taking chances.”
This statement is referring to Favre’s pretty bad 2005 and 2006 seasons. In 2005, he has a 61.3 CMP%, 20 TD, 29 INT, and a 70.9 RAT. In 2006, it was 56 CMP%, 18 TD, 18 INT, and a 72.7 RAT.
Favre has certainly had a fantastic and unexpectedly productive season. This is not in question. I’m just tired of the sports media kissing the old guy’s butt. I’m also really tired of the above rationale. Football is easily the sport about which I have the least knowledge, but perhaps the media could come up with a new, more reasonable company line about Favre’s resurgence. The most likely explanation for his 2005 and 2006 seasons is a combination of some individual decline and the poor quality of surrounding players. The implication of the above statement, however, is that Favre has always been unstoppable, which is just not true.
Anyway, I’m going to be completely unfair and irrational and use this line to justify Rex Grossman’s 2006, Eli Manning’s 2007, and Joey Harrington’s 2003. Because if this line is fair game, there is apparently no way for a quarterback to just have a bad season. After all, they’re just compensating for their team’s mediocrity by taking chances.