Zeruel's edit: The long link broke the tables, so I edited it. ____________________________________________________________ I'm sure there are a lot of Vikings fans out there who would love to see Brett Favre put on the purple and yellow, but Fran Tarkenton isn't one of them. If it does eventually happen, you won't see Tarkenton showing up at Favre's door in Minnesota with a freshly-baked apple pie to welcome him.
Tarkenton was on 790 the Zone in Atlanta yesterday and talked about the Brett Favre's "I'm retired, wait, no I'm not" bit.
“I think it’s despicable. What he put the Packers through last year was not good. Here’s an organization that was loyal to him for 17, 18 years, provided stability of organization, provided players. It just wasn’t about Brett Favre. In this day and time, we have glorified the Brett Favre’s of the world so much, they think it’s about them. He goes to New York and bombs. He’s 39 years old. How would you like Ray Nitschke in his last year (playing for) the Vikings, or I retire, and go play for the Packers. I kind of hope it happens, so he can fail.” ____________________________________________________________
The one thing that strikes me funny is, didn't Fran Tarkenton force a trade out of Minnesota in 1966? What's the difference between that and what Brett did with Green Bay?
(edited by Zeruel on 28.5.09 2221)
(edited by Zeruel on 28.5.09 2222) Hey Ferb...I know what we're gonna do today!
I believe that Tarkenton requested a trade from Minnesota primarily due to differences with the head coach. He was only in the league a few years at that time, so it really had nothing to do with misleading them or quasi-retiring. So there are similarities between the two situations in that regard but Fran leaving was not the same situation as he clearly stated his desire to play for another team, whereas Favre put the Packers in a much more difficult situation.
He went to the Giants and had moderate success before being traded back to Minnesota a few years later.
Yeah that's the real key. 44% say signing Favre would make them less likely to support public financing, but 88% of all respondents were against public support with or without Favre. So at worst, signing Favre takes support for public funding from 12% down to 8% (12% * 63%; 44% say they're less likely to support financing, but 7% say they're more likely to support financing). And we have no idea how much of that is posturing by Vikings fans. Believe me, I saw first hand when people had to choose between liking Brett Favre and liking the Packers; most of the ones I saw choose the Packers. Hating Favre and liking the Vikings might work the same way.
Good Lord you scared me by saying Deuce instead of Duce. I thought McAllister was holding out and I'd missed it somehow. Seriously, Staley is an asshat. But I like it, since Buckhalter could be a huge sleeper this year.