Wow, This Is Incredibly Poorly Written

What is? This is. Gene Wojciechowski likes Brett Favre, you see. He likes Favre at lot. And you can have his admission that Favre was not as good as Aaron Rodgers last season as soon as you pry it from his cold, dead, idiotic hands.

The e-mails began arriving shortly after the New York Jets' season ended.

"Get ready to print your retraction," read one.

To be fair, this guy could have been talking about almost anything Gene has written in the last couple of years.

"I'll bet you don't remember me," began another. "I'm the guy who said, 'I think you're wrong about Brett Favre. I think he's washed up."'

And "[Aaron] Rodgers is, right now, much, much better than Favre -- not a little, a whole lot better."

That might be a slight exaggeration, but the guy is right. And, poorly conceptualized/contradictory response from Gene.... GO!

Turns out some Green Bay Packers fans have long memories, except when it comes to the Packers' 6-10 record this season.

The argument at hand is whether Rodgers is better than Favre. Nice point.

They also have blind spots; we all do. I have one for Favre and will never apologize for it. I also have one for the Packers. It's my favorite pro team, favorite stadium, favorite helmet logo, favorite game-day experience. I grew up on that franchise.

Making you especially suceptible to offering completely unobjective opinions about them and Favre. But please, go on.

But sorry, there won't be any retractions. Just because Rodgers had a better statistical season doesn't mean the Packers were a better team without Favre.

"You have facts which can be used to lead to logical conclusions. But I have ultra-subjective opinions, which by definition cannot be proven wrong. Therefore I win. QED."

First of all, the numbers don't always make the man.

Just look at David Eckstein, for Christ's sakes.

If they did, then six of the top 10 quarterbacks by passing yards and six of the top 10 by touchdowns wouldn't be done with their seasons. But they are, including Rodgers and Favre.

Because we all know that there is a direct correlation between how good a QB is and whether or not the other 52 guys on his team help him get to the playoffs. You know why Drew Brees is staying home this January? Because he sucks, that's why.

I wrote before the season's start that Packers management botched the entire Favre situation. I stand by that.

I feel like there might be two sides to that story.

Favre changed his mind about retirement,

Thanks, let me expand on that. FAVRE WAS THE WHINEST, LAMEST, MOST ATROCIOUSLY PATHETIC ASSHOLE HE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN ABOUT THE SITUATION. Anyone objective with a basic level of knowledge about the situation should acknowledge this. Regardless of anything the Packers did or didn't do, Favre was inexcusably wishy-washy. What sadsack fuckstick. I'm literally embarrassed for him, with his tear-filled press conferences and straight-faced lies. Fucking gag me. Worst story in pro sports in the past five years. Bar none.

but the Packers just as clumsily changed their minds about Favre.

Favre made his own bed. He can lie in it until he dies for all I care. Trying to act like the Packers are more than 5% at fault for his departure would be dumb.

I wrote that Favre was the best QB on the roster: "Again, nothing against Rodgers, who finds himself between a rock and a legacy, but if the goal is to win as many games as possible, then [general manager Ted] Thompson has to embrace Favre's possible return." I stand by that, too.

More "my ultra-subjective opinions are wrong" stuff. You can't disprove this, can you?

Rodgers played well this season. He played hurt. He played in the blinding light of the post-Favre era and did so with poise and heart. If he stays healthy (he played much of the season with a shoulder injury), the Packers have themselves a quarterback.

Such a graceful concession.

But Favre played well, too -- not as often as Rodgers did,

Thesis of this article: the Packers were not better with Rodgers than they could have been with Favre. And that's how good Favre is. Gene will admit that he didn't play well as often as Rodgers did, but he still would have been better for the Packers.

but well enough that the Jets were 8-3 after beating the then-undefeated Tennessee Titans on the road. You remember: That was the same week the Packers got beat 51-29 by New Orleans to drop to 5-6 and start a five-game losing streak. Weird. I don't remember getting any "Favre's washed up" e-mails then.

You know who gave up those 51 points to the Saints? Rodgers. He was the only person playing defense for the Packers that night. It's all his fault. Meanwhile, as the Jets beat the Titans 34-13, it was Favre who single-handedly held the Titans to 45 yards rushing and 281 total yards. Yay Brett! Go #4! He's just having fun out there! Doesn't even know what the score is! Brett being Brett!

Turns out Favre played hurt, too. No surprise there. But a now-diagnosed torn biceps tendon affected his arm strength down the stretch.

Operative word here: "too." As in, every player in the league, including Rodgers (as Gene already admitted), played hurt too.

His critics say he looked old. Duh -- he's 39. But isn't there the possibility that he simply looked injured? Big difference.

This has nothing to do with anything, least of all your terrible argument. Irrelevant difference.

The mistake people make is trying to compare Rodgers' season with Favre's.

What Gene is trying to say is that the mistake people make is trying to think about this situation logically, rather than simply assuming Brett is the best QB ever who can do no wrong and could never possibly be worse than the pathetic likes of Aaron Rodgers.

Rodgers had more passing yards, more touchdowns, fewer interceptions, more rushing yards and a higher passer rating -- so he's clearly the better quarterback.

How dare people try to think like that. What is that called, brain using? Idea having? Maybe not "clearly," but I will say he's probably the better QB based on all that. Especially when the difference in rating is substantial- 93.8 to 81.0.

