In the summer of 2008, the Green Bay Packers ended the Brett Favre era by trading him to the New York Jets. While some would argue that Favre ended the era himself by hemming and hawing about his retirement, the Packers ultimately made the decision to move on and hand the keys over to Aaron Rodgers.

With Monday night’s game only a few days away, it begs the question – are the Packers better off with Rodgers under center? To discuss this issue, I’m going to enlist the help of our lead NFL writer, Anthony Stalter.

JP: Anthony, if you’re an NFL GM and you think you have a Super Bowl caliber team, who would you rather have at quarterback this year – Brett Favre or Aaron Rodgers?

AS: Injuries are a major concern with Favre compared to Rodgers, who is younger and can better withstand the rigors of a full season. I realize Favre has never missed a start in his career, but that doesn’t mean he’s always been healthy. Last year he played through biceps injury during the final month and it sunk the Jets’ season. I worry that Favre would suffer some kind of alignment during the season that would affect his play. On the other hand, while I wouldn’t worry about Rodgers’ durability, I know that Favre is a natural winner. I know that when the chips are down, he’s usually going to make a play to win the ball game and while Rodgers has shown flashes of that in his young career, he hasn’t proven that he can win on a consistent basis yet.

JP: You know I’m kind of a numbers guy, and it’s tough to argue with Rodgers’ statistical performance thus far. In 19 starts, Rodgers has averaged 250 passing yards and 1.68 pass TD per game (versus 0.68 INT per game). Conversely, in 274 starts, Favre is averaging 240 passing yards, 1.71 TD and 1.13 INT per game. Rodgers meets or beats Favre in every category and isn’t nearly as inclined to turn the ball over. Rodgers has already made a number of great plays in tough spots in his young career, but last season the Packer defense gave up several game-winning drives to the opposition. This year, Rodgers beat the Bears by hooking up with Greg Jennings for a perfectly thrown 50-yard touchdown (when the Packers were down two and facing a third-and-1 with just 1:18 to play). Favre is known for being clutch, but I think part of that comes from his longevity. When you’re around that long, you’re bound to have some memorable comebacks. Last week’s (amazing) pass to Greg Lewis was the first time that he threw for a game-winning TD with 0:10 or less remaining in the game.

For reasons you mentioned, if I’m heading into a season, I’d take Rodgers because he’s as talented and has a much better chance of staying healthy for a full season. But if I’m heading into the Super Bowl next week and I have my pick of the two, I’d probably go with Favre because he’s been there before and I know he won’t be overwhelmed by the moment.

AS: Right, it all depends on the situation. If we’re talking about the Super Bowl or even a playoff game, I’m going to want Favre (even despite his high number of postseason INTs) because he’s been there before. I know I can count on him not to be overwhelmed or succumb to the pressure and the magnitude of the moment. Rodgers simply doesn’t have enough experience at this point in his career to trust putting under center in a one-and-done game. We just don’t know how he would react because he’s never been there before. Brett has won a Super Bowl and has been to the postseason countless times before. There’s just no substitute for experience.

That said, if we’re at the beginning of the season and I have my choice, I’m going to take Rodgers. He’s more durable than Favre, has all the physical tools to succeed and should only progress as a passer with more experience. Once he learns how to adjust to how defenses are trying to stop him, he’s going to be a very good quarterback in this league for a long time. He has all the potential to succeed.

That’s our opinion…what’s yours? Feel free to vote in our poll to the right.

Before we delve into this, let me just say: granted badminton is not exactly popular in America, nor is it even considered much of a sport by many. However, while the sport itself may not be too important here, the implications and precedent delivered by the event occurring within it very well could be. Anyway the story: The Team England has pulled out of the World Badminton Championships in Hyderabad, India after receiving terrorist threats. I found this story off the BBC News page:

Performance director Ian Moss said: “It is a disappointing outcome, especially after we had enjoyed a very good preparation at our holding camp in Doha, Qatar, last week.

“Our athletes were extremely well prepared for these championships but, at the end of the day, personal safety must take priority over performance.

“This was a unanimous squad decision and is not reflective of the efforts made by the organising committee to create the safest environment possible for all athletes.”

Is not reflective of the organizing committee? Well, it seems to me that if a team containing last year’s Olympic silver medalist (Nathan Robertson, he’s in the picture) cancels their trip to your tournament because of terrorist threats, it might mean you need to get your security a bit more in order.

