Move Over, Basketball

Baseball may be underway for some, but if you're not a fan of the Boston Red Sox or the Oakland Athletics, there is still plenty of time to get ready for Opening Day.

Opening Day is the only real day where fans can mock each other's teams for losing the first of 162 games on their 2008 magnetic schedule that adorns the refrigerator next to pictures of the grandkids, pictures by the grandkids, and that reminder of that colonoscopy check-up (highly recommended).

Rather than starting with a bang, this season begins with a hangover from the Mitchell Report, another round of testimony on Capitol Hill, and a second Canseco book. So what should we expect? Well these ten questions should frame the 2008 MLB season:

First of all, will YOU be watching baseball this season? There's a double-standard here. Most fans want the game cleaned-up, but after learning of a report with over 90 names based in only two cities, you can only imagine how truly prevalent steroid use is. Most self-righteous baseball fans will say it's just a Yankee problem, or an Oriole problem, but not a Boston Red Sox problem.

Right now, the only teams you can say for certain have never used steroids are the Kansas City Royals and the Pittsburgh Pirates. Either that, or they've never had Jose Canseco to show them how to use steroids "properly."

Check yourself right now and ask yourself, "Self? Can I deal with any more revelations this season, even if they're players from my team?"

You can't just stop rooting for certain players while continuing to shill for your team midway through the season if suddenly your favorite player is implicated in another pharmaceutical raid.

Make a decision now. Many of you already have. And stick to it. And if steroids have made you choose not to watch baseball this season, don't bother turning on the NFL Draft next month, either.

Baseball has survived the Black Sox scandal, World War II, the Pittsburgh Drug Trials, Pete Rose, the cancelation of the 1994 World Series, Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds. It'll survive the Mitchell Report, Roger Clemens and another Canseco book.

Now, onto the rest of this season's inquiries:

Which Joe is under more pressure? Girardi or Torre? Since 1995, every Yankee season has become win-or-die. But Joe Torre somehow outlasted 12 of those before telling the Steinbrenners where they could shove their performance-modeled contract. The Dodgers will give him the time he needs, as will the Yankees give Girardi his proper due. However, both have expectations considering the line-up Girardi inherits and the reputation Torre brings with him to Chavez Ravine.

Torre has to prove he had as much to do with 12 playoff appearances, ten division titles, six pennants and four world championships as his lofty payroll. He'll never let on, but he has to show he can do it elsewhere besides the Bronx before everyone else accuses him of being the same manager he was with the Mets, Braves and Cardinals. And he will.

Girardi has a little leeway. A little.

Are the Red Sox building a dynasty? This is the most overcooked story idea in sports history. After every championship in every sport, some scribe needs to rehash this old column. The Red Sox do have one of the best minor league systems in baseball now. But missing Curt Schilling is just the start. Tim Wakefield will miss his share of games and Josh Beckett is starting to have problems again. To put it mildly, there have been no back-to-back champions this millennium. But if anyone could do it, it's Boston. But keep this in mind: Theo almost botched the whole thing last year by bringing-in JD Drew and Eric Gagne. Josh Beckett was acquired when Theo was on hiatus. In other words, let's wait a little while longer before adorning him with the "genius" moniker.

Are the Mets really the team to beat in the National League? They do have Johan Santana. But aside from Jose Reyes and David Wright, their other seven positions could make-up an AARP convention when Santana isn't pitching. Without Santana, the Mets are almost the same team who choked away a seven-game lead with 17 left last season. Wait, they have Brian Schneider and Ryan Church. Oh, that changes everything. Yawn.

The truth is, the NL is anybody's league. But if Mets fans want to tell you otherwise, please hold them to those words come October.

Are the Cleveland Indians baseball's new version of the Oakland A's? Mark Shapiro has put the 2005 collapse and the 2006 also-ran campaign far behind him in reaching the ALCS last season. Harvesting young talent from Buffalo and bringing them to the majors is the only way "small market" teams can survive and Tribe fans have been rewarded for their patience. But if Shapiro wants to be considered better than Billy Beane, he needs to reach the World Series. And a lot of that depends on whether...