But do wins count for anything? Favre's Jets had nine compared to the Packers' six. They beat three playoff-bound teams; the Packers defeated one. Favre's Jets gagged away their division lead in the last month, but they still had a chance at the playoffs. The Packers were officially eliminated with two weeks remaining in the season.

All this is somewhat relevant, but not nearly as relevant as personal statistics when you're debating which QB would be better for a given team. Because, you know, the fact that the Jets had a better defense and (much) better running game than the Packers might have something to do with the teams' records.

Do divisions count for anything?

Sure. Again, not as much as defenses or running games. But something.

Favre's Jets played in an AFC East in which two teams finished with 11 wins and the worst team finished with seven. Compare that to the mediocre NFC North, home of only one double-digit-win team (the Minnesota Vikings) and the 0-16 Detroit Lions. One-third of the Packers' victories came against the losingest team in the history of the NFL.

And again, you can't disprove Gene's implication that Rodgers would have folded like a cheap tent in the AFC East. Can't. So there.

Do circumstances count for anything?

Nope, not when they're of the person in question's own making! You're about to make a bunch of apologies for Favre based on his not having a full training camp with the Jets, aren't you? Guess whose fault that is? Hint: he spent last fall just having fun playing QB for the Jets.

Favre didn't have the benefit of a full training camp or a full playbook. Everything was a work in progress with the Jets -- and stayed that way.

Because Favre is a crybaby fence-sitting dickhead.

(And yes, I know Chad Pennington made a similar transition from the Jets to the Miami Dolphins and thrived. It was a remarkable season for him. Pennington deserves much of the credit, but it helped that he was in Jets/Dolphins camp for the entire time. And it's clear now that Tony Sparano and his Miami staff were more nimble and better prepared for the transition than the Jets' Eric Mangini and his staff.)

So what you're saying is your argument has an immediate and devastating counterargument. Thanks for providing it.

Rodgers had the pressure of replacing Favre,

I'm sure he barely noticed.

but he also had an entire offseason and training camp to prepare for it.

Here comes the dumbest sentence in the whole article- are you ready?

And there can't be any debate that the Packers' skill players, especially at wide receiver, were better than the Jets'.

I must've just read a Rick Reilly column, because I am laughing insincerely. What are you, Gene, fucking retarded? Thomas Jones, Leon Washington, Dustin Keller, Jericho Cotchery, and Laveranues Coles are clearly worse than Ryan Grant, Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, and Donald Driver? I appreciate the effort, but you are wrong. Simplifying things, Cotchery/Coles are certainly in the neighborhood of Jennings/Driver. Saying there "can't be any debate" about this is moronic.

Anyway, the move from the Packers to Jets doesn't absolve Favre from throwing a league-leading 22 interceptions. Some of those INTs were killers.

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyup.

But the same goes for Rodgers, whose late-game interceptions in Week 14 against Houston and Week 15 against Jacksonville ended comeback attempts.

Therefore, Favre would have been better for the Packers. You can't disprove it!

In fact, Rodgers was 0-8 in comeback situations this season.

All 8 of those losses, such as Week 16 against Chicago when Mason Crosby's game winning 35 yard field goal attempt (that Rodgers basically set up singlehandedly) was blocked, were entirely Rodgers' fault.

The simple truth is we'll never know if the Packers would have been better or worse with Favre this season.

Remember when you wrote this?

I wrote that Favre was the best QB on the roster: "Again, nothing against Rodgers, who finds himself between a rock and a legacy, but if the goal is to win as many games as possible, then [general manager Ted] Thompson has to embrace Favre's possible return." I stand by that, too.

Way to stand by it.

That's because it was never an option.

It was an option, technically. The reason it didn't happen, as I said earlier, is probably about 97% Favre's fault and 3% Green Bay's fault. Hey Gene: it's not a team's duty to bend to the whims of and endlessly put up with the bullshit of washed up old players like Favre. He could have stayed if he wanted to. Instead, he decided to put on a media circus and re-change his mind at the last second. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, fucko.

All we know for sure is that the inconsistent and underachieving Packers moved on.

As did the inconsistent and underachieving (actually, probably not underachieving, he's just not that good anymore) Favre.

Did they move forward? I don't know -- is 6-10 moving forward after playing in an NFC Championship Game with Favre a season earlier?

And clearly Favre's presence would have changed things. Are you ready? Say it with me: YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT! Also, next year when Rodgers is no longer a first year starter and Brett is off hunting possums, feel free to the foward movingness of Green Bay's move.

I'm not blaming Rodgers for the mess. He wasn't perfect, but he also wasn't the problem -- just like Favre wasn't the main problem with the Jets. I see why Thompson was willing to make a leap of faith with Rodgers, but Favre's departure could have -- and should have -- been handled better by Packers management.

Thank you for admitting the real reason you hold your stance. Poor Brett! He got a raw deal! Boo-motherfucking-hoo.

What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too. Dumb.

Just like it's dumb that you seem to be (in a way) reveling in the Packers' struggles this year.

So no retractions. Favre did what he could. So did Rodgers. As it turns out, neither was enough.

That's nothing like your point at the beginning of this article. Nothing at all. You have completely abandoned everything you were originally saying. You know, I'm completely sure that John Kerry would have been a better president than George W. Bush for the past four years. 100% positive. No doubt in my mind.

Well, I mean, there's no way we can tell.

And neither were/would have been very good.

But I'm sticking to my guns! Sort of!

Gene Wojciechowski is a tiny brained dipshit.