That aside, it’s not often, if I may use a cliche here, that “The terrorists truly win.” I mean, Team England bowed out and down on this one (BTW Team Scotland and Team Wales plan to represent at the tournament). They have most definitely given into terrorist demands here. Hell, they even got someone in a market with basically no interest in the sport to write a story about it. I certainly am not helping their cause either, though you’ll need to go to the link above to find out who the group was.

But let’s not be too harsh here, would you feel like hitting a shuttlecock if you thought you might be bombed out of your hotel room that night? Wait a second, have I made a new double entendre? Anyway, one’s personal safety should be their biggest concern.

Getting the gold is one thing, but returning home to your family is another. I’m not bashing them for their decision, but I’m still not happy with the situation. In the end, of course the terrorists are to blame, but the organizers of the event need to be able to supply the competitors with a safe arena of play.

The Swimming World Championships in Rome have just finished up and Michael Phelps closed it out with a gold medal performance on the American relay team. That left him with a total of five golds and a silver for the competition, not too shabby. But perhaps even more than the continued domination of Phelps, the real story from Rome seems to be the 43 world records set there. Brian Cazeneuve from Sports Illustrated puts in his two cents:

It’s gotta be the suits. What else could explain the absurd number of world records set in Rome? In 2008, a year when the rise of records left people calling for drug inquiries, pool measurements and the return of 1920s swimsuits, there were 102 records set throughout the year. That’s almost one every three days. In Rome, swimmers set new standards 43 times in eight days. FINA, the sport’s international governing body, has said it will adopt new regulations to prohibit some of the materials in the suits of the last two or three years. They will also restrict the length of some of the suits for both men and women. Still, those regulations won’t go into effect until Jan. 1 and even those will be against the objections of many suit manufacturers who want to liquidate their stock of the suits that will soon be illegal. Once that happens, some of these records could stand for some time.

So all these new-fangled swimsuits are going to be made illegal? When I heard the story the first thing that popped into my mind was the sound of those speed skates in Nagano in 1998 and every Olympics since. Called “clap skates” these things broke every record there was to break in speed skating. But they are still legal today.

With the skates in mind as a precedent then, it seems a bit odd to me that the swimsuits should be banned. Further strangeness in this story comes from the fact that all of the records in swimming HAVE ALREADY BEEN BROKEN by them. If the reason for making the suits illegal is to make the times of the swimmers closer to something a normal human should be able to do, than don’t we have to re-swim every event since Beijing? FINA, the governing body of international swimming, needs to get their heads out of the suits and let technology through on this one.

OK, but then what about aluminum bats in Major League baseball? If we should let in the swimsuits, then why shouldn’t we let in the bats? OK, here’s why: The swimsuits have already been used, the records are already broken. With baseball, if they choose to not let those bats in, then fine, that’s up to them. But FINA shouldn’t have gone back on their previous approval. I don’t care too much about what choices a governing body makes in terms of technological advances, so long as they stay consistent. Baseball has, speed skating has, swimming seems to have had a false start.

Since Michael Vick got out of jail (and out of house arrest), there’s been a lot up in the air about whether or not he’d have a further punishment handed down from the NFL. While a decision concerning a four game suspension has yet to be made, some of his fellow players have made their opinions on the matter known already. John Wawrow from the Associated Press (and posted on Yahoo! Sports) reported what Terrell Owens had to say:

“Why shouldn’t he? I mean, there’s a lot more guys around the league that have done far more worst things than that and gotten second chances,” Owens said.

Owens said he would welcome Vick as a teammate.

“Michael Vick is a guy that really hasn’t any character issues besides what he got a prison sentence for, so why not?” he said.

Now I’m not about to enter into a diatribe about character issues in the NFL. Owens is right when he says there are people who have done worse in the NFL. Michael Vick was arrested and sentenced for his crime. It seems to me like in a criminal case it should be the legal system to mete out judgment rather than a private organization. However, it’s still the NFL’s decision to do what they want to a member of their company.

Michael Vick’s been hated since his arrest so vitriolically not because he’s a criminal (we’re pretty used to that) but because his crime was something we find particularly immoral. People have a soft spot for dogs, and the pictures that came out of the dogs in Vick’s “care” did nothing to help his image.

