The New York Jets Playoff Berth: Hard Work or NFL Gift For The Favre Fiasco?

I’m going to ask a simple question: did the 2009 New York Jets earn their playoff berth?

My answer is likely going to be 100% different than yours, but part of the fun of following sports is supposed to be the debate that ensues from the games. And what I write here may spark a heated one.

For me, the 2009 Jets were not a playoff team.

I freely admit they had the no. 1 defense in the AFC and the no. 1 rushing offense in the NFL. Without doubt, those numbers alone usually spell success for any franchise.

Yet despite those stats, just two weeks ago the Jets stood at 7-7 with two games remaining against certain playoff teams—the Colts and the Bengals. The Jets looked to be the odd man out in the playoff picture.

For the Jets and their fans, an amazing thing happened over those last two weeks of the season. The Jets’ playoff-bound rivals laid down.

In Week 16, the Colts were winning 10-3 at halftime. After Brad Smith’s record-setting kickoff return for a touchdown to start the second half, Peyton Manning marched his offense right back down the field and retook the lead, 17-10.

After that score, the Colts suddenly decided to rest their stars. The Jets jumped on this opportunity and took advantage of Manning’s replacement, the previously untested Curtis Painter who instantly fumbled away the Colts’ lead.

Despite what was said well after the game was over, it did not seem that the Colts’ starters were aware of the decision to turn the second half over to the second string like a preseason contest. Mannng and company looked upset, with lip readers everywhere seeing Manning tell his coach, “we’re losing now” as if to say, “we want to win this game, let me (us) back out there.”

That didn’t happen and the Jets won. It also put the Jets playoff hopes into their own hands.

To make it, they would need to beat the Bengals in Week 17. The Bengals, too, were a playoff-bound team with nothing to play for in the game against the Jets, especially given the fact that if the Jets won, the Bengals would be playing them again in a week’s time in the Wild Card game.

Las  Vegas oddsmakers  seemingly knew the Bengals were ready to lay down.  They made the Jets a 10-point favorite in the game.  Lo and behold, the Bengals did next to nothing and the Jets won with a shutout 37-0.

Yet now that the playoffs are set, and the Jets are in, Las Vegas has quickly changed it’s tune on the Jets-Bengals matchup . Instead of the Jets being favored by 10, oddsmakers have the Bengals favored by two or three points (which is simply based on their home field advantage, meaning they really see the game even).

This could have simply been a quirk in the schedule-making that played out perfectly for the Jets.  You can’t fault the franchise for this. They didn’t make the schedule; they just played the games laid out before them and won when the needed to. 

But let’s go one step further and play a little game of “what if?”

Go back to the 2008 season. The Jets appeared to be playoff bound with Brett Favre leading the way, starting the season 8-3. Then the wheels of the Brett Favre bandwagon fell completely off. The Jets finished 1-4 and missed the playoffs.

My contention has been that Favre intentionally lost those last few games. My reasoning for this—highly questioned by most—was written up six months ago here on the Bleacher Report.

In a nutshell, I believe the prima donna  Favre didn’t want to reward the Packers in any way for being rid of him (which the Packers would have been had the Jets made the playoffs) and still wanted to beat his former team as a member of the Vikings. But the Jets would have never traded Favre to the Vikings because they would have sacrificed three first-round draft picks to make the deal.

What happened at the end of 2008 made Favre’s wish come true without rewarding the Packers. Due to his poor play, the Jets missed the playoffs. Once again, Favre “retired” and the Jets quickly cut him loose, allowing for Favre to unretire and walk into the starting job in Minnesota.

Of course, once Favre landed in Minnesota, it was revealed that his sub-par 2008 came about due to an “injury” —one that was never completely substantiated and one that seemed to surprise the Jets. Now 100% healthy, Favre was ready to lead the Vikings.

The Jets, for their willingness to take Favre off the Packers’ hands, got nothing out of the deal.

Had this “healthy” Brett Favre stuck around in New York another season and put up the type of numbers he did in Minnesota, where would the Jets be in 2009? Division winners? With a first round bye, perhaps?

But the 2009 Jets didn’t have Favre. They had rookie head coach Rex Ryan leading rookie quarterback Mark Sanchez out onto the field. Things didn’t look promising for the team.