...the Tigers as good as they look on paper. Line-up, yes. Pitching staff? Their bullpen is banged-up with Joel Zumaya recovering from shoulder surgery until mid-season and Fernando Rodney out until mid-April. Dontrelle Willis will have to lower his 5.17 ERA from 2007 in the American League, which by AL standards is closer to a 6.00.

Also, they have to wonder how much they can get from a 43 year-old, injury-prone Kenny Rogers. And that's still not considering Jeremy Bonderman and Nate Robertson whose ERAs soared to 5.01 and 4.76 last year respectively.

Sure, the Tigers will score a lot of runs. They'll give-up plenty as well.

Will anyone sign Barry Bonds? Or Sammy Sosa? Or Roger Clemens? There's always someone out there who may be willing to sign at least one of these guys. But if you had to pick one, Sosa is the safest bet.

Can the Cubs actually get to a World Series this season? Next question.

Is 2008 the year the Yankees finally miss the postseason? The Yankees passed on Johan Santana banking on rookies Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy to be there fourth and fifth starters, while Joba Chamberlain starts his year setting-up for Mariano Rivera in the bullpen. Eventually the Joba Rules will be moved to the rotation when Cashman figures out how many innings he'll have left to use in 2008.

Andy Pettitte has a back problem which the Yankees say isn't too serious. However, the Yankees always say that. Ask Jason Giambi, Kevin Brown and Gary Sheffield.

Chien-Ming Wang is more of a wild card than he is an ace. And Mike Mussina's clock is ticking louder and faster than Hillary Clinton's. And in the bullpen, Kyle Farnsworth and LaTroy Hawkins are as reliable as a retirement plan funded by Bear Stearns.

The YES Network brass has praised Joe Girardi's managerial style before he's even managed a regular season game, as if they've forgotten Joe Torre was there the past dozen springs.

This writer doesn't want to see his Yankees fall this season and won't bet against them. But if one were to bet on baseball, the Yankees have more variables this season than ever before.

Will A-Rod finally bash his choke-artist reputation? Given this year's Yankee pitching staff, he doesn't have a choice. But odds are, he won't repeat last year's numbers. But if they make the playoffs, that won't matter. What will matter is what he does with those October at-bats.

Last October, A-Rod had the chance to channel Kirk Gibson in the 1984 World Series (Yes, Eighty-FOUR, not Eighty-EIGHT). San Diego Padres manager, Dick Williams, held-up four fingers for his closer, 2008 Hall-of-Fame inductee Goose Gossage to give Gibson the free pass with first base open.

Bottom of the Eighth. Two on. One out. Tigers up three games to one, and up 5-4 in a must-win game for the Padres.

Gossage decided to go Rick Vaughn on the Detroit Tigers slugger, as Gibson's manager Sparky Anderson egged his hitter on by yelling "he don't wanna walk ya!"

Gibson answered his manager, and Gossage, by clobbering a three-run bomb out of Tiger Stadium, sealing the Series.

Fast-forward, 2007. Top of the ninth. Game Two of the ALDS. 1-1 Game. Two out. Bobby Abreu representing the go-ahead run at second base. Fausto Carmona could have walked A-Rod if he wanted to, but chose to pitch to the AL MVP, the best player in baseball, and maybe one day the greatest ever.

Instead of giving us Kirk Gibson, Alex Rodriguez gave us Alex Rodriguez.

If the Yankees are going to break their slump this year, A-Rod needs to be A-Rod from April through September. Come October he needs to be Kirk Gibson. Or Scott Brosius. Or Paul O'Neill. Or Bernie Williams. Or Derek Jeter.

Anyone but Alex Rodriguez.

Guilty of Bracketeering

Many call the NCAA Tournament is the greatest sporting event of the year.

And they're not just those on Jim Boeheim's Christmas card list. There are a lot of reasons why die hard sports fans will say the Tournament beats anything any other sport has to offer.

Maybe it's because anyone can fill-out a bracket and win their office pool.

Parents have resorted to letting their children fill-out brackets because it actually give them a better chance of winning than if they read previews by ESPN, Sporting News, Rivals.com, and listened to sports radio non-stop for the three days after Selection Sunday.

(Of course, you'd have to have satellite radio to do this considering local sports radio has an ethnocentric view of the sports world around it: Hockey, hockey, hockey, hockey, hockey...the Bills...hockey, hockey, hockey, hockey...the NFL Draft. Hockey.)

