Jay Cutler's Injury Reveals More About Critics Than Cutler's Toughness

Last night's NFC Championship game between Chicago and Green Bay was a fascinating encounter for all of the right reasons. The real stories today should be both that the Packers are deservedly in the Super Bowl with one of the best QB's in the league at their helm (again), and also that young Caleb Hanie almost achieved a comeback of epic proportions. Of course, neither is the top story on twitter, or ESPN, or NFL Network, because a group of current and ex-players have used Jay Cutler's exit from the game in the third quarter as a stick to beat him with. Never mind that he was pulled from the game by Doctors, never mind that Centre Olin Kreutz vividly recounted Cutler's knee shaking in the huddle after a hit, and his 'amazement' that the Quarterback returned after half time. Never mind that he was diagnosed with a torn MCL this morning Never mind all of that, because nobody likes Jay Cutler, so he's fair game.

"All I'm saying is that he can finish the game on a hurt knee ... I played the whole season on one ..."

Maurice Jones-Drew

"Cmon cutler u have to come back," Cardinals safety Kerry Rhodes wrote on Twitter. "This is the NFC championship if u didn't know!"

Kerry Rhodes

“As a guy how had 20 knee surgeries you’d have to drag me out on a stretcher to Leave a championship game!”

Mark Schlereth

“Im telling u in the playoffs u must drag me off the field. All the medicine in pro lockerooms this dude comes out! I apologize bear fans! . . . Folks i never question a players injury but i do question a players heart."

Deion Sanders

If Jay Cutler's leg injury ends his career, will Deion Sanders apologise for his comments? Seems unlikely. At what point these players achieved their medical qualifications is unclear, though it is understood that Sanders was on hand to examine Cutler's knee up close and personal from the NFL Network Studios. Unfortunately for the usually likeable Jones-Drew, he has thrown himself under a bus big time. If I was a harsh man, I'd ask how on earth he knows what it's like to play in an AFC Championship game?

BUT I'M NOT!

In all seriousness, the outpouring of scorn on Cutler before all the facts were known exposed the distaste for Cutler in the media on a grand scale. Does he warrant it? Perhaps. He doesn't seem to want any of the bonhomie and banter with members of the media that many players enjoy. He's not easy to talk to, he doesn't respond well at press conferences, and his body language is always that of a man content to wallow in his own world regardless of the game situation. Yeah, he warrants the criticism for all of those things.

But toughness? Nah. I'm not buying it. Cutler has shown in his career so far - often to his detriment - that he is a stubborn, cavalier type of QB, much like Brett Favre - indeed comparisons are often made between the two - so the idea of him actively seeking to stay on the sideline at a critical point of the season... has anyone even remotely applied any form of logic to this? Why would Cutler pass up a relatively short field, like the one that faced replacement Todd Collins? Why on earth, given everything Cutler has faced this year in terms of punishment and hits, would he choose that particular moment to quit on his team-mates? None of it makes sense.

No, what makes sense is that hypocrites like Deion Sanders, Michael Irvin and Maurice Jones-Drew, all of whom have missed plenty of games through injury in the past, decided that the widely hated Cutler was an easy target. It exposes the unsettling undercurrent of deceit that Sanders peddles, as he stubbornly refused to back down on NFLN last night in the face of reports that in fact it was the doctors that pulled Cutler. Instead, Prime muddled through a well rehearsed "perception vs reality" piece that in fact told us absolutely nothing. The perception amongst idiots was that Cutler quit on the Bears. The reality was that he didn't. That's all there is to it, but somehow Deion Sanders refuses to accept that he got it completely wrong.

The argument that players have played through X Y and Z doesn't hold water. Philip Rivers was poor in the AFC Championship 3 years ago playing with a torn ACL. Coach Norv Turner gave him a choice, but crucially advised Rivers not to play, citing the team's ability to return to the playoffs in the future. What people forget is that Rivers playing on, or Cutler playing on, may not actually be what is best for the team in the short or long term. If Cutler couldn't plant his foot, then he was useless to his team and was frankly more of a liability than anything. What would the Bears gain from further risking his knee in return for an ineffective at best performance? As far as the long term consequences, Carson Palmer has been awful since his knee injury in 2006, while Tom Brady took almost a full 12 months to recover from a torn ACL in the first game of 2008. If Cutler needed 12 months to rehab his injury, that puts him out for a whole season. While it's a worst case scenario, the fact is that coaches and doctors have to be aware of the repercussions that come with an injury to a franchise QB.