As the season progressed, the Jets play was up and down. The playoffs appeared out of reach as even Rex Ryan mistakenly claimed a few weeks prior to the end of the season.

Then the Colts and Bengals laid down for the .500 Jets, granting them a 9-7 season.  The exact record they possessed with Favre at the helm, albeit with one major difference: this year’s 9-7 record put the Jets in the playoffs.

What I ask is, was this all happenstance or did the NFL throw the Jets a bone?  The NFL has complete plausible deniability here: hey, both the Colts and Bengals had nothing to play for. Who can argue with that?

Well, for some odd reason, the NFL can. Commissioner Roger Goodell has suddenly surfaced to claim that the league will now look into finding a way to ensure teams don’t tank games as appeared to happen at the end of the 2009 season (and in reality, happens nearly every season). Is this suddenly news because too many “conspriacy freaks” (like your author) are pointing out how this benefited one team over some others?

If the NFL orchestrated Favre’s move to the Vikings in some way (and it has been a financial boon for the league to have him there), couldn’t they have then rewarded the Jets for their troubles? Couldn’t the NFL, having witnessed the Jets struggle to reach the playoffs this year, tapped both owners of the Colts and Bengals and asked “why don’t you give the Jets a break here?”

Maybe I see too many coincidences here, and maybe I’m reading too much into what happened in the Favre/Jets/Vikings saga. But I’m not sold on the Jets’ playoff berth having occurred without those last two victories that came under unusual circumstances.

Call me crazy, I’m fine with that. But let’s just see where the Jets go after playing Saturday in Cincinnati.

Read more NFL news on BleacherReport.com

Could The Patriots’ Weakness Be That They’re No Longer Cheating?

Make no mistake.  The New England Patriots in 2009 are stacking up to be a playoff team. 

At the conclusion of Week 14, they stand atop the AFC East with an 8-5 record.  That leaves them with a one game cushion on both the 7-6 Miami Dolphins and the 7-6 New York Jets.  With next week’s game at Buffalo, and the following week at home against an up-and-down Jacksonville team, New England will likely continue to play once the regular season comes to an end.

It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

Statistically, the Pats appear solid.  They are second in the AFC in point differential, having scored 114 more points than they have allowed.  With a healthy Tom Brady at the helm, their offense is second in the league in yards and second in passing.  They have even posted a 7-0 record at home.

Yet the football gods don’t seem to favor the Patriots this season.  Many pundits would claim they are overrated.  In the AFC, the stories that don’t revolve around the 13-0 Colts instead focus on the surprising Bengals or Broncos.

No one at this point in the season would dare to pick the Patriots as the AFC’s representative in the Super Bowl.  Why?  What are they lacking this season that they haven’t had in seasons past?

Has Belichick’s label of “genius” finally worn off?  Has Brady’s decision making faltered?  Is inner turmoil of the locker room spilling out onto the field?  Is the Patriots former “team” mentality falling apart, despite a winning record?

Or are the Patriots not as fearsome as they were in seasons past because they are no longer video taping their opponents signals?

While it seems longer than just two seasons ago that the tales of Spygate upset the Patriots apple cart and may have derailed their perfect season, it is a forgotten fact that the Patriots and Belichick were more than guilty of doing exactly what the NFL helped them downplay:  they had been illegally video taping their opponents’ coaching signals, likely using this information to better call their own plays and audibles.

To put it bluntly, they were cheating.

This activity had been more than the one-time incident against the Jets that made headlines early in 2007.  It dated back to Belichick’s arrival in New England, including their first Super Bowl win in 2001 against the St. Louis Rams.

Belichick was guilty as charged, and begrudgingly admitted it on 60 Minutes.  The NFL handed down the largest coach and team fine in league history because of the crime, yet the repercussions—what the activity meant in terms of wins, losses, and even championships—were ignored by both the league and much of the media.

Once the Patriots lost the the New York Giants in Super Bowl XLII, all was forgiven, and quickly forgotten.

What aided in erasing that memory was Tom Brady’s season-ending injury in 2008.  No one could blame the Patriots failure to make the playoffs last year on anything but the absence of Brady.  Video taping?  What video taping?  The team’s MVP and future Hall of Fame quarterback was gone.  How can someone even think about the video taping considering that situation?