If don't think so, ask yourself how some co-worker's wife, mom, or second grade daughter wins the office pool more often than you do.

"...How did I lose? I played Dick Vitale's rants backwards for hidden messages..."

Dickie Vee and his cast of ESPN experts know more about college basketball than any of us because they live it while the rest of us are still enthralled in the ends of the NFL and college football seasons. And they still can't pick The Dance.

The NCAA Tournament is fun to watch. It's even more fun to bet on. At least until Sunday afternoon when people deny they've even filled one out.

But is a tournament loaded with the 34 best teams in the country after 31 conference tournament winners and some Ivy League team that doesn't really count are awarded automatic bids.

Is it fair? No. But what is?

Each school's fans has a different criteria for a successful tournament.

Duke, North Carolina, UCLA: win it all, or don't come home.

Then there are the other schools from major conferences who are happy with a Sweet 16, dreaming with an Elite 8, and euphoric with a Final Four appearance.

Then there's those mid-major schools who are probably worse than half the teams in the NIT, but won their conference tournaments, guaranteeing their fans a free road trip and an excuse to miss class. Anything more than an that is a perfect excuse to flip over police cruisers and start fires in campus garbage cans.

Meanwhile, some team whose bubble burst will win the NIT, and will celebrate by thinking "we can't even hang a banner" or "Great. We're No. 66."

People consider this the best sporting event in the country because it's a playoff system that takes more than one day, gives people an excuse to miss work, and lasts a fraction of the time of the NHL or NBA playoffs. It's the first real event after the Super Bowl, with the exception of the Daytona 500, but that doesn't really count unless you also consider Opening Day or Week One of the NFL season events with championship implications.

Others like the NCAA Tournament best because college basketball players are considered "amateurs." And, for most of the schools they are, wink-wink.

For some, it's the one-and-done, or the thrill of the final two minutes of each game loaded with timeouts and fouls. Oh the humanity. For others, they just want to see Duke lose, like they almost did Thursday night.

But let's be honest: while the upsets are exciting, the 1985 Villanova team is the only school seeded as high as eighth to win the tournament.

George Mason and LSU are the only 11 seeds to reach the Final Four, and those appearances were two decades apart.

No 16 seeds have ever beaten a No. 1. But you knew that.

Basically, all the upsets do is undermine the tournament and eliminate match-ups real college basketball fans would like to see because the better teams had a bad day. And if you don't think so, ask yourself which Final Four game you enjoyed most the last two years? Or when the last time you said aloud, "Wow! What a Final Four!"

Two Marches ago, 11th-seeded George Mason thanked the nation for its collective adoration by getting crushed by Florida, while LSU missed the bus for its loss to UCLA. The best game on that night was LeBron and the Cavs hosting a healthy, pre-world champion Dwyane Wade (no, that's not a typo) and the Miami Heat.

Last year, they may as well have just handed Florida its second trophy after they got off the tarmac.

Not only has the Final Four and championship games been disappointing (there really hasn't been a classic since Syracuse beat Kansas in 2003) but you rarely see future NBA legends square-off in tournament games anymore. Remember Bird-Magic? Jordan-Ewing? Ewing-Olajuwon? College kids with NBA talent don't stick around long enough for us to find out.

Is the NCAA Tournament better than the Super Bowl, or the World Series? You can make an argument, although the country won't collectively gather around the TV screen Monday April 7th around 9 pm to watch college basketball like they do the Super Bowl. And with the letdown of Final Fours in past years, if you argue in favor of the NCAA Tournament, its like arguing in favor of the Divisional Rounds of either the NFL or MLB postseasons being better than the Super Bowl or World Series. It's the first week of the Dance that gets people interested.

But one thing is for sure: the NCAA Tournament beats two grueling months of NHL and NBA playoffs.

And if you don't believe that, ask yourself how much hockey you'll really watch if the Sabres aren't playing in April.

The Forgotten Hometown Hero

I have an entire bookshelf I may never get to in this lifetime.
And if the next lifetime proves false, that you actually CAN take it with you,
I'll need the hereafter to catch-up.

Of course, I'd hear my father then like I used to when he was here, telling me
that if I have time to read a book, I have time to do something much more
"constructive" as he put it.

