Tell me that this isn't a weird exchange between Pete and one of his readers:
From Scott, of Providence: "I'm amazed at how little attention Matt Cassel's performace in the wake of his father's passing received on a national level. When Brett Favre had a similiar performance in Oakland, albeit on Monday night, the national media went nuts, he was this great warrior, etc. Yet, today, Cassel gets a small note in the middle of a webpage. Not that Cassel's performance needs to be the lead story for the day, but the disparity is ridiculous. Another great day in the National Favre League."
Pete:
Favre was a legendary quarterback when his tragedy happened, Cassel a first-year starter. Favre's father was a relatively known character; Big Irv coached him in high school and was around him for much of his pro life. Favre's father died 26 hours before the Packers took the field in Oakland, and there was some real question in coach Mike Sherman's mind if Favre would play in the game. In the Cassel case, the dad died six days before the game, Cassel flew to southern California to be with the family when it happened and returned to the team to practice, and we never saw Cassel struggling with the kind of emotion Favre struggled with either before or after the game.
[So to summarize, in order for the death of your father to garner sympathy from Pete and the sports media at large, the following conditions must be met:
- You have to be "legendary," preferably as a quarterback (as opposed to the "Wilt Chamberlain" sense of the word). One lonely MVP award will not cut it.
- Your father had to have had a folksy nickname.
- Your father had to have died within 26 hours of your next game.
- You have to struggle with some "kind of emotion" before AND after the game.]
Stay classy, Pete.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
c'mon, you didnt even include the entire answer by King. you left out: "I'm not saying that makes the media coverage of the Favre and Cassel stories fair. I'm just saying it makes them different."
that final sentence qualifies the entire paragraph preceding it. King also specifies the reasons why the coverage was different, even though it may not have been fair, which essentially is what he was asked.
nice cherry picking!
ps - i'm normally a big fan
K-man, thanks for chiming in. I am inclined to disagree, however.
I took the final sentence to be a complete throw-away by King. The reader asked King to explain the "ridiculous" disparity in the media coverage. Big Irv coached Favre in high school? Contrasting the temporal elements to imply that six days is more than enough time to sufficiently grieve the death of a parent?
With that final sentence, King is dodging the underlying question of whether Favre has received and continues to receive (for no well-articulated reason) special treatment from the media. The "I'm just saying it makes them different" is a total cop-out. It does nothing but tacitly underscore the favoritism implied by the e-mailer.
P.S. King is one of the biggest Favre-huggers in all of sports media. Read his MMQB article following last year's NFC Championship (where Favre bombed and threw a crippling INT that led to the winning score). Favre's name is mentioned three times in the five page article: once w/r/t his potential retirement, once w/r/t his recent appearance on the cover of SI, and then once more in his "Cute Note of the Week." Solid coverage.
It wasn't until his Tuesday article that he even mentioned Favre's game-blowing INT, framing it only as "an easy interception by corner Corey Webster."
So, that last sentence was omitted because I felt that it was nothing more than a clever attempt by King to say "no" while nodding yes.
Appreciate the counter, though. Keep the comments coming, K-man.
yeah, fair enough. his man crush for favre is well documented.
i am a packers fan and continue to be amazed that most of the media gives Favre a free ride. for every 4-5 games he'd win by himself, he'd lose 2-3 a year too, often at the worst times (just like last year's NFC champ game - damn that hurt). that pick was terrible, but not unusual.
love the blog - keep up the good work.
Thanks, K-man. And good to see Favre made the Pro Bowl, though. He's definitely having a better season than Philip Rivers.
Do you seriously think he is having a better season the Rivers? Really? Favre leads the league in interceptions and has a passer rating in the 80's. Rivers has favre beat in every QB category except completion percentage and it could be argued that is off-set by the difference in yards per attempt.
Favre isn’t even his team's MVP, its Thomas Jones. Take away favre's 5 td performance against ‘zona and he has struggled in other games.
c'mon Archie, it sounds like you are turning into Peter King! lol
Yeah, I am not sure it is possible to craft an argument that Favre (or Cutler, for that matter) has had a better season than Rivers. It's just not true. And the "Favre's team is winning but Rivers' isn't" argument is irrelevant. That's why the league has a separate event called "The Playoffs."
The more interesting snub was Pennington, who has also quite clearly had a better year than Favre. The lack of appreciation for objective data/analysis on the part of award-voters is long-standing and no great surprise, but their lack of appreciation of irony is the real disappointment in this case.
Post a Comment