We really don't know what happened, but somewhere along the way SI.com's Peter King (and perhaps the entire magazine, as evidenced by its issue touting no coverage of one of the summer's biggest stories) turned on Brett Favre. We would point you in the direction to what we imagine are literally dozens of glowing statements King previously wrote about Favre when he was with the Packers, but frankly we don't have the time. Needless to say, it's just a generally accepted fact that those previous stories exist. The two men were tight.

But whether it was Favre's waffling that finally caught up with King (can't imagine that's it, since Favre started waffling around 2003), whether King stopped being Favre's go-to guy and was replaced on a national level by ESPN.com's stable of NFL writers, or something else, we have noticed a definite change in tone when it comes to how King talks about Favre -- and, in turn, how much he seems to still enjoy the works of Green Bay.

King's latest column -- and again, for the record, we will say that King's NFL MMQB is a weekly must-read for us because of his general depth of knowledge, insights and style -- features several of these moments:

*The two successors to Favre, Mark Sanchez (Jets) and Aaron Rodgers (Packers), are doing just fine, thank you. Better than fine. So fine that no one in New York or Green Bay seems to miss Favre.

*4. Green Bay (1-0). I loved what I saw out of the debut of Dom Capers' 3-4, even with the long scoring drive on Chicago's second-to-last drive of the night. Most impressive defenders: Johnny Jolly, Brandon Chillar, Cullen Jenkins. 5. Minnesota (1-0). Meaningless Stat of the Week: Brett Favre is the first quarterback in history to win opening games three straight years for three different teams. I'll volunteer to start the 2010 pool. Which team will Favre win a fourth with in 2010?

*Quote of the Week I: "I watched Brett Favre today. Very impressive. Went the whole game without retiring. -- Jay Leno, interviewed by Bob Costas at halftime of NBC's Sunday night game.

*l. Check out my Tuesday column for thoughts on the Packers' win over the Bears ... and what it means to the future of Aaron Rodgers.

To be fair, King did lavish praise on Adrian Peterson and his analysis of what the Vikings must do to keep Favre healthy made some valid points, even if they were a little sharp-tongued (yes, we know Favre is getting old. But the guy does have a pretty impressive iron man streak going. To imply his chances of lasting the full season are no better than "maybe" doesn't quite add up to us). King also had very valid critiques of Brad Childress cutting Bobby Wade and of the decision to start Sunday's game with a surprise on-side kick.

King doesn't have to love the Vikings' chances. We might think he's crazy for putting Green Bay at No. 4 in his Fine Fifteen, with the Vikings No. 5 and Chicago No. 6. But that's just, like, his opinion, man. (He did watch last night's slop-fest, right?) He certainly doesn't have to love Favre.

But we do think the shift is pretty interesting.


For discussion, from Stu: 

Since jamax2's self-esteem almost seems to be rising again: do the Bears win that game with Kyle Orton at QB last night? It seems counterintuitive to say that a team that just lost a game would've been better served with a [redacted-er] quarterback, but those interceptions were just so backbreaking ...

Your thoughts?

Older Post

Not to beat a dead horse, but ...

Newer Post

Tuesday (the types of poker players) edition: Wha' Happened?