Unless it was the Good Book, of course, or an original copy of
"The Godfather"--one of the four books my father admitted to reading
in his lifetime.

(For the record, the other three were the Bible, "Black Like Me", and the
"Rise and Fall of Adolf Hitler".)

My dad is the main reason why I've always felt guilty about reading
books as an adult.

Newspapers and magazines are one thing. Books, however, are something
you should read in school and college, then promptly disregard into
adulthood.  That's just how my dad felt about it, anyway.

If I had time to read, I had time to probably clean something, or re-plasticize
couch cushions because all Italians keep their furniture in plastic just in case
the Second Coming occurred when nobody was home. Right? Heaven forbid
the floor isn't vacuumed for our Lord.

Don't ask me how I came across all these books. I hated reading both in high
school (sorry, Mr. O'Rourke) and college, but was able to skate by thanks to
my impeccable track record, much like our governor.

When I embarked on a radio career, I started as a producer. One of the main
jobs  of a producer is to book guests. The most intriguing guests are by nature
the toughest to get. However, one group that is never shy about free air-time
is authors. They always have a book to sell and will talk to just about anybody.
Even muppets.

When we were short for guests, I'd peruse the interview catalog
to see which books sounded the most interesting. And since most talk show
hosts  think killing radio time is often more important than entertaining
audiences, they didn't care who I'd book to burn the ten minutes between
weather and traffic. So I'd book sports authors.

A funny thing happened after a few interviews. I realized that the
publishers not only will grant you interviews, but will often send you books--
GET THIS--for free!

Unfortunately, the hosts would do an entire interview based on the blurb on
the inside cover, and take the book home AFTER the interview was conducted.
It's an old radio trick.

It only took 12 or 13 interviews for me to realize that I could ask for TWO
copies of the book. Lo and behold, the publishers sent them.

Within two months I had amassed 20 different books for my collection. And I
actually started reading them. The worst thing I did, however, was admit
to my dad that I was reading books. He then hit me with "don't you have
something more CONSTRUCTIVE to do, college boy?"

So I stopped. But my collection continued to grow.

Suddenly I found myself going to bookstores in my spare time. Book outlets.
Book liquidations. Bargain book stores. And I found myself buying four or
five books at a time. I was felt like Carrie Bradshaw at Jimmy Choos. Perhaps
I had been converted to reading, or my mother had raised a child with an
undiagnosed case of A.D.D. who was not only judging books by their shiny
covers, but purchasing them.

If you guessed the latter, you would be correct. Seven of these many books
I own have bookmarks in them.

Seven. And every time I try to finish one, my father's voice whispers like
"Field of Dreams." However, instead of "if you build it..." it sounds more like
"dust the living room", or the much harsher "oh, NOW you wanna read? You
wouldn't crack a book in school and NOW you wanna read books?"

One of those books is called "The Complete Armchair Book of Baseball" loaded
with newspaper columns and short stories written by many different authors
about the characters who shaped our American pastime. For several weeks,
I've stared at this book which lay sideways on top of the shelf (I have no more
room below) above "One Hundred Years: The New York Yankees Official
Retrospective" and "20th Century Baseball Chronicle", a gift from Mrs.
Kathy Dolce of Silver Creek.

The "Armchair" book was sandwiched between those books and three copies
of the Bible: The King James, the "New" King James and the New International
Version. (Careful.)

Those books are stacked to the left of 13 "thinner" books. I've wanted to read
this book for a while, but my dad's voice kept warning me about productivity.
Until after midnight when I realized I couldn't clean anything with my sissie
sleeping down the hall. Alas, a loophole.

This hardcover has 827 pages from dozens of authors' reprinted columns and
shared stories from every generation of baseball history. The story that
initially made me buy the book was Peter Gammons' take on the Boston
Massacre of 1978, when the Yankees, down four games to the Red Sox,
swept the four-game series at Fenway, outscoring the "Saux" 35-5.

(Yes, it's pathetic for a Yankee fan to resort to the past like that during an
eight-year championship drought where your hated rivals have won two
titles. Especially when you weren't even alive in 1978. But if you've ever
dated a Red Sox fan, you'll understand the need to put her in her place,
especially when she tells you she ordered a Big Papi nightie on eBay.)