Now, deep into the 2009 season, the Patriots aren’t as scary as they once had been.  They may make the playoffs, but the team appears on a downward slide.  Talk is the dynasty is over.  Rebuilding is imminent.

Why?

Could it be that the key to the Patriots’ success for the past eight years was really tied to the video taping habits of Bill Belichick?  And now, stripped of that, could the talent level of the Patriots propel the team only so far? 

Far enough to be a winning team, but not enough to make them true contenders to the crown?

Read more NFL news on BleacherReport.com

The NFL & ESPN Knew Brett Favre Would Return Way Back in April

ESPN‘s Monday Night Football schedule was released back on Apr. 14, 2009.  The fifth game in four weeks to be broadcast by the network was to be the Green Bay Packers at the Minnesota Vikings.  Coincidence, right?

I can’t believe that.  Call me crazy (and I’m sure a few of you will), but that game was put on the primetime schedule for a reason, and that reason signed a two-year deal with the Vikings yesterday.

Brett Favre’s “return” to football in a Vikings’ jersey was a certainty.  I believed that Favre may have influenced that likelihood in another B/R article.  I think that in order to leave the Jets and join the Vikings his way, Favre had to intentionally lose games to get his wish.

That wish is now a reality.

Yet that reality is now a financial boon for both the NFL and ESPN.  Without a doubt, the Oct. 5th Monday night matchup of the Packers and Vikings will be the highest rated NFL game during the regular season.

Other games scheduled for Monday Night Football early in the season have clear reasons to be in the prime-time lineup. 

The first game of the opening night double-header marks not just Tom Brady’s return to the NFL (for which ESPN had long ago filmed promo spots), but Terrell Owens’ first official game in a Bills’ uniform.  Game two features NFL poster boy Peyton Manning vs. the “wildcat” Dolphins.  Game three, America’s Team, the Dallas Cowboys.  Even game five, which again features the Dolphins, exists on the schedule if simply to be a marketing tool for the NFL’s further courting of the Latino market as it kicks off a “Hispanic Heritage Month Celebration.”

Amid these pre-planned games lies the Packers vs. Vikings matchup.  If neither the NFL nor ESPN thought Favre’s return (in a Vikings’ uniform, no less) was possible, then why put that game in prime-time?  Just in case?  He “retired.”  And was released.  Favre was out of football.

Yes, a Packers/Vikings game is a rivalry game.  Yes, Peterson and Rodgers are rising stars.  Their matchup would still be a marketable game, but with the crown jewel of Favre facing the Packers for the first time, it’s now a bonanza.

Favre’s return was orchestrated.  It is a soap opera meant to draw viewers, increase interest and ratings, and sucker the fans into caring.

His signing with the Vikings is not about winning games or bettering the team, it is about marketing.  Check the ticket and jersey sales for the Vikings in the past 24 hours. 

Will the Vikings’ organization care if the team still ends up 8-8 and out of the playoffs?  Their money just got made, compared to last season when there were a few games that almost didn’t sell-outs in time to avoid a TV blackout in Minnesota.

The NFL knew Favre would be back, that he’d be the Vikings’ QB, and that on Monday night, Oct. 5th, fans from coast to coast will be tuning in to ESPN to see what happens.

Yes, Michael Vick’s Reinstated, But Will The NFL Blackball Him?

No matter which side of the Michael Vick fence you’ve stood on, his return to the NFL seemed inevitable. Even before he served his time in prison, the sports world’s talking heads were debating his return to the league.

Now, with Commissioner Roger Goodell officially allowing him back with his unusual “conditional reinstatement,” all signs seem to point to Vick stepping onto a NFL sidelines at some point during the 2009 season.

Yet even though he’s back, no team has come calling for his services. Is it possible that no team ever will?

Despite his reinstatement, could the cabal of NFL owners “suspend” him for another year by blackballing him from the league?

Considering Barry Bonds for a moment. Bonds, since ending his time as a member of the San Francisco Giants, had stated he was seeking a new contract with another team. Yet no team ever asked for his services. Not even the Yankees, which always seem willing to bring in people like him.