Here’s the rub though. Are Michael Vick’s crimes forgiven by the NFL if they don’t punish him further? Does inaction on their part translate to condolence as well? OK, but then what if they do punish him. Does a suspension after his rehabilitation in prison and subsequent probation, community service, etc. do anything to try and get him back to a decent way of living? Or is it just pushing him back into a life of crime? Does anyone even care about whether or not Vick’s a “good” guy now? I feel like I’d need to grow a bushier beard before I was ready to answer that.

As bad as his crime was, and I’m a dog lover too, I want to believe that he has paid his debt to society now. You ever notice how much worse it feels when a dog dies in a movie? I still think Old Yeller and Where the Red Fern Grows are sadder than Million Dollar Baby. As such, perhaps we are over-reacting (please no letter bombs) to Vick’s crime a little. Anyway, Michael Vick is not banned from football, so obviously his crime wasn’t against the sport (he’s not as bad as Pete Rose then) and as such he’ll come back to the sport sooner or later. I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be sooner.

First base
Leader: Albert Pujols, St. Louis Cardinals
Mike’s pick: Albert Pujols, St. Louis Cardinals. Well, this one is a no-brainer. Is it possible that Albert gets better with age? Yes, and his numbers border on staggering. 81 games in, he’s batting .336 with 31 homers and 82 RBI and a slugging percentage of .748. That projects to 62 homers and 164 runs batted in. What’s more, dude has a .993 fielding percentage. There is little doubt Pujols is the best player in the game, and he gets to flaunt it in front of his hometown crowd a week from Tuesday.

Second base
Leader: Chase Utley, Philadelphia Phillies
Mike’s pick: Chase Utley, Philadelphia Phillies. This one is also a no-brainer that the voters got correct, though as a Mets fan it pains me to say that. Utley has 17 homers, 54 RBI, he’s batting .303 with 16 doubles and a .980 OPS—all unbelievable numbers for a second baseman. This guy is a gamer.

Shortstop
Leader: Hanley Ramirez, Florida Marlins
Mike’s pick: Hanley Ramirez, Florida Marlins. This is getting to be a trend, but the numbers in the National League don’t seem to lie, do they? Hanley is batting .344 with 13 homers and 58 RBI, 26 doubles, 12 stolen bases and a .972 OPS. By comparison, he is hitting 119 points higher than JJ Hardy and 132 points higher than the slumping Jimmy Rollins. Case closed.

Third base
Leader: David Wright, New York Mets
Mike’s pick: Mark Reynolds, Arizona Diamondbacks. Wright was leading the league in batting for quite a while, and he’s currently hitting .333 but with just 5 homers and 42 RBI. By comparison, Reynolds has clubbed 22 home runs with 57 RBI while batting a respectable .271. At a power position, I’m giving the nod to the guy barely anyone gets to see play.

Catcher:
Leader: Yadier Molina, St. Louis Cardinals
Mike’s pick: Brian McCann, Atlanta Braves. This is close, because Yadier’s brother Bengie has 10 homers and 46 RBI for the Giants, but McCann is batting .311 with 8 home runs and 33 driven in, with 15 doubles and a respectable .988 fielding percentage.

Outfield
Leaders: Raul Ibanez, Philadelphia Phillies
Ryan Braun, Milwaukee Brewers
Carlos Beltran, New York Mets
Mike’s picks: Raul Ibanez, Philadelphia Phillies
Ryan Braun, Milwaukee Brewers
Brad Hawpe, Colorado RockiesIbanez is having a career season, batting .312 with 22 homers and 59 RBI, and Braun just continues to rake, with 16 home runs, 58 driven in and a .326 average. But Beltran, while he plays in the biggest media market and makes mega-bucks, is not going to get my all-star nod over Brad Hawpe. Beltran is hitting .336, but has just 8 homers and 40 RBI. Hawpe is hitting .328 with 13 homers and 56 runs batted in, 25 doubles and a stunning .993 OPS. If Manny Ramirez was playing most of the season, he’d probably be on this list, but I can’t consider a guy who’s only played 28 games, regardless of why he missed all that time.

