Favre on Vikings ≠ Jeter on Red Sox

Recap: Brett Favre used to play on the Green Bay Packers.  He now plays on the Minnesota Vikings.  The Vikings are a rival of the Packers.  

Derek Jeter will not be taking his talents to Boston

So naturally during last nights Packers/Vikings games they had to make a big deal of Favre going to a rival.  They went as far as to show a picture of Jeter in a Red Sox uniform, to try to "show" you how big of a deal this is.  Except, it's not as big of a deal, here's why:

1. The Vikings are not the Packers main rival, the Bears are
2. Brett Favre went to the Jets first

I understand what they were trying to do but it's both stupid and inaccurate.  A more analogous situation would need to involve Jeter deciding this year and next year that he is retiring only to come back in February before spring training, then in 2013 switch leagues to play for the Dodgers, then come back in 2014 to play for the Red Sox in the midst of a scandal that involved Jeter showing his penis to sideline reporters to the chagrin of his wife of 3 years, Minka Kelly.  If this was such a big deal, why would they need to use these dumb examples to illustrate their point?  It's not like I couldn't comprehend the tragedy of Favre playing on the Vikings before I saw a dumb photoshopped picture of John Elway wearing the Raiders' black and gray.   

I have my gripes with the NFL, but as a whole, I still largely enjoy watching it.  Most of my problems are with their analysis, if you even want to call it that.  Every week on pre or post game shows they reiterate the same garbage.  If you listen long enough you will likely hear:

• You must run the ball to set up the pass
• Field position is crucial
• Never turn the ball over in the Red Zone
• Defense wins championships
• To play in January you have to win in December

This is all said in spite of the fact that some  teams seemingly do the opposite, passing to set up the run, offensive heavy teams are effective, and there is a lack of evidence suggesting momentum means anything in the playoffs.

They make a big deal out of everything, even if its nothing, kind of like this Packers Vikings matchup.  Don't get me wrong, as a Packers fan I understand the importance of the game as it relates to the standings in the division as well as the whole "Favre returning to Lambo" junk.  But sometimes they go to far, like they did (do, every time) on ESPN Sunday NFL countdown and as my friend Chris pointed out they had the topic "does Aaron Rodgers need to beat Brett Favre to ever be considered an all-time great?"  

Aaron Rodgers is almost 27 years old and is basically considered a top 5, at least top 10, QB in the NFL.  He is entering the prime of his career and by all accounts should have a 5 year peak window and if he's lucky, another 5 years after that.  To be an all-time great however, Aaron Rodgers must win Super Bowls...and a week 7 matchup between against the Vikings and Brett Favre just because he used to backup Brett Favre?  If the Packers lost this game (they didn't), according to some football "analysts" (aka loud-mouthed ex-NFL wide receivers), Aaron Rodgers would never be considered an all time great quarter back.  A QB who could theoretically win the next 10 MVPs and Super Bowls would never be "great" because he lost in week 8 in 2010.  

I'm not saying that Aaron Rodgers will be an all-time great QB, it's just that this game had no bearing on that decision.  Maybe your list would have more, but here's what I would look at when I'm determining a QB's legacy (in no order):

Aaron Rodgers (left) defeated Brett Favre last night
keeping his chances of becoming an all-time great alive

• Stats.  For an all-time great there has to be some evidence of it on the stat sheet. Intangibles can only go so far.
• Regular season wins.  Every game this QB brings it, giving you a chance to win.  While he doesn't have to always win, you can't have a loser
• Super Bowl wins.  I don't think there is a direct correlation to Super Bowl wins and quarter back greatness, but clearly winning the big one counts.
• Hardware.  I'm not using Pro Bowl counts as a determining factor but it counts for something. Also, was he ever the best in the league, taking home an MVP or at least what should have been an MVP award?
• Accumulator vs. Peak.  Some guys are good for a long time and some guys are great for a short time.  Being either of those could make you a great QB, but an all-time great must do both. 

What's missing from the list?  Mid-season matchups against your team's rival who's starting QB used to play for your team.  I get it, in the now this game is a big deal for this season as both teams were fluttering and there is that extra Brett Favre ripple involved.  But to extrapolate it and give it significance for someone's entire career is just pathetic.  NFL "analysis" has long been suffering, but they are reaching new lows.