According to a report by ESPN.com, the Vikings want a decision from Brett Favre on whether or not he wants to play for them sometime this week.
This is a smart move by the Vikings. They know Favre is the king of waffling and they can’t continue to wait on him and keep current quarterbacks Sage Rosenfels and Tarvaris Jackson in limbo. The season is still months away, but OTAs wrap up this week and training camp will begin in about a month so they need a decision.
But this hardly seems realistic. According to the ESPN article, Favre has done some light throwing following recent surgery to repair a tear in the biceps of his throwing arm, but he doesn’t feel confident enough yet to definitively say that he’s coming back. And if Favre doesn’t believe he’s at full strength, why would the Vikings rush a decision from him?
If Favre believes he’ll be healthy in two to three weeks and the Vikings truly want him, then they should allow him that time and then hold a workout. If he’s ready to go, then they can sign him in time for training camp. If he doesn’t feel that his arm is 100%, then they can move on without him and go with Rosenfels or Jackson. But even after all of this will-he-or-won’t-he-come-back discussion that has been drummed up over the past couple weeks, the Vikings giving him a deadline of this week still seems a little premature.
Then again, Favre can’t be trusted when it comes to making a firm decision, so I don’t blame Minnesota for giving him an ultimatum with a deadline. The Vikings have an entire team to think about – not just a decision about whether or not to sign Favre.
I just don’t know if a couple of days is a long enough for Favre to know whether or not he’s completely healthy. I can certainly understand the Vikings wanting to put pressure on him to make a decision if he were healthy, but it’s out of his hands whether or not his arm will be completely ready by the end of the Vikings’ supposed deadline.
It’ll be interesting to see if the Vikings hold him to this deadline and more importantly, whether or not they’ll officially move on if he tells them he still needs more time.
“The chances of his birth certificate being accurate are zero,” the scout said. “That’s both birth certificates. Remember, he was David Arias [when he played in the minor leagues for] Seattle.”
From 2004-07, Ortiz did things rarely seen on a baseball field. According to Elias Sports Bureau, he is one of five players in MLB history to have four or more consecutive seasons of 35 or more home runs, 115 or more RBIs and a slugging percentage of .600 or better. The other players to pull off that feat are Babe Ruth (1926-32), Jimmie Foxx (1932-36), Sammy Sosa (1998-2001) and Albert Pujols (2003-06).
Ruth’s power left him quickly, and he went from 34 homers in 1933 to 22 in ’34 and just six in his final season of 1935. But he was 40 years old when his career ended. Ortiz is just 33. Unless you believe his birth certificate is incorrect, which some people do.
A better comparison with Ortiz is Foxx. His career hit a wall at age 34, when he only hit eight home runs after 14 straight seasons of double-digit homers. Foxx’s demise is attributed largely to a sinus problem and alcohol abuse, though.
When it comes to Ortiz’s struggles this season, some believe the former slugger can’t hit without Manny protecting him in the lineup. Some believe that he’s off the juice. Some believe he’s still hurt. Some believe that he has lacked confidence and is just in a massive funk.
Chances are, Ortiz’s issues come from a combination of a couple of the aforementioned reasons, if not all of them.
But if you want to believe that his struggles are linked to him getting off the juice, there are some factors that support your theory, the biggest of which is that there’s a list out there with 100-plus names written on it of players who tested positive for PEDs. Is Ortiz’s name on that list? Who knows, but until that list is released (if it ever is), all of the Ortiz-steroid talk is just speculation.
It’s not a stretch to believe, however, that Ortiz started using PEDs around the time he got to Boston in 2003. As the article notes, his most productive seasons came from 2004 through 2007. Last year he battled a variety of injuries and at some point, he could have gotten off PEDs and now his body is aging rapidly. With that, he’s not able to have the same success on the field and pitchers have figured out (quite easily I might add) how to pitch to him.
Again though, this is all just speculation. As of now, there is no proof that Ortiz ever used PEDs and maybe he is just getting old and the game is passing him by. And if he is older than what his birth certificate says, who knows how much older he truly is.
While it remains a long shot of happening, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is actually entertaining the idea of bringing back cornerback Adam “Pacman” Jones according to a report by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
Jones apparently isn’t concerned about Pacman’s off-field issues and is willing to look past the fact that he could be facing more legal problems stemming from an incident in which three men claimed that he hired a hit man to kill them in 2007. (Although to be fair, police have said that they’re not actively investigating the case even though it remains open, so it would appear that Pacman won’t be charged with anything.)
Even if it’s a long shot that the Cowboys bring back Pacman, it’s baffling that Jones is even considering it. Outside of the potential headache that Pacman is off field, the Cowboys have a couple of young corners in Mike Jenkins and Orlando Scandrick that they’re trying to develop. If Pacman were re-signed, Dallas essentially risks stunting the growth of those two players and for what? To have Pacman play until he gets into trouble?
I thought Jones and the Cowboys were trying to move away from some of the locker room issues that they’ve had in the past? They released T.O. because Tony Romo and offensive coordinator Jason Garrett couldn’t work with him and now Jones is ready to bring back another potential distraction. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Pacman can still play. When he wasn’t riding out a suspension last year, he was productive in coverage, was a reliable tackler and showed some big-play potential in returning punts. But it’s not a matter of if he’ll get into trouble off the field – it’s when. The guy fights with everybody (including his own bodyguards) and can’t be trusted.