I have a friend who called Cutler a coward last night. He doesn't know Cutler, he just watched the same thing that we all watched. he didn't know the situation, yet he made a judgement. That's life, unfortunately, but hopefully if there is any positive lesson from this, it's that some of those people who love the sound of their own voice on TV and on Twitter, will wait for the facts to emerge before making assumptions about another player's injury.

Like a lot of people, I'm now actively awaiting the response to the next injury suffered by any of those so quick to judge Cutler last night. I'll leave the last word, though, to a surprising voice of reason in the whole sorry affair:

Turned on Espn and reading the tweets current/former players have sent out based on Cutlers injury.what if he's really hurt bad :( I'm sad

Chad Ochocinco on Twitter

Rodgers receives Favre blessing

Buried away in the second installment of Brett Favre's FOX news interview, were his response to Aaron Rodgers, who told Green Bay fans last month to '...shut up and get on board', regarding his tenure with the Packers.

We got along fine. He's 14 years younger than me. I know he made some comments here lately. But when I was his age I made some crazy comments, too, so I can't hold that against him... It's got to be hard on him. My only advice to him, and I never gave him advice, really, would be that the only way to shut that up, we all know, is to go out and play and play well. And that's not to say that they would forget what I've done. But go out and prove it on the field. That's all I would say. I'm not sitting here bashing Aaron Rodgers. I think he'll do a fine job, and I think his comments are not a surprise. Not only from him, but I might have said the same thing.

- Brett Favre speaks about his successor, Aaron Rodgers

Favre and Rodgers were never best friends, but neither was there ever any animosity between the two. Rodgers was aware from day one that there were no conflicting opinions amongst fans about who should be Green Bay starter if both men were healthy, and so has never griped or complained about the way he has been almost cast aside as an afterthought to Favre's annual retirement saga. This stoicism has endeared him to locals who know that even if Favre were to come back for one more year, sooner or later, the team needs to be handed to Rodgers.

Favre knows this now. If he were in any doubt, the fact that there are as many activists on both sides of the fence should make it clearer. Indeed, in response to one petition to bring him back, a reader informs us that there is a similiar campaign to keep him on the Golf course.

Favre speaks part 2 - This time it's personal...

If the first part of Brett Favre's Fox News interview could be considered a tentative step into the ring, then Round 2 has seen the Green Bay Packers legend throw some haymakers at the team.

Asked by Greta Van Susteren if he was considering a return to the team in Training Camp, Favre said:

"It's tempting just to, as everyone said, you know, call their bluff or whatever... I think it's going to be a circus in itself already, whether I go there, whatever."

- Brett Favre speaking on Fox News

Uh oh! It's one thing to slate individual members of the front office, as he did on Monday, but to say that he's considering actively causing a problem for the football team? That's probably not the way to go about things when your biggest leverage comes from the way you have conducted yourself over a long career. On the other hand, perhaps the childlike, infectious enthusiasm for the game that we love about Favre, could also be the same mentality that makes him throw his toys out of the pram when he doesn't get his own way...

Favre did express sympathy with Aaron Rodgers, and in fact showed his support for Rodgers as Green Bay's starter next year.

"I know this has been tough on him. I think he'll do a fine job. And this has nothing to do with him, this whole deal."

- Favre on Aaron Rodgers

The problem for Rodgers is that, with Favre set on playing again next year, he will be compared to Favre constantly. That was always going to be the case, but it's a whole different kettle of fish when the guy you replaced is still playing in the league.

The one thing we can definately take from all of this is that the whole situation is headed towards a Steve McNair-esque confrontation. If Favre turns up, will the team even let him practice? One man who should know is McNair's agent, who in a happy coincidence, happens to be Favre's agent, James "Bus" Cook.