Even with the allegations of steroid usage and the federal perjury case against him, Bonds could still be on the field, especially in the role of DH in the American League.  Other known steroid users—A-Rod, Tejada, Giambi, etc.—are still playing today.  Why not the all-time HR king?

But no team’s inquired about his services. I believe the MLB owners collectively decided to keep Bonds out of baseball. Effectively blackballing him from the sport.

Considering the MLB’s history of collusion—which has been proven in the courts—the idea of blackballing Bonds isn’t shocking.

Could the NFL owners do the same in the case of Michael Vick? Surely, the owners have the power to do so, along with the plausible deniability to boot. Any owner could say, “Vick has the talent to play, sure. But it’s the character issues that prevented us from signing him.”

Some fans might boo a stated position such as that, but others would applaud it.

So while everything thinks Vick is back, until he’s signed a contract, he’s actually not. The Falcons released him prior to going to prison, making him effectively a free agent for nearly two years. 

No team has asked for his services. None called while he was under house arrest.  None have called since he’s regained his freedom. Who is to say for certain any team will come calling at all this season?

Goodell’s ruling may very well open the lines of communication between Vick and some suitors, since now teams know what they can expect from Michael Vick in terms of service time. But while reports say his agent has been burning up the phone lines on Vick’s behalf, no team has sounded overly interested in signing him.

If no team offers Vick a contract this season, is it due to some sort of collusion or league blackballing? Or would it be because his physical ability has declined over the past two years spent in prison?  Or would it be the “character issues” tied to Vick?

Perhaps a season’s suspension may still happen, albeit in a very different form.

Why The NFL’s Stance Against Gambling Is Complete BS

In case you’ve missed it, the state of Delaware legalized sports gambling.  The state is hoping to raise revenue through sports gambling by allowing betting on single games in all of the major sports leagues as well as on college sports.

Delaware would basically become a giant sports book.  This is possible because the state previously had legalized sports gambling in 1979 when it ran a football “lottery.”  This so-called lottery was in actuality parlay cards and were only played on NFL games.  Due to various factors, Delaware’s original sports lottery lasted only a few short weeks before it was shut down.

When Congress passed a law outlawing sports gambling nationwide in 1992, it “grandfathered” in four states – Nevada, Delaware, Montana and Oregon – all of which had previously legalized some form of sports wagering.

Now due to the economic slump the state is in, Delaware believes returning to sports wagering will bring in millions of dollars to the suffering state.  And professional sports are not happy about it.

The four major leagues – NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB – along with the NCAA has filed suit against the state attempting to stop the institution of this sports wagering plan.

The suit states that Delaware’s plan “”would irreparably harm professional and amateur sports by fostering suspicion and skepticism that individual plays and final scores of games may have been influenced by factors other than honest athletic competition.”

While that sounds all well and good to the public, the fact is even without legalized sports gambling, professional sports has a history of game fixing dating back to the mid-1800s (yes, the 1800s) which continues to this very day.

Also, a huge majority of current sports wagering is conducted illegally and through underground bookies, most of which are connected to organized crime.  While no one knows for certain how much is being wagered illegally, the best estimates reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars a year. 

Since the mid-1960s, the NFL has always publicly been against any form of wagering on its games, citing a similar stance taken to the one in the current lawsuit against Delaware.

But despite this public stance, the NFL knows full well that gambling on its games is what keeps the league both in the public’s eye and profitable. 

BS, you say?  Read on.

Some gambling experts believe over a billion dollars is illegally wagered on NFL games alone during its regular season.  That number rises during the playoffs.

Those people betting are also watching the games.  In fact, most “fans” need some sort of “action” on the game to “enhance” the enjoyment of it.  Be it a friendly wager, a strip card, some squares, an office pool, a parlay card, or a bet with a bookie, people are gambling.  How many of you do the same?

Furthermore, the NFL clearly plays into this gambling habit its fans have.  Why do you think the NFL’s injury report even exists?  It isn’t used by opposing coaches to determine the other guy’s weaknesses.  It was specifically created in the 1950s for gamblers.

“Inside information” on injuries (much like the info NBA ref Tim Donaghy had access to and used successfully to win over 80% of his wagers) gave an informed bettor a distinct advantage.  And during the 50s and 60s, when numerous NFL players were themselves wagering on games or working hand in hand with gamblers who wagered for them, injuries were an important factor on were their money was laid down.

