Listen, I don't want a "Will He Retire" soap opera, either...
As I've mentioned before, I think that Football Night in America's a pretty good show. I've always kind of waffled when it comes to Bob Costas, though. He treads a fine line between "all right" and "kind of a wiener". (A line on which, earlier in his career, Joe Buck found himself as well; in the past few years, Buck's pretty much gotten rid of the "all right" bit....)
Costas case in point:
To fulfill a deal he made on The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn, as coverage of a game resumed he sipped a glass of pink lemonade and said "Ah, that's restaurant quality lemonade."Technically, this is true. However, Kilborn had asked him to use the line in reference to an amazing play, not set apart from the basketball game, and certainly not concerning actual lemonade. That he actually followed through on delivering the line is "all right"; that he skirted around using it during the game makes him "kind of a wiener".
As was reported by Fox Sports and reiterated by Peter King, Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson would like to see Favre back next year.
Makes sense to me. Through nine games, the Packers have equalled their total wins from last year. The offensive line play is getting more consistent. Both Greg Jennings and A.J. Hawk are proving to be impact rookies which bodes well for the future*. Favre's thrown 13 touchdowns to 7 interceptions so far, showing much more patience and discepline than last year.
Anyway, to bring this back around to Costas and FNiA, last night, after Peter King talked about the push to bring Favre back, and Sterling Sharpe, Cris Collinsworth, and Jerome Bettis chimed in with their two cents, Costas added something like, "It's obvious they don't believe in former first round pick Aaron Rodgers, otherwise they wouldn't be talking like this."
Um, okay? Frankly, I don't see how wanting a future Hall of Fame quarterback, one playing good football no less, back in your locker room proves you don't believe in his back-up.
* This is a point is actually two: First, it shows that there are some solid young players on both sides of the ball. Second, it indicates that Ted Thompson will be much more successful in the draft than was Mike Sherman. Take a look at Sherm's craptastic 2004 draft for instance. The only player selected that is currently a consistent contributer is Scott Wells. An undersized corner in the first round? A punter in the third? Genius! It could be argued that Green Bay's troubles last season were a trickle down effect from that botched draft.