We'll have more from Green Bay throughout the day. Thanks to everyone who have sent emails of support, we appreciate all the comments we receive - both positive and negative.

What Brett Favre's return means for Aaron Rodgers

As we made quite clear this weekend, the one person we have sympathy for in the whole Brett Favre Tragi-Comedy, is former first round pick Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers has spent three long years waiting for Favre to retire, and now, when he finally seems destined to become starter, his former mentor has expressed his desire to play for yet another season.

Rodgers has publicly been anointed the team's starter by GM Ted Thompson and Coach Mike McCarthy. Unfortunately, that was done before Favre said that he was '100% committed' to playing in 2008. Now that the Packers are becoming ambiguous on the subject, saying that should he return he would be 'considered an active part of the Packers', Rodgers must have the uneasy feeling that his job is far from secure. There is a chance that this is posturing on both sides, and that the team would prefer to move on without #4, but taken at face value, there would be little doubt that Favre would win any QB battle between himself and Rodgers.

So assuming that Favre comes back to the Packers, what does the future hold for Rodgers? Many have suggested that it's no big deal. After all, the guy has sat for three seasons, what will one more matter? Well, apart from the obvious - money earned from playing time and bonuses - Rodgers is getting towards the end of the five year deal he signed in 2005, so assuming that he didn't play this year, that leaves him the 2009 season to prove himself in the NFL. Again though, what price on the Favre question this time next year?

The team has drafted Brian Brohm, arguably a first round talent, and Rodgers may even find himself playing the last year of his contract with pressure from the former Louisville Quarterback. If Brohm gains the trust of the coaching staff, Rodgers would have a very small window to become acclimatised to the NFL. Four years on the bench is no substitute for four games in the league, and it could be argued that neither man has started a regular season game yet.

So what should Rodgers do? His best course of action would likely be to ask for a trade. He would be coveted by a number of teams who aren't convinced by their current incumbent, though if the Pack' demand anywhere near Rodgers' original first round value, that could be a stumbling block. It's still likely that at least one team would be happy to pay up for him though, and with Brohm on the roster, Green Bay may opt to cash in on at least one of their highly rated signal callers.

Unfortunately for Rodgers, he is a cheap insurance policy as far as Green Bay are concerned. He is scheduled to make just $680,000 this year, and even if he starts this season and next, he will have missed out on more than half of the $24.5m deal he signed as a Rookie. In fact, to put things into perspective, he will have made just $2m in incentives, out of a potential $17m.

Money isn't everything, and let's not get into a situation where we feel sorry for millionaires, but the fact remains that Rodgers could find himself out of the league in 3 years time, and have earned a fraction of his likely earnings, if he does not get a chance to prove his worth as a starter in the NFL soon.

For some, that 'Big second contract' can't come round soon enough. For Aaron Rodgers, it is looming up all too quickly on the horizon of his career.

Favre saga trundes on

Chris Jenkins of the AP has handily compiled a timeline of the entire Brett Favre issue. Most of it has been well documented, but some interesting snippets of information have been gleaned.

Certianly, in McCarthy's version of events, Favre would not have been under the impression that GM Ted Thompson and McCarthy did not want him back. If anything, they seem to have gone out of their way to placate their Quarterback, and give him as much time as was needed. McCarthy also mentions that he offered Favre the option of practising less, but as Favre said during his retirement press conference: If he was not 100% commited to football, he wasn't coming back.

Another interesting point is that Thompson - who has been vilified by the media for his part in recent events - actually had dinner with Favre as recently as May. This certainly seems to dispel some of the myth that this is a personal battle between the two, a conclusion readily assumed by the media.

But perhaps the most critical part of the timeline is Favre's assertion towards the end of June. Remember that this was just 3-4 weeks ago:

June 16-20: Acting on Campen's advice, McCarthy calls Favre. They play phone tag for a few days but eventually connect. "You and Ted need to have a plan if I do come back," Favre says, according to McCarthy. "Either give me my helmet or give me my release."

At that point, McCarthy asks Favre if he was 100 percent committed to a return. "He said, 'No, no, I'm not saying I'm there yet.'"

