Lori Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 For what it's worth, some of y'all can bash "the media" all you want -- but when the NFL's career passing yardage/TD leader, a three-time MVP with a Super Bowl ring, comes out of retirement to play for one of the Pack's division rivals, it's newsworthy. Chris LaPlaca (Bona grad, and ESPN's Sr. VP/Communications) brought up Favre during a recent discussion on how television networks view and cover sports. Someone asked why show after show seemed to cover the same topic, from NFL Live to Around the Horn to PTI to Sportscenter. His answer: we can't assume that people are going to sit there for two hours and watch every one of those shows back-to-back. Someone who watches NFL Live for the news factor may not enjoy the talking (yelling?) heads on ATH, and vice versa.
H2o Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 According to SportsCenter, Brett Favre was on a 9:10am plane this morning headed to St Paul, MN. He is expected to sign with the Vikings today... It never stops. It NEVER stops!! What I think they did is: 1. Favre already knows the offense and will just need a couple of weeks to get his timing down, hence signing now. 2. It kept the media circus away from camp for a few weeks to get some good work in with the younger players and players on the bubble without the distraction, hence signing now. 3. They always knew his plan, but just kept it hidden from the national media until the day of the signing.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 All good points, but I'll still believe it when I see it. He fell apart down the stretch last year - the only game he won in the last 5 was because of Jauron's bone-headed play call. You do know he was INJURED right?
UConn James Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I made the same decision years ago myself. I'm buying you a for a great post. Me three. Last year was the first year, tho, that when I came in from raking and it was almost 2 p.m. on a Sunday, that I didn't give a crap either way. Look, the most annoying thing about the Favre dramas has been the media's overreaction. W/o an artificial 24/7 news cycle, this is small peanuts. There've been a lot of guys through the years who waver on retirement. Look at Derrick Mason on the Ravens a couple of weeks ago retiring then un-retiring inside of a week --- it got a sentence in the paper here. The difference has been that for Favre, the media hypes it beyond all distortion. There's a difference b/w reporting the news and them trying to create news, regurgitating old sh--, and talking about it ad nauseum with nothing new being added. At this point, ESPN:Brett Favre::British tabloids:Lady Di. The media's silliness doesn't make me think the lesser of Favre. And as I wrote, I don't watch it.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 ...and these are the same analysts who pick the Dolphins for the Super Bowl every year. So you can take their analysis and $3.95, and get yourself a latte at Starbucks. It's rare when the favorite in August makes, and wins the Super Bowl. Suddenly, some of these analysts are wetting themselves about the Vikings going 16-0, or 19-0. The Minnesota Vikings, a franchise which you can always count on to screw things up somewhere along the way. The Vikings have not made a Super Bowl for 33 years. That's right. 33 years. It's been a quarter of a century for the Dolphins as well. There's a reason why these people are analysts and not working in the NFL. The Vikings have not made the Super Bowl for 33 years. That's right. 33 years. What better argument could there be to make Favre a Viking?
bladiebla Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 True only in the sense that if he's on the roster for Game 1, his eligibility will be delayed for a year. Not only is Favre an absolute first-ballot lock for Canton, he may well be a unanimous selection. Heh, ok I should have said delayed.
bladiebla Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 LOL WOW. Dumbest. Post. Ever. For one thing, does the reporting about Favre when there is absolutely nothing else to report really cause that much grief? Is it so hard to flip the damn channel? Really? Is it so bad that you feel justified in passing judgment against the guy? If that is the case, I recommend you seek immediate psychiatric attention. Secondly, Brett Favre could assassinate Obama and still be a no miss, in the bag, first ballot hall of famer. You are too stupid for words. So you are looking forward to a 5th or is it 6th offseason allready of dominating the NFL related media with the same stories we've been reading the past offseasons. That's your choice. It isn't mine, I'm actually looking forward to those reporters being forced to write other articles, see some creativity out of them. I hope next years offseason will be limited to a single story about him signing somewhere, extending his contract or about starting the season without him, but yes not likely to happen. Also I admire your display of social intellect, i hope it doesnt reflect your actual intelligence.