The NFL’s injury report was created to combat this.  It continues to exist strictly for gamblers to use.

The NFL also maintains close contact with members of several Las Vegas sports books to monitor how their games are being bet and if there are any unusual fluctuations in the line.   Though it rarely happens today due to the high volume of money bet, in the past games would often be taken off the boards because of suspected “oddities” in the wagers coming in.  The thought was, these games were probably fixed.

And while that fact feeds into why the NFL publicly doesn’t want sports gambling legalized, in all likelihood, illegal wagering – the unregulated kind – actually adds to the possibility of game fixing more than legal gambling does.  With no one entity montioring these bettors or their bets, no one would know if things were looking “fishy” prior to kickoff.

Perhaps the most popular form of gambling isn’t considered gambling at all by the NFL.  And that is fantasy football.

From personal experience, I have not been in a fantasy football league where money wasn’t “awarded” to the league’s champion.  That, my friends, is gambling.  Yet due to the fact that the NFL cannot tell what each and every fantasy league out there is up to, they have plausible deniability against aiding in everyone’s gambling…I mean, fantasy league.

The NFL openly encourages fantasy football.  They allow leagues to be run on their own website.  And I cannot believe they do not realize money is on the line in most, if not all, of those leagues.  Yet at the same time, the NFL knows that fantasy football has aided in the league’s popularity and in turn upped ratings and thus its profit.

So while the league takes an anti-gambling stance on every occasion, this is nothing but good PR.  The truth is, the history and success of the NFL is tied directly to both the rise of gambling (especially the advent of the betting line) and television.  In fact, all of sports television’s rise to prominence is linked to gambling.  (For those interested, these links will be further explained in my book.  See my author page for more.)

The NFL realizes an active gambler is an avid watcher.  And that is what the league craves more than anything.  In all probability, if the NFL could figure out a way in which they could run their own sports book, they would take bets on their games without blinking an eye. 

But if the NFL can’t profit off of gambling, then they are willing to take the stance against it, simply to appear to want everything on the up-and-up. 

But the league knows the truth all too well:  gambling, no matter the form it takes, makes the NFL the sporting powerhouse it is. 

Donte Stallworth Tested Positive For Marijuana After Deadly Crash

According to a report in the Miami Herald, Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth tested positive for marijuana after the accident in which he struck and killed a pedestrian.

Stallworth was recently sentenced to 30 days plus home arrest and probation for the accident in which a 59-year old man was killed. 

Stallworth reportedly cut a deal with the deceased’s family to both avoid a civil case and to lessen the sentence he was originally facing.

This new information, while coming too late to alter his sentence, will not likely help his case in being reinstated to the NFL. Commissioner Roger Goodell has suspended Stallworth “indefinitely” recently, citing the need to review the case prior to making a final decision.

Armed with this new information regarding Stallworth’s state that night, Goodell will have to take this into further consideration. 

Most minds figured Stallworth to miss one season at most. This revelation may change those thoughts.

Brett Favre vs. Green Bay Packers: Throwing TDs or Throwing Games?

It’s a near certainty that Brett Favre will be playing football in 2009 for the Minnesota Vikings. In fact, there are already rumors circulating that the Vikings have put in an order for No. 4 Favre jerseys with the NFL’s equipment supplier.

What remains is the question of why Brett Favre seems so hellbent on playing for the Vikings.

The source of this likely scenario taking place on the gridiron is the bitter relationship between Favre and his former GM, the Green Bay Packers’ Ted Thompson.

Publicly, both Favre and Thompson will say the right thing and deny any animosity against the other. But privately, this is simply not the case.

Favre believes that Thompson forced him out of Green Bay. Whether that is the truth or simply Favre’s version of the truth will likely never be known despite reams of articles written on the subject. But Favre has held on to his opinion like a feral dog to a fresh kill.

If Favre truly despises Thompson and is willing to burn every bridge built in Green Bay to seek his revenge on the man, then the following scenario I will lay out is extremely plausible.