But that story will have to wait for another time. The story I did read was of
Silver Creek's own Howard Ehmke. The late Red Smith, one of the most
influential sportswriters of all-time wrote of Ehmke's passing. If you don't
know who Howard Ehmke was, his family name adorns the big red sign on the
right after that speed trap on Route 20 takes you from Sheridan to the little
village (remember kids, Fredonia is the BIG village).

Smith writes about Connie Mack telling Ehmke he was finished right before
their Philadelphia A's got ready to take on the Chicago Cubs in the 1929 World
Series. Ehmke told baseball's all-time winningest manager he had "one great
game left in this old arm." Mack was delighted to hear this and told Ehmke
to scout the Cubs when they came to town to face the Phillies at the end
of the season.

The A's manager kept this a secret until just before Game One of the Series,
much to the chagrin of future Hall-of-Fame outfielder, Al Simmons, who
was shocked to see Ehmke slated to pitch that day. Mack felt this sidewinding,
soft-tosser who started only eight games that year would fool the Cubs--a
good  fastball hitting club.

According to retrosheet.org, Ehmke's A's outlasted the Cubs 3-1. But that ain't
all. On October 8, 1929, Ehmke set a then record for World Series strikeouts
with 13. And these weren't just any strikeouts, either. Ehmke fooled hitters
the likes of Rogers Hornsby (Hall of Fame, 1942), Hack Wilson (HOF, 1979),
Kiki Cuyler (HOF, 1968), and a guy from Fredonia named Woody English.

Uh, Fredonia, Ohio, that is. Look it up.

Thirteen K's. And six of them were split evenly among three future
Cooperstown likenesses. Meanwhile, two other Hall-of-Famers aided
Ehmke's cause. Jimmy Foxx ('51), who clobbered 534 home runs in his career,
which don't include the one he hit that day. But most of you may know Foxx
better as the inspiration for Tom Hanks' character "Jimmy Dugan" in "A League
of Their Own."And Ehmke's battery mate was none other than Mickey
Cochrane ('47).

According to Smith's story, Mack thought he
fooled the entire Cubs team, but their manager, former Yankee great Joe
McCarthy, knew (and feared) Ehmke had just the right stuff to beat the Cubs.
And he was right.

Smith's memoriam was published the day after Ehmke's death: St. Patrick's Day,
1959. The writer finished the story discussing how Ehmke and his wife were
listening to the World Series while driving in their car before suddenly
realizing  the Silver Creek native's record was being shattered before
their ears. They pulled over to hear the Brooklyn Dodgers' Carl Erskine
need three strikeouts in the top of the ninth in Game Three of the 1953
Series against the Yankees to eclipse Ehmke.

Erskine struck out the side.

Like Ehmke, Erskine had help from a future Cooperstown resident as well:
Mickey Mantle, whose four K's helped put Erskine in the record books.

Ironically, that wasn't the worst of it for Ehmke. According to Smith, upon
hearing the final strikeout, "...Howard smiled quietly. He said nothing as the
game drew to an end. The record he had held for a quarter century was gone.
He stepped on the starter. Nothing happened. The radio had drained his
battery."

He lost his record. Then he lost his ride home.

Not bad for a pitcher from Silver Creek. And a heckuva journey, too.
Ehmke suffered through the best years of his career with the freshly-cursed
Boston Red Sox, gets sent to Philadelphia and wins a World Series ring only days
after he was supposed to be released, sets a record that he held for 25 years,
strikes-out three Hall-of-Famers twice each, contributes
to the misery of the Chicago Cubs Curse of the Billy Goat and retires
with a .500 record.

Ehmke also threw a no-hitter and won 20 games in 1923 for the Red Sox,
and still owns the American League record for fewest hits (one) in
back-to-back starts.

Yes, one pesky hit prevented Howard Ehmke from being Johnny
Vander Meer, before Johnny Vander Meer.

Ehmke was remembered during Game One of the 2006 World Series when
one of his former teams, the Tigers, lost to Anthony Reyes of the St. Louis
Cardinals.  Reyes broke Ehmke's record for the fewest wins for a Game One
World Series starter. In '29, Ehmke's record was 7-2. Reyes' record was 5-8.