bladiebla Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 For what it's worth, some of y'all can bash "the media" all you want -- but when the NFL's career passing yardage/TD leader, a three-time MVP with a Super Bowl ring, comes out of retirement to play for one of the Pack's division rivals, it's newsworthy. Offcourse it is newsworthy, this is actual news. As was the news that he was released by the Jets. The issue is the media creating news in between where there is no news and have been doing that for 5 or 6 years. It would be like writing a story about the Aaron Maybin holdout each and every day. When there is nothing to report, then don't report it.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I look forward to Favre playing for the Vikings myself. Everyone that criticizes Favre for waffeling all these years should place the blame where it belongs................on Ted Thompson.
Simon Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 For what it's worth, some of y'all can bash "the media" all you want -- I should have been more clear in that I was referring to the 4 major US networks (particularly Fox and CBS) and ESPN. Apologies for any unintentionally ruffled feathers.
Lori Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I should have been more clear in that I was referring to the 4 major US networks (particularly Fox and CBS) and ESPN.Apologies for any unintentionally ruffled feathers. No offense taken; I think we agree on your definition of "the media." I wouldn't write about Favre, and I doubt anyone reading our small-town paper gives a hoot what I think about him anyway ... That said, I think LaPlaca does have a point. Should Wilbon and Kornheiser be forbidden to talk about a certain subject because the ATH gang covered it in the preceding half-hour, or something's going to run on SportsCenter a few minutes after they're done? Now, does the *BREAKING NEWS* live coverage go over the top at times? I wouldn't dispute that ... but I also think it's merely a byproduct of a network with a 24-hour news cycle devoted entirely to covering sports. Chris's quote: "Television can only create interest so far -- it has to be there to begin with." Why do they hype up the NFL draft so much? Because previous years' ratings prove people are watching. Perhaps that level of interest isn't always a good thing -- see Britney Spears and the like atop the Google search ratings -- but their advertisers pay dearly for those ratings points. FoxSports' Mark Kriegel pointed out that guys like Tom Rinaldi are doing some great work for the WWL, but "they don't pay the bills. You have to pick your battles." He continued, "There's no great shame in giving people what they want. There are worse things than over-covering Favre, Kobe, etc., if it allows you to do stories like Rinaldi's."
Numark Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 For what it's worth, some of y'all can bash "the media" all you want -- but when the NFL's career passing yardage/TD leader, a three-time MVP with a Super Bowl ring, comes out of retirement to play for one of the Pack's division rivals, it's newsworthy. Chris LaPlaca (Bona grad, and ESPN's Sr. VP/Communications) brought up Favre during a recent discussion on how television networks view and cover sports. Someone asked why show after show seemed to cover the same topic, from NFL Live to Around the Horn to PTI to Sportscenter. His answer: we can't assume that people are going to sit there for two hours and watch every one of those shows back-to-back. Someone who watches NFL Live for the news factor may not enjoy the talking (yelling?) heads on ATH, and vice versa. No one rational said it isn't newsworthy. Or that it shouldn't be talked about today on every show, or even all show every show today. That isn't the problem. The annoying unprofessional part of it is it won't stop after today, or this week, but it won't stop. They will talk about this all day for weeks, and then when it is his first week of the regular season, they will talk about it all week. Then when he plays the packers twice it will be on all week. Then when the season ends, they will talk for weeks about his future. The only thing that is going to help is the media of Tom Brady returning.