Jones seemingly can’t resist adding talent at any cost and he can’t help but believe that he can turn a troubled player around. But he needs to take a pass on this one and keep his team moving in the right direction. Nobody said he had to fill his locker room with choir boys, but that doesn’t mean he should take a risk by signing (or re-signing in this case) malcontents either.
According to a report by ESPN.com, Brett Favre underwent arthroscopic surgery to repair a torn biceps in his throwing arm, but it’s still unclear at this point if he’ll comeback this season.
A month ago, Favre tried some non-surgical procedures in efforts to get back onto the field this season. He had cortisone injections and also tried exercise therapies that included weight lifting in efforts to release the damaged tendon naturally. But neither worked because he was still having trouble in throwing sessions and that’s why he opted to have surgery.
If the surgery worked and he’s able to throw at or near 100% without any pain, he’s expected to come back. But if he were still limited after testing the arm, then his most recent comeback would appear to be dead in the water.
One thing is for sure: Favre wants to come back. He wouldn’t have gone through all this trouble if he didn’t have intentions of playing. But the problem (outside of whether or not he can still throw the ball without pain) is that the Vikings want to see him throw in one of their camps. They wrap up their OTA sessions this week, so that means if they’re going to sign him, it’ll be before training camp starts in another month.
It’s a waiting game now; if Favre can throw without pain, then the Vikings will probably sign him and get him into camp. If he’s still having trouble throwing, then his comeback will be derailed, possibly forever. It’s all on Favre’s biceps now. (Or so it would appear.)
Tim Joyce from Real Clear Sports feels that Roger Federer’s recent win at the French Open shouldn’t matter as much as most think. Joyce believes that, because of Rafael Nadal’s absence in the final, Federer doesn’t deserve the high praise.
When a Grand Slam tournament loses its star player and main attraction, there’s often a tendency for a sepulchral mood to cloak the on-court proceedings following such a shock to its system. This feeling usually lasts a day or two before the tournament reboots itself and seemingly gains a new destiny and sense of purpose.
But … would such a victory without having any obstacles – that is to say Nadal – detract from the accomplishment? Yes and no. It’d be patently unfair to diminish the achievement on the grounds that his draw opened up. No one seemed to complain when Agassi beat journeyman Andrei Medvedev for his only Paris crown (but then again Agassi did have to defeat defending champion Carlos Moya in the fourth round en route to the French title). There have been many Slam titles won in the Open era where the eventual champion was the beneficiary of an easy draw. And Roger has after all been to the last three finals at Roland Garros so he’s been ever so close – except in the finals when he has made nary a dent in Nadal’s clay armor. So logic would dictate that he’s due a lucky year, that he’s put in the grueling work on clay and he does have several Masters Series titles on the red dirt.
However, a Federer triumph would lack the drama that this achievement would warrant, in fact demand. Would Nadal finally winning at Wimbledon have been as dramatic and important if he had defeated Djokovic or Murray in as close a contest? No, not even close. The fact that he beat Federer on The Roger’s sacred turf is what made last year’s epic match so eternal and wondrous. It was fitting, correct and poetic that Nadal’s win last year on the sport’s biggest stage came against his chief rival.
I appreciate Joyce’s reasoning as he gives an even-handed approach to Federer’s success. If Federer had faced Nadal in the final, the match would definitely not have gone in three sets, and Federer might not have raised that trophy in the pouring rain. (Who knows, due to the lack of a retractable roof, they may have had to postpone a longer match until tomorrow.) Also, I believe that if Nadal were completely healthy during this tournament, he would have eliminated Soderling and given Federer an excellent effort in the finals.
Nevertheless, this is the best tennis I’ve seen Roger Federer play in a long time. It’s funny, because in the quarter and semifinals he didn’t seem to really come alive until the third sets, when he was behind. In the finals against Soderling he was at the top of his game. He even added a seemingly new drop shot at the front of the net which fooled Soderling all day. He displayed the type of dominance we’re used to seeing in Federer.
Joyce makes an interesting point, though: Nadal’s victory at Wimbledon on Federer’s beloved surface was truly amazing, and competition at it’s finest. Nobody expected Nadal to outmatch Federer in England that day, but he did. To this day, Federer has not beat Nadal in the finals at the Spaniard’s favorite Grand Slam. Because of this, Joyce has a valid argument. Federer was the best player at this year’s French Open, but it is a qualified win. Federer beat Soderling, who had a really tough time against Nadal. Thus, Federer making easy work of Soderling does make one think: Nadal has gotten the best of Federer over the last two years (except at the 2007 Wimbledon) and has dominated at Roland Garros. If Nadal loses to Soderling, something is terribly wrong.
Understandably, this debate can lead to a myriad of statistics that aren’t, in my opinion, practical to tennis. Federer’s older, Nadal’s younger, Federer’s healthy now, Nadal is injured, who was better in their prime, blah blah. Federer played incredibly at this year’s French Open and he is deserving of the championship.
What we should all be looking forward to is this year’s Wimbledon. With Federer’s confidence at a current high and Nadal coming back from giving his knees a break, it should be another beauty. That assumes, of course, that the two meet again. There’s always Andy Murray and one of America’s finest (sarcasm intended) standing in their way.
