Let's ditch Favre's cold-weather stat

Blame the loss to the Bears on poor preparation, not being ready to match Chicago's intensity, or whatever. Just don't trot out the cold-weather stat after the way Favre played the second half Monday.

December 29, 2009 at 3:53PM

Brett Favre threw for 269 yards in the second half and overtime. He kicked a lifeless Vikings team in the head and made it wake up and play when it was 17 points down on the road. He dragged his teammates to not one, but two game-tying drives in the fourth quarter. After the first game-tying drive was ruined by more horrendous kickoff coverage, Favre bounced back and threw a perfect pass to Sidney Rice for a touchdown on fouth-and-goal from the six with 17 seconds left.

Then, after Adrian Peterson's fumble led to the Bears' game-winning field goal in overtime, Favre was asked to explain why he lost a "cold-weather" game for the eighth consecutive time. I'm usually a big fan of asking a player anything and everything, but if Favre had strangled the person who asked the question and I were on the jury, I'd have voted "not guilty."

Some stats are bogus. Attaching wins and losses to the quarterback and no other player is one of the worst. I believe it was last year when Jake Delhomme had a horrible game and a 20-something passer rating, yet got the win because the Panthers won a low-scoring defensive game.

Favre's cold-weather stat also is ridiculous. It was ridiculous back when he was winning all the time in Green Bay. And it's ridiculous now. That should be obvious after watching Monday night's game. Favre couldn't have played much better than he did.

There are about a zillion variables in football. Injuries, Adrian Peterson's fumbles, etc. To say Favre is the reason his teams have lost all eight of those cold-weather games doesn't make sense.

Some other thoughts from last night ...

. I can't join the anti-Childress crowd. Not when they've won 11 games and back-to-back division titles for the first time since Bud Grant was still in his prime. But I will admit that I found myself thinking throughout that second half that the coaching staff needed to get the heck out of Favre's way and let him operate. Favre wanted to play up tempo and shake some life into the team, and it seemed like the coaching staff was smothering him with some slow thinking, if that makes any sense.

The one point where it was obvious came after that long gain to near the goal line. Favre wanted to hurry up and run a play with the same package he had on the field at the time. But the coaching staff slowed him down and ran some new personnel onto the field. Favre was ticked. The next play, I believe, was a run by Peterson that was stopped behind the line of scrimmage. Favre came back and threw the TD to Shiancoe after that.

Yes, Favre needs to be more respectful of Childress and not air dirty laundry after games. But Childress also has to remember why he was so set on bringing Favre out of retirement. Favre was doing EXACTLY what Childress got him for in the second half. So why not sit back and let the guy do his thing? I agree with Trent Dilfer, who made basically the same point after the game. "It's not rocket science," said Dilfer, who I think is one of the best NFL analysts anywhere.

. Although Peterson fumbled -- again -- I thought last night was the best he's run all season. He was a force who was determined to lead. His fumble was a great play by Hunter Hilenmeyer, but, again, it's a ball that great players like Peterson shouldn't lose.

. Last night was a reminder that even if it doesn't result in a Super Bowl, getting Favre was worth it. If nothing else, it's been fun to watch.

about the writer

about the writer

Mark Craig

Sports reporter

Mark Craig has covered the NFL nearly every year since Brett Favre was a rookie back in 1991. A sports writer since 1987, he is covering his 30th NFL season out of 37 years with the Canton (Ohio) Repository (1987-99) and the Star Tribune (1999-present).

See Moreicon