And if Pedro Martinez or Greg Maddux plunk six more hitters this season,
they'll tie Ehmke for 27th place all-time in hit batsmen (137). Not a flattering
stat, but one that may evoke Ehmke's name on SportsCenter. Ehmke also
struck-out Babe Ruth. He may have just retired right then and there.
But he didn't. Good thing,too.

All of this was unbeknownst to this writer before he cracked-open a
book he bought on impulse at a book outlet.

I can hear my father now.

"Imagine what you could have learned if you actually read in school."

Sure dad. And if we actually read stuff like this in school, who else
would help you clean the house?

Four-getting Anybody, Guys?

Was Thursday's press conference to announce Brett Favre's retirement, or his funeral?

Sorry for you to start your reading with such a morbid question.

Based on the vignettes from ESPN, Favre got the same treatment from fans and pundits alike as Elvis did the day the king passed away in August of 1977.

Newspapers across the country are littered with columnists gushing over Favre's greatness and how the NFL will now wither-up like the original American Gladiators without "our" Favre.

There's no denying Favre was a great quarterback. He holds every major passing record, three MVPs, a Super Bowl ring and a place in Canton in 2012.

But he's not the greatest quarterback of all-time. He's not even the greatest quarterback of this generation.

Unlike baseball, football is based on rings, not records. Joe Montana doesn't own any passing records but he's considered the greatest by many football fans due to his four title rings, three Super Bowl MVPs and his penchant for late-game comebacks and Hall-of-Fame moments such as "the catch", and asking Harris Barton if he saw John Candy in the front row before his famous game-winning 92-yard drive versus the Bengals in Super Bowl XXIII.

Favre's had some comebacks of his own, many of which before a national audience on Monday Night Football. He's also had his share of tragedies which endeared him even to fans of rivals. And he led some mediocre teams to playoff appearances.

That's pretty good. Until you realize John Elway led lesser teams to Super Bowls.

If don't think so, ask yourself who the second-best players were on those Denver Broncos teams that went to three Super Bowls in the late 1980's.

Then ask yourself if you switch Elway with Phil Simms, Doug Williams, or even Joe Montana if any of those quarterbacks would have led the Broncos over the '86 Giants, the '87 Redskins or the '89 49ers if those teams were led by John Elway.

The reason why Montana and Elway are mentioned here are because they are both better than Brett Favre. Sorry, cheeseheads.

And so is Tom Brady, and before Peyton Manning's career is over, he'll own many (if not all) of Favre's passing records, and perhaps his iron man streak, too.

Brett Favre is only in the conversation because he's such a lovable athlete. But his playoff performances don't lie.

After the Packers lost Super Bowl XXXII, Favre's playoff record dropped from 9-3 beforehand to 3-7. In his last ten games he has as fewer wins than Eli Manning earned to start 2008. Favre has drawn knocks for not playing well in domes, and throwing countless interceptions in playoff games including two overtime picks that ended the Packers' seasons in Philadelphia and against the Giants this past January.

Favre also completed six passes to St. Louis Rams defenders in a 2001 divisional playoff game.

Not to mention, Favre not only holds the record for most interceptions in league history (which, you have to be great to have the longevity to hold that record in the first place), he tied Jim Kelly for the most playoff pick-offs with 28. Again, you have to play in many playoff games to do that, but the other great ones don't have such horrible postseason numbers.

Apologists will claim Favre had nothing to work with and was trying to make things happen. John Madden called him a "gunslinger." Ah, so when the Packers were awful, Brett was trying to make something happen, but when they were good, it was all Brett's doing.

This piece isn't to pick on Favre. He one of the most fun quarterbacks to watch. He put Titletown back on the map and made them forget about David Whitehurst, Lynn Dickey, Randy White, Mike Tomczak and Don Majkowski. He kept the Packers in every game. He was the Packer franchise. He will be a Hall-of-Famer. He has a great personality. He's a media darling. There's few people outside cities from the NFC North who hate Favre.

This piece is directed at all the writers and sportscasters who put Favre next to names such as Ruth, Ali, Jordan and Tiger. C'mon now.

Brett Favre has one ring. Yes, one more than Kelly and Dan Marino, but one less than Bart Starr, Roger Staubach and John Elway; two fewer than Tom Brady and three less than Montana and Terry Bradshaw.

