Jack’s Blog

After all Aaron Rodgers had to endure, none of which was of his doing, he comes out in his first playoff game and puts up numbers a Hall-of-Fame quarterback would hope for.  Yet, his team loses.  

It’s a bummer, sure, but because his team is the legendary Green Bay Packers, the only community-owned NFL franchise, and the quarterback he replaced is the just as legendary Brett Favre (whose new team just happens to be the hated Minnesota Vikings), and the Vikings are still alive in the NFL playoffs, his emotions must skyrocketing.  What’s a guy to do?

For those who’ve never been part of a team (especially one competing at a high level), it’s easy to rationalize what Rodgers is going through.  He did as close to his best (anyone whose career has lasted over 30 minutes has made some mistakes) as he could.  The numbers speak for themselves so he should have nothing to be ashamed about.  Except for one thing.  The dreaded bottom line in team sports: did your club win?

If the answer’s no, it seems as though nothing else matters.  Those who are Rodgers’ fans (and that group should certainly have grown exponentially in witnesses after his  performance yesterday) will walk with their heads held high.  His detractors, though, will point to two areas, one a fact, the other, . . . we’ll never know.  The fact is, naturally, that the Pack lost - and, to fans, nothing else matters (except maybe in the NY-NJ area because whether you “covered” eases the pain somewhat).  The other, which in this group’s mind, he’ll never live down (at least until he leads the Green & Gold to, oh yeah, something called the Lombardi Trophy), is that if Brett were at QB, we’d have won today (”today,” meaning any day the Packers have a game - even though the stats don’t bear that out).  But “he would have led us to a score in OT” and “no way would he have let any defensive lineman strip him of the ball.”  It’s almost like the “h” in he is capitalized.

Unfair?  Hey, in sports - or life - what’s fair?  Ask Colt McCoy.  Or Wes Welker.  Or Bobby Hurley.  Or Muhammed Ali.  Or Wally Pipp.  Or Lou Gehrig.  Or Pat Tillman. 

Aaron Rodgers plays a game for a living.  For a lot of money.  He gave it his all, “left nothing on the field” as they say.  But, because his team, and as quarterback, make no mistake about it, it’s his team, I would imagine, as a true pro, he’s disappointed.  Yet he lives to play another day.  It just won’t be until next season.

Aaron Rodgers should take heed from another (to whom life was anything but fair), the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. who said:

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.”

He’ll get over it.Â

The football story of the summer (and into fall) was the un-retirement of Brett Favre.  The parting with his one and only professional team was far from amicable and wherever he ended up, there was bound to be comparisons between the face of the cheesehead franchise and his successor, Aaron Rodgers.

The fact Favre ended up playing in the nation’s biggest media market only increased the number and intensity of the comparisons.  As with every argument regarding a subject that cannot be proven, these are fun, sometimes absurd, but great talking points at local watering holes, be they the office water cooler or an after hours establishment.  What makes them so enjoyable is that, first of all, as you present your case, you feel like you are a brilliant barrister - so smart and well-informed - and, after the debate’s over, both sides think they won!  Where else does that happen (other than steamy sex scenes in big budget movies).

If you think that this interaction is childish, it’s probably because you remember hearing it from us as children.  Then, why are adults arguing?  Two reasons: one, we are the kids you heard when you were our age, but you grew up (in that particular area, anyway) and we didn’t and secondly, young kids see and hear their parents doing it (not as many women as men, but with the feminist movement, if there’s an area men dominate, you can bet there will be women trying to crack that famous “glass ceiling” - even if this one’s made of balsa wood) and you were so proud of your parents because they sounded so smart.

The take on this massive disagreement begins as all these do - with the agenda the people bring into it.  If you’re an Aaron Rodgers fan, you have all the stats (total passing yards, average yards per pass, more TD’s and fewer INT’s.  Entering the “arena” as a Favre supporter, you point to better pass completion percentage, last year’s record of the Pack vs. this year’s and last year’s Jets’ record and this year’s, plus all the intangibles Brett brings.  

But Aaron is young and the future; Brett is older and had better get it done now.  Besides, Brett wouldn’t have done any better than Aaron with this year’s version of the Pack.  Backing it up are the stats (courtesy of sportswriter, Dan Pompei): in the fourth quarter, with the Packers within seven of its opponent, Rodgers (this year) is 46 of 72 for 583 yards with 4 TD’s and 4 INT’s while (over the past two years), Brett’s numbers in the same situation are 75 of 126 for 793 yards with 5 TD’s and 5 INT’s.  Actually, how can you even compare those numbers?  They look like a wash and they happened in different years with and against different personnel, under different conditions and … who cares?  That’s where the debater’s passion comes in, i.e. can you get over-the-top excited about something so absurd - especially when there’s so much more important issues going on?  The level-headed fan who isn’t as moved by this topic doesn’t really care about it, but is ready, willing and able if someone says something that does hit his hot button. 

Maybe that’s why it’s done.  These guys will admit they’re not experts on financial situations.  (Come to your own conclusions about the line that follows that one). 

Where this discussion is like that really matters is how the situations parallel each other when it comes to the line by Will Rogers (no relation to Aaron - or for that matter, Brett):  “One of the evils of democracy is, you have to put up with the man you elect whether you want him or not.”  It could be stated this way:

“One of the evils of free agency is, you have to put up with the man you  signed whether you want him or not.”