PDA

View Full Version : Colts, Manning split was prettier to watch than Favre-Packers



SnakeLH2006
03-23-2012, 03:43 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/colts-manning-learned-how-to-handle-a-public-breakup-in-the-right-way-h64lrle-143752816.html
Was there a whole lot of civility in the way the most valued free agent in NFL history just changed teams?
Or are we still remembering the divisive summer of 2008 in tones that should be softer by now?
Maybe it's a little of both.
All reasonable people moved on from the Brett Favre episode long ago. The only thing that matters now is how much time the Green Bay Packers need before they can bring him back to Lambeau Field for a retirement ceremony without residual negativity.
But even reasonable people are up for a good comparison every now and then. And if Peyton Manning's orderly transition to the Denver Broncos is the new paradigm for football legends moving on, it sort of frames the whole Brett Favre episode in a whole 'nother level of silliness, doesn't it.

I'm not saying that the Indianapolis Colts and Manning are any classier than the Packers or Favre. Let's just say if the Colts and Manning learned anything from our little incident four years ago, they learned it very well.
The Colts were the only team for which the four-time MVP played. He was as synonymous with the horseshoe - even if the horseshoe was synonymous with another city - as Favre was with the squashed G.
And here is what Colts owner Jim Irsay said: "I congratulate Peyton as he heads to a tremendous organization in the Denver Broncos. We wish him nothing but the best as he continues his Hall of Fame career."
Of course, Irsay could say those things with a sense of ease. Because of his neck injury, Manning may not collect his entire $96 million contract from the Broncos. The Colts are about to draft something approaching a sure-thing quarterback in Andrew Luck. Given Manning's stature in Indianapolis, moving on down there was remarkably painless.
And for Manning, at least publicly, it was no more difficult than instructing his agent to finish the deal with the Broncos. As a side bonus, Denver got to dump Tim Tebow on the Jets.
Everybody is, imagine that, happy.
While there is not much value in wondering why it couldn't have been like that in Green Bay during the divisive summer of 2008, it's still somewhat unsettling to remember how things got so ugly between icon franchise and icon quarterback.
Maybe it's a good thing that the details are becoming a little blurry, but there was only one bottom line that truly mattered.
The Packers were ready to make Aaron Rodgers their starting quarterback in 2008. Coldblooded and ruthless? Maybe, but completely in character with the profession No. 4 had chosen. The next time somebody mentions "loyalty" from either side as it pertains to the NFL, just try to look at a picture of Mike Webster without crying. The term just doesn't apply.
Favre knew he was going to be replaced at his first retirement, and shortly thereafter the scene degenerated to a level of incivility that never should have been visited on a place like Green Bay.
People were split between Packers fans and Favre fans. The Packers would not release Favre for fear that he would sign with Minnesota. Favre embarrassed the franchise by flying into town while an intrasquad scrimmage was being played. The animosity between Favre and the front office reached an unimaginable plane. Favre eventually played for the Vikings. That was Favre's right, just as it was his responsibility to assume the consequences of his decision.
It no longer matters who was at fault. It doesn't even matter that the Packers' decision was justified.
Naturally, the Manning-Colts severance wasn't as smooth as it played out in public. Manning is no less the diva than Favre - or any other elite-level athlete, for that matter - was perceived to be. The Colts are just as business-driven as the Packers.
But for an event of its magnitude, Manning-to-the-Broncos was extraordinarily well-managed. Let that be a lesson the next time Favre shows up around here.

-----------------

Ya think?

Myke Unt is the worst sportswriter. He only goes for cheap, lazy headlines and writes slop with opinion based on readership...He's flipflopped on Favre more than Favre flops himself. I've seen his disgusting fat ass try to work some nasty fatties in Brewtown at bar close more than once...just a cranky old pig. Yuck.

Kiwon
03-23-2012, 04:34 AM
Yeah, the headline is rather underwhelming.

By the way, Snake, TMI on Mike Hunt's Romeo moves...... :smile:

mmmdk
03-23-2012, 12:52 PM
I still call for smart phone picture wiener alert! Wide screen version.

Pugger
03-23-2012, 01:01 PM
Had #4 been forthright with Packers' management instead of the "retirement" charade I submit none of the ugliness of that summer would have come to pass. We had his replacement chomping at the bit and MM was more than ready to have Aaron be our starter. Too bad Gramps wouldn't talk to MM until August after all the damage had been done.

ND72
03-23-2012, 01:03 PM
I hate people are trying to compare the 2 situations, they're comepletely different.

MadtownPacker
03-23-2012, 02:04 PM
Snake - Please see thread Im about to make.

woodbuck27
03-26-2012, 05:53 AM
How could one hardly compare the situations:

Manning and Colts

Favre and Packers...no comparison given the season Bret Favre had prior to his departure from the Green Bay Packers. Come on...please.

Peyton Manning had a 'no season' season. Brett Favre had a very productive season.No real signs he was slowing down; in fact two seasons later in Minny Favre was so close to taking the Vikings to a Super Bowl and in that aseason overall Brett Favre was as described by a teammate...On FIRE!!

The season prior to that Favre was for a spell with the Jets the BEST QB in the NFL. Until the Jets collapse 9again0 Favre was looking so good. It certainly appeared to any NFL fan as if the Jets were playoff bound and looking more than 'just fine'.

The 'only' possible comparison might be in terms of the pain they might have mutually felt; that the Colts and Packers were questionalble in terms of 'a LOYALTY issue or not'.