Favre had Robert Brooks, Antonio Freeman, Dorsey Levens, Ahman Green, a great offensive line, and a stellar defense led by Reggie White. However, Elway reached the Super Bowl three times with names remembered only by die-hard Broncos fans, and Browns backers who still curse them to this day.

Montana didn't always have Jerry Rice and Roger Craig, yet won two Super Bowls without them and didn't waste the talent given him by winning two more titles. And sure, Elway didn't win a Super Bowl without Terrell Davis and a stacked defense. But he got there with nothing but an arm before they switched jerseys from orange to navy blue. Then he did it again, proving his wild card upset of Favre's Packers the year before was no fluke.

Favre is great. But to say he's the greatest is like putting Barry Bonds ahead of Babe Ruth. Montana had a few bad playoff games, but they're forgotten by those four rings. Elway had a few bad playoff games--all in Super Bowls the Broncos had little business being in without him. Brady has had a couple rough games in his playoff career, but few will remember them thanks to his Super performances.

Simply put, if Peyton Manning eclipses Favre's records, but retires with only one ring to his credit, people will argue who was better between the two. But people already call Tom Brady the "next" Joe Montana, which puts him over Manning, so why wouldn't he be over Favre then as well?

It's Course I Math. It's the Law of Logic. After all the accolades and parades and pageantry and genuflecting of greatness, Brett Favre had a great career. But he's no Montana. He's no Brady. He may not even be Peyton Manning. And he's no John Elway, either.

Don't worry. Brett Favre will have his day in Canton just like the other great quarterbacks and get a seat at that exclusive table.

But pro football is not like baseball, where records mean almost as much as championships. In the NFL, it's all about Super Bowls; rings AND appearances.

And those are records Favre could never eclipse, no matter how hard he tried with his own arm.

Then again...

OK. So the last piece was wrong.

So far, anyway.

Brett Favre has announced his retirement from football. From the Green Bay Packers. From 17 years of multiple passing records, playoff and Super Bowl appearances, three MVPs and a world championship.

However, the timing is funny considering this announcement comes without a press conference (as of the time of this publication), but through Fox's Jay Glazer and followed by ESPN's Chris Mortensen, and only the day after Randy Moss re-signed with the New England Patriots.

Rumors are swirling that Favre's retirement has much to do with the Packers' not pursuing Moss, whom Favre coveted last off-season.

Put it this way: this writer won't believe this until 2008 ends without Brett Favre suiting-up one last time.

Brett On It. (Yawn.)

Brett Favre will return for another season in Green Bay, to the dismay of Chicago Bears fans everywhere.

Granted, there's no inside information here. No confirmation from the man himself. Just call it a hunch based on several years of eye-rolling and yawning when the subject comes up. Every NFL offseason, you can expect the NCAA Tournament, spring training, the NHL and NBA playoffs, and an announcement on Brett Favre's future.

Supposedly, we'll learn next week if the Living Legend of Green Bay will return to the Green-n-Gold for sure.

Favre did say his latest decision whether or not to return would come rather quickly, and by his standards, six weeks may be Godspeed.
You can listen to John Madden gush, watch Tony Kornheiser blush, and hear Terry Bradshaw tell you where Favre ranks among the NFL’s greatest quarterbacks of all-time. How he’s fought tragedy with triumph, while quietly locking the closet door on his past demons.

A 9 year-old could read this and ask “what past demons?”

Exactly.

You can read Peter King’s assessment of No. 4's Lambeau legacy on the back page of SI’s Sportsman of the Year issue, once you get past the writer tripping over himself telling you all about his friend Brett Favre.

Do football fans want Brett Favre back? Of course we do. Favre--not Tom Brady or Peyton Manning--is the last link to the days of Montana, Aikman, Elway, Young, Kelly and Marino. He was the youngest of the last crop of quarterbacks where you could watch as many as seven future Hall-of-Famers throw footballs on any given Sunday.

That’s partly why writers and broadcasters cherish Favre so much. Nowadays, the only quarterbacks you can cast busts for Canton are Favre, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning–less than half of what there was a decade ago.