Starting pitcher
As you all know, pitchers are chosen by the managers and will be announced this Sunday.
Mike’s pick: Tim Lincecum, San Francisco Giants. Last year’s NL Cy Young winner got off to a slow start, but has been mowing hitters down lately, to the tune of 8-2 with a 2.37 ERA and league-leading 132 strikeouts with just 28 walks in 114 innings. Arizona’s Dan Haren is a close runner-up, with a 7-5 record for a crappy D-Backs’ team, and a league low 2.19 ERA with 113 K’s and 0.81 WHIP.

Relief pitcher
Mike’s pick: Heath Bell, San Diego Padres. When this former Met helped christen Citi Field by mowing down his ex-teammates in April, I thought it was just a phase. But dude leads the NL in saves with 22, and is 3-1 with a 1.34 ERA and 36 strikeouts in 33 innings of work. And here’s the best stat of all—Bell has saved or won 74% of his team’s wins. If he keeps that up, Bell will contend for the NL Cy Young and even garner some MVP votes.

With the Lakers and Magic duking it out right now on the tube I gotta wonder again about whether or not Phil Jackson might not be the best coach in NBA history. 9 championship rings and more than likely a 10th in the near future are nothing to balk at. Granted he has had pretty much the best teams in NBA history to coach and granted he coached my childhood hero Bulls to legendary status, but I’ve never liked the Lakers (don’t tell anybody in Los Angeles please) so maybe I can try my hand at an objective conclusion here. Maybe I better leave off, this is quite a subject to try and tackle in a post. Here’s what Jay Mariotti at Fanhouse had to say about it:

Some coaches merely dream the dream. Others actually live it, 10 times. We are watching the greatest NBA coach ever, America.

Appreciate him. For tonight might be the last time you see Phil Jackson on a sideline, even if he doesn’t have to do anything but call timeouts.

A quick word to be true (the article Mr. Mariotti has written is quite good and much longer), but to the point. I suppose it’s fun to try and decide who really is the best coach in history. Here’s an idea too though, is success necessary to be great? I agree that they seem to go pretty hand-in-hand, but skill has taken a back seat to luck and tragedy plenty of times before. Who’s to say really? Personally, I thought Larry Brown coming into Detroit and leading that team to a championship over the heavily favored Lakers was some of the best coaching I can remember. On the other hand, I might just have it out for the yellow and purple.

OK, hands up everybody who knows the relegation system of Barclay’s Premier League. Nobody? No worries I gotcha covered. As the Associated Press reports (and I got this from Sports Illustrated btw):

Newcastle and Middlesbrough were relegated from the Premier League on Sunday, while Hull and Sunderland stayed up.

Newcastle lost 1-0 at Aston Villa and Middlesbrough was beaten 2-1 at West Ham to finish in the last three teams on the final day of the league season.

Hull lost 1-0 to newly crowned champion Manchester United and Sunderland went down 3-2 at home to third-place Chelsea.

Last-place West Bromwich Albion was already certain to go down and drew 0-0 at Blackburn.

If this will insult your intelligence as a “football” fan, then feel free to skip to the next paragraph. Let me quickly go through the idea of relegation: The 3 bottom-placed teams at the end of each season of the Premier League are busted down to what amounts to kind of a minor league system. The 3 top teams from that league take the place of the losers from the Premier League. Thus, the bottom of the roster in the Premier League changes quite a bit from season to season.

So let me propose an idea here. Relegation is something that basically doesn’t exist here stateside. But I think there’s an argument to be made that it could be advantageous to install something like that in some of the more inflated sports leagues we have. Remember when your favorite baseball team won the World Series? If you live in the north side of Chicago, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Texas, or Seattle you probably weren’t around for the last time your team even appeared in one.

I’m not saying that those cities didn’t have good baseball teams, they’ve had some on and off years but overall it’s been quite a long time of blah. The MLB has always seemed a bit overcrowded, but with profitable markets available in various countries in North America, there shouldn’t be any shortage of places to put in some new teams either.

Is it crazy to propose that we make a new kind of minor league? One without the farm system motivations and rehab purposes for the major league teams, but instead housing whatever teams are unable to make the cut each season. This a revolutionary idea I suppose and it might be coming out because I haven’t shaved in a week, but I think it’s an interesting idea, one not to be tossed out without a bit of consideration.

On that same note, this could work within the NBA as well. It may even be a better fit, considering the similarities between the NBA season schedule and the Premier League; it’d certainly make watching the Clippers against the Bucks a bit more interesting. Anyway, what do you think? I’m not so sure it’ll ever happen, but it could be pretty fun.