clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Tarkenton vs. Foreman

New, comments

As mentioned in the comments this morning, Chuck Foreman came out with a stance on Favre virtually opposite to that of Tarkenton...here's what he said:

Number one, I’m a big Brett Favre fan. Number two, the New York Jets, where he went to play [in 2008], were a mediocre team or less when he got there and he took them to an above average team. He didn’t have the talent surrounding him, he had the injury. At 39, Brett Favre is better than 80 percent of the quarterbacks in the NFL anyway. I don’t think age should be a factor and if the man wants to play, he should be able to play.

Loyalty in this game is not what it used to be. If you’re not playing well, they drop you like a hot iron. Brett Favre should play and I hope he’s playing with the Vikings. But as far as being selfish goes, I think some people need to look in the mirror. In this game, there’s some selfishness in all of us. So to say that Brett is selfish or that the Packers gave him … he gave the Packers just as much as they gave him.

And heading back to Tarkenton's side, he was interviewed by Paul Allen of KFAN today -- here's the audio, and here are a few highlights:

I don’t like the idea of Brett Favre doing to the Packers what he’s done. I think he’s been disrespectful. In my opinion, I think it’s been ridiculous. I’m tired of reading about it. For the Minnesota Vikings to entertain this is pretty ridiculous itself. It’s a sliver-bullet last-gasp solution. They’ve done a wonderful job building a football team.

There are not many 39-year-old quarterbacks coming off of a shoulder problem that have been able to do very well in the National Football League. Here’s what Brett is going to find out. When he hangs them up, he’s going to find out that the Green Bay Packers, the Minnesota Vikings and the National Football League is going to do very well without him as they have without me. It evolves. There is a time to go and why has he been so back and forth now for the second season in a row, at least, if not before?

Contrary to what a number of commenters were suggesting this morning, I'm actually in agreement with Chuck -- I've always supported the idea of adding Favre to the mix. Where I agree with Tarkenton, though, is that the Packers organization and its fans didn't deserve what Brett did to them last summer. Green Bay had provided an outstanding home for Brett for nearly two decades, and given that, I have a problem with the lack of professionalism that characterized Favre's return to the NFL. I don't specifically have an issue with his decision to play another season or find another home -- I just think he could have been much more classy about it.

So it's hard to say whose side I'm on between Foreman and Tarkenton, but for the most part, I agree with Chuck. He's absolutely right in that the game has changed since the general period in which he and Fran played. Yeah, there's always been a certain amount of selfishness in professional sports, but it's never been treated more like a business than in the present day. Fran may be speaking for the players of his era in griping about a lack of loyalty in the league, but professional sports are ultimately a business.

How about you...who do you find yourself in agreement with, between Fran and Chuck?