Think about that. Favre hasn’t missed a start since 1992. That year, Steve Young “subbed” a second straight year for an injured Joe Montana. Jim Kelly had come back from an injury to stop Dan Marino’s last best chance for a second Super Bowl appearance in the AFC title game, only to lose their third Super Bowl–the first of three wins by Troy Aikman and the Dallas Cowboys. Meanwhile, people wondered if John Elway would ever get another chance at that illustrious ring.

If there’s a parallel between Favre and any of these quarterbacks, it’s between Favre and Elway.

Sure, Favre broke Dan Marino’s records for passing yards, completions, attempts, and touchdowns. But people remember Favre most for winning a ring, and root for him to get a second much like they collectively willed Elway to victory over Favre in Super Bowl XXXII.

The knock on Elway was never on Elway himself, but on his supporting cast, much like Favre the last few years. If you don’t think so, think of the second best player to ever play in the orange crush uniforms at Mile High when Elway engineered three Super Bowl appearances.

Compare that thought to those spoken by Favre apologists who pipe-up every time he’s had a bad game over the last few years, excusing Favre for simply trying to make something happen. Thankfully, there’s enough level-headed, honest analysts out there who point-out Favre’s flaws and mistakes in big games.

Elway carried the Broncos for years but didn’t win a Super Bowl until Broncos owner, Pat Bowlen, finally got him some help. Favre won a Super Bowl with help–a lot of it–but you’d never know it. This is where the two part ways in comparison.

Elway didn’t hold Denver hostage year after year, holding its collective CO2 while their beloved hero wrung his hands debating whether he shall return. His once-and-final decision happened to be postponed by the two cowardly goths with shotguns in Littleton, Col.

Football writers have somehow created a need for Favre like the cell phone or the iPod, which he relishes. He dramatizes his decisions on a yearly basis. He took a “who, me?” approach at a press conference for his celebrity golf tournament when the media was led to believe he’d be announcing his plans for 2006. At the end of the season, he took pictures with teammates after their final win in Chicago as if it were his last.

He returned to lead the Packers to the NFC Championship Game, only to become the a big reason why they didn’t get there. The game was supposed to be a coronation; Favre’s one last shot at a Super Bowl. But nobody told the New York Giants.

People seem to overlook Favre’s spotty playoff record since the Packers’ Super Bowl loss to the Broncos, as well as his poor performances in big games. To be honest, each of Favre’s last playoff losses looked more like Jim Kelly’s Super Bowl performances than Joe Montana’s. The conference title game loss was one of those, while he failed to finish another rough start in a key loss to the Dallas Cowboys that, at the time, shaped home field advantage throughout the playoffs (which was proven moot thanks again to the Giants).

This is not to knock Favre, or belittle his accomplishments. Favre has done what Dan Marino could not: hold all the significant NFL passing records AND win a Super Bowl. The only question about Favre’s Hall-of-Fame status is whether or not his bronze likeness will be stubbly or clean-shaven.

But if you’re a die-hard Packer fan, you have to get sick of downing Maalox every off-season while your hero milks your admiration. Like Favre, Indianapolis Colts head coach, Tony Dungy, went through tragedy and had every reason to take his time and make a decision to return each of the last three years and did it in a classy, timely fashion. Meanwhile, Favre seems to need months to soak public fawning and attention only to return to show us the child-like enthusiasm he plays with every Sunday. That doesn’t seem like someone who once seriously considered retirement.

Favre is a great quarterback, but he’s no Montana, no Elway, nor a Johnny Unitas. Sure, there’s no better quarterback in Green Bay to replace him. And no, the league wouldn’t be the same without him, but it would still have Manning and Brady, which is where the “best quarterback” conversation starts and ends whether Favre stays or goes.

Favre has every right to make an informed, thoughtful decision on his career. But don't make the state of Wisconsin beg you every year, Brett. And it's not all your fault--you've had plenty of help from Favre lobbyists in feeding this annual mystery. More help than you've had on offense.

But he'll return to Titletown again, to everything short of a parade because guys like him only leave after its too late. Then he'll spend that everlasting off-season wondering if he should have retired sooner. Five years later he'll get one last public hooray in Canton to remind him of the good 'ole days.

The seasons of glory, and the off-seasons of public vigils praying for his return to Lambeau.