While still in Green Bay, Favre wished Ted Thompson would build a winning team around him—not through the draft, as appeared to be Thompson’s strategy, but through free agency. That is how Favre had seen the Packers build their Super Bowl-winning team, by picking up the likes of Reggie White, Desmond Howard, and Eugene Robinson.

But Thompson didn’t seem willing to spend the Packers’ money in such a fashion. The team failed to bring in any big-name talent through free agency. Favre practically begged Thompson to grab Randy Moss and give him a true receiving threat. Yet without even making an offer, Thompson let Moss land in New England.

So Favre played with the youngsters that he likely knew were not a Super Bowl caliber team, despite his constant claims of how talented the young Packers supposedly were.

Thus began Favre’s constant talk of “retirement.” Basically what Favre was doing was waiting to see if the Packers would make a move and sign a big name to bring in the offensive talent he wanted prior to committing to returning to the Packers’ sideline.

It was a threat. An idle threat—and the Packers front office knew this.

Finally, the straw snapped. Favre was so angered by Thompson’s refusal to listen to his requests that he wanted out—and he wanted to go to Minnesota.

Not simply because he had friends running the team and he already had a good knowledge of their offense, but because he could stick it to the Packers (mainly Thompson) twice a year.

Thompson was no fool. He realized this, and instead of kowtowing to Favre’s somewhat childish demands, shipped his franchise and future Hall of Fame quarterback to the New York Jets—with several conditions attached.

Thompson and Packers knew that Favre wanted to play in Minnesota so bad that they put a rider in the deal that if the Jets turned around and traded Favre to the Vikings, the Jets would have to surrender their next three first round draft picks, a clear deterrent.

For the immediate moment, the Jets had to trade a single pick—one contingent on Favre’s play and how far the Jets went in the postseason—for Favre’s services. Not only did the Jets land a superstar quarterback, their first since Joe Namath, they boosted ticket sales and jersey sales immediately. This coincided with over $140 million in other talent the team brought into New York.

Despite this, Favre did not want to play in New York. As the season went on, this was obvious. He didn’t participate in team functions, and by season’s end, he was hated by most of his teammates, who sensed his dislike of being there.

Favre’s play at the end of the season, when the playoffs seemed easily within the Jets’ grasp after an 8-3 start, seemed to coincide with the animosity built up between the quarterback and the rest of his team. Without mincing words, in the last five weeks of the season when the Jets went 1-4, Favre sucked.

He threw just two touchdowns against nine interceptions. His quarterback rating averaged just a tick over 50 for those five games. The Jets missed the playoffs, and their head coach, Eric Mangini, was ultimately fired.

Talk was Favre was just washed up. Or maybe it was his throwing arm, which later would require offseason surgery, that was at fault. Either way, it looked as if his career was truly at an end.

So it came as no surprise when Favre talked of retirement again. Then he asked for his release from the Jets, and the Jets complied without a second thought. The team had made their money off Favre in ’08 and now had a new franchise quarterback in Mark Sanchez to hype.

Yet this was exactly what Brett Favre wanted all along: his freedom—and the freedom to go to the Vikings, where he would have his chance to go head-to-head with Ted Thompson and the Packers.

Could Favre have designed this whole scenario while under center for the Jets? Could he have thrown games at the end of the season simply to get himself out from under the Jets’ control?

Think about this. Favre had cut all ties to his former team by putting himself first. He seemed not to care about his fans’ opinions because, again, he came first. He had no want to see the Packers succeed; they had dared to turn on him. 

Despite all of this, his success on the Jets was still directly tied to the Packers’ future success.

Had Favre led the Jets to the playoffs, Thompson and the Packers stood to gain a second round draft pick as part of the deal (a first round pick if he led them to the Super Bowl).

If Favre indeed accomplished that, that success would have made the Jets front office tighten their grip around Favre, rather than giving him his unconditional release as he wanted.

Yet if the Jets floundered and failed to reach the playoffs, Thompson would get just a third round pick, and the Jets wouldn’t necessarily want the “old man” back. 

Perhaps to Favre, this latter scenario was preferable. Thompson and the Packers would get next to nothing for trading Favre, and in turn, Favre would be a free man.

With five weeks left in the season, Favre, and consequently the Jets, suddenly tanked. 