GG Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 No offense taken; I think we agree on your definition of "the media." I wouldn't write about Favre, and I doubt anyone reading our small-town paper gives a hoot what I think about him anyway ... That said, I think LaPlaca does have a point. Should Wilbon and Kornheiser be forbidden to talk about a certain subject because the ATH gang covered it in the preceding half-hour, or something's going to run on SportsCenter a few minutes after they're done? Now, does the *BREAKING NEWS* live coverage go over the top at times? I wouldn't dispute that ... but I also think it's merely a byproduct of a network with a 24-hour news cycle devoted entirely to covering sports. Chris's quote: "Television can only create interest so far -- it has to be there to begin with." Why do they hype up the NFL draft so much? Because previous years' ratings prove people are watching. Perhaps that level of interest isn't always a good thing -- see Britney Spears and the like atop the Google search ratings -- but their advertisers pay dearly for those ratings points. FoxSports' Mark Kriegel pointed out that guys like Tom Rinaldi are doing some great work for the WWL, but "they don't pay the bills. You have to pick your battles." He continued, "There's no great shame in giving people what they want. There are worse things than over-covering Favre, Kobe, etc., if it allows you to do stories like Rinaldi's." Everything is good in moderation. It is definitely newsworthy. But it's probably not worth wall to wall coverage.
jjsiepierski34 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I look forward to Favre playing for the Vikings myself. Everyone that criticizes Favre for waffeling all these years should place the blame where it belongs................on Ted Thompson. Sorry if this has been posted, is this along the same lines of animosity as when we cut Thurman and he signed for a year with Miami? I mean, of all places....MIAMI. I remember I was mad at him (I have since totally gotten over it...completely) but I believe there was a little more to Favre signing with Minn. Everyone talks about knowing the offense, and getting back to the playoffs for a run. What were Thurman's intentions in signing with the Fish? Maybe just play one more year in warm weather, and sticking it to the Bills...that's all I can remember....they were not very good at the time he signed. I guess I'm just wondering if everyone thinks the villanous feelings are the same between the two situations for the fans...? Go Bills.
RLflutie7 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I don't understand the animosity towards Favre. It doesn't affect you or your team in any way so why should you have anything to say about it? Because he's turned into a drama queen. He's in, he's out, then in again. He's "holding court" with the media during his press conferences. If he didn't want to retire, then he should have said so. In no uncertain terms. He needs to get the media to back off. He didn't do that. Everytime he plays and his team loses the media brings up the retirement thing again. They should stop asking the question.
RLflutie7 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Ohh I agree with you totally, I just think ELi is a bag of sh--, and I find it amazing he is considered a top QB in the media.... That's because he plays in New York and his last name is Manning.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 Sorry if this has been posted, is this along the same lines of animosity as when we cut Thurman and he signed for a year with Miami? I mean, of all places....MIAMI. I remember I was mad at him (I have since totally gotten over it...completely) but I believe there was a little more to Favre signing with Minn. Everyone talks about knowing the offense, and getting back to the playoffs for a run. What were Thurman's intentions in signing with the Fish? Maybe just play one more year in warm weather, and sticking it to the Bills...that's all I can remember....they were not very good at the time he signed. I guess I'm just wondering if everyone thinks the villanous feelings are the same between the two situations for the fans...? Go Bills. The difference is the Packers still had the core of a GOOD team in place for the last 4-5 years Favre was there. They just needed to add a couple players which Favre pleaded with Thompson to do to make another run at the Super Bowl. That is the reason Favre could not make his mind up about returning every year. If Ted had made an effort to surround him with talent, Favre would have been eager to return.
DCbillsfan Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 According to SportsCenter, Brett Favre was on a 9:10am plane this morning headed to St Paul, MN. He is expected to sign with the Vikings today... It never stops. It NEVER stops!! There only one thing left to do - turn off the TV!
zow2 Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 I'm sick of Favre. He deliberately avoided training camp because he's too much of a veteran to be in camp. His waffling and desire to be a "story" is out of control. His signing probably means they have to get rid of Tavaris Jackson and other roster shufflings. He doesn't care who he affects in his wake, people lose jobs because of him. Why does he want to stick it to GB so badly? That organization and fans put him on such a pedestal all those years,
tbonehawaii Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 According to SportsCenter, Brett Favre was on a 9:10am plane this morning headed to St Paul, MN. He is expected to sign with the Vikings today... It never stops. It NEVER stops!! who cares?
Recommended Posts