So maybe Favre’s play at the season’s end wasn’t just the wearing out of a 40-year-old quarterback. Perhaps it was a fiendish plan of someone who was seeking revenge against a man and a franchise he felt had wronged him (and his super ego).

Now Favre has exactly what he wished for a season ago. He’s free to join the Vikings, perhaps to the welcoming wishes of friends who know that there is plenty of gas left in Favre’s tank despite what he seemed to show at the end of the ’08 season.

As for the Jets, they ultimately profited from Favre’s brief time there. Yet they were just a pawn in Favre’s game. 

The enemy was the Packers. For their grief, they get just a third round pick out of Favre—not the second rounder or the potential three first round picks possible if the Jets had dealt him.

What do you think of that, Ted Thompson?

If Favre indeed joins and succeeds with the Vikings, Thompson is made the fool Favre believes him to be. Revenge can be sweet, can’t it?

As long as Favre and the Vikings can win.

Lack Of Action by The NFL on Stallworth & DUIs Destroys Credibility

Others here on the Bleacher Report have addressed the issue of Donte Stallworth and the length (or if you prefer, brevity) of his sentence as a result of the agreed upon plea deal.

What I’ve failed to see addressed is why the NFL has yet to act in this situation.

By the league’s own rules, they do not need to see a conviction in a case in order to issue a ruling/suspension against a player. Pacman Jones knows that personally.  Plaxico Burress was suspended prior to his case being resolved as well – even though he wouldn’t have been playing while recovering from his self-inflicted gunshot wound.

And while I’m certain the NFL will suspend Stallworth in the very, very near future, the league’s failure to have already acted shows a sign of weakness on criminal behavior that new commissioner Roger Goodell swore would not take place under his watch.

The Browns, for their part as well, have yet to publicly discipline their wide receiver.

Why? Why have both parties not yet acted in regards to Stallworth?

One of the under-reported issues in the NFL is that the league has a huge problem with drinking and DUIs amongst its players. A quick glance at the “turd watch” on profootballtalk.com, or the rap sheet on my own website would show how often NFL players are charged with DUIs.

Granted, most players (and people in general) are able to weasel out of any true trouble with the law that results from these arrests. Most incidents are quickly and quietly swept under the rug to be forgotten.

The NFL is content to let this occur, without ever punishing a player.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that while the NFL can instantly suspend players for substance abuse in the form of performance enhancing drugs, as well as those of the recreational sort, the league will not nor even attempt to do anything of the sort in regards to alcohol despite it being within the commissioner’s power to do so.  And alcohol is the most abused substance within the league.

Privately, the NFL knows this.

Perhaps Stallworth’s DUI manslaughter charge will wake the league up and spur it into action. But that is highly unlikely.

The NFL also has had a problem with its players abusing women. Yet after the tragic story of Rae Carruth murdering his pregnant girlfriend, the NFL ignored any further ramifications that were associated with his case. They deemed it an isolated incident.

Likely, that is what will happen with this case involving Donte Stallworth.

While the league could use this as a springboard for more action regarding its players acting like responsible adults and punishing them when they break the law in cases like DUI arrests, the NFL likely won’t do a thing differently.

The NFL has clearly shown a tendancy to allow criminals to play within their league.  

Yet for some fans, this strikes at the heart of the NFL’s credibility. If you’re willing to employ criminals just to make a buck, what else might a league be willing to do?

If the NFL is going to show any backbone and attempt to control its players’ behavior off the field, it’s going to have to act and act swiftly when cut-and-dry instances like this one in the case of Donte Stallworth occur.

But the fact is, the NFL does nothing more than pay lip-service in incidents like this.  Slow and belated, the league eventually gets around to acting. When it does, rarely does the punishment really fit the crime.

It will be interesting to see how many games a DUI manslaughter charge is equal to, and if/when the NFL will allow a convicted killer to play again within the league. 

NFL Sport Channel Latest

• Just How Far Would You Go?
• Sorry Rex, But It Isn’t Happening
• Super Bowl Predictions: Five Stat-Free Reasons Why the Eagles Will Reach The Super Bowl
• Seahawks Attempt to Turn Corner With Heavy Pursuit of Pete Carroll
• Bill Cowher Unlikely to Coach in 2010