-Associated Press

Those who question the Packers' handling of this situation would do well to read that last sentence again. How could the organisation be sure of Favre's intentions when he was not himself? It seems that all the way up to the draft, the team was open to Favre's return, and actively pursued him to come back. It seems however, that when the team selected QB's Brian Brohm and Matt Flynn, Favre suddenly realised that the team was ready to move on.

This revelation seems to have prompted a stubborn streak in Favre, something that served him well during his NFL career. His desire to prove the Packers wrong seems to be an overriding factor here. He certainly does not seeme to have given the team a fair indication of his mental state before the draft, instead spurning multiple opportunities to respond to their overtures. The fact that Favre first said he was 100% committed to football on July 8th seems to back that up, as the more entrenched Aaron Rodgers became at QB, the less likely the team were to accept him back.

We'll have more on Rodgers soon.

Ted Thompson stands firm - and rightly so.

Many websites and columnists have found an easy scapegoat for the Brett Favre situation - Packers GM Ted Thompson. The words emanating from the Favre-friendly media are that he 'didn't feel wanted' by the Packers, and it has been portrayed by many that Thompson somehow drove Favre out.

Hold on a second.

Brett Favre retired. Does anyone honestly believe that the Pack didn't want Favre to be starter next year? It's rubbish. It's an enormous fallacy, and it's even more baffling that the media genuinely seem to be playing along for some reason. A report by ESPN's Kevin Seifert claims that Favre contacted the team weeks after his decision and said that he had the fabled 'itch'. When the Packers attempted to get him to come back, however, Favre declined a meeting with Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy. If he had shown that he was serious, then the team would have at least known what was happening. As it turned out, the only QB on their roster was Aaron Rodgers.

So the Packers had a dilemma that had no 'right' answer. Sure they could wait for Favre to get another itch, but what if it doesn't come? The idea that the Packers were slave to Favre's whims is a worrying one. At what point did he become bigger than the franchise? Sure, he made the team great, but he didn't do it single handedly.

Ted Thompson made the right decision. He drafted two QB's this year, and promoted Aaron Rodgers to starter. It was the only decision that granted any kind of firm ground beneath the team's feet. If Favre had seriously considered the team's offer to return in March, then this would never have happened. People are enamoured with Favre, and the problem is that some people are actively politicking for his return at the expense of Rodgers. Here is a quote from NFL.com's Pat Kirwan:

The Rodgers era can wait, and if Rodgers doesn't understand that this issue is bigger than him that's too bad.

-NFL.com senior writer Pat Kirwan

What a thought. Aaron Rodgers should really accept that his career may never start. It's irresponsible, reckless journalism that does not deserve it's place on a major sports website. To state that a young man's livelihood is not as important as Brett Favre's 'itch', is to show that you have completely lost touch with reality.

Favre is a great man, and a great player, but this situation is leaving an ugly stain on his legacy. If he is traded, it is perhaps the best compromise for Favre and the Packers, but in reality, he has no leverage to get such an outcome, except the sentiment within the organisation for him.

That sentiment is being eroded daily by his attitude towards the heirarchy in Wisconsin.

Packers refuse to grant Favre's release

As mentioned everywhere, Brett Favre asked the Packers for his release last night, and the Packers have responded by playing hardball with the man who is regarded as one of the greatest players of all time.

Speaking to the Associated Press, Packers GM Ted Thompson and Coach Mike McCarthy refused to release Favre, instead saying that should he want to come back to the team, he is more than welcome - as Aaron Rodgers' backup.

The move is clear posturing, as it is unlikely the team has any real desire to pay Favre $12.5m to sit on the bench, nor would they want the inevitable distraction of a healthy Favre pressuring to play at the expense of Rodgers. The team would most likely prefer to trade Favre and get some recompense for a Quarterback who would be in high demand around the league, but the fact that Favre has not indicated a desire to play more than one year could count against his trade value.

In any case, the Packers hold all the cards. If they keep Favre and he asks for a trade, they can send him somewhere away from their division, and preferably away from the NFC. That fact alone has to make the Jets and Ravens the favourites to land Favre after this act has played out.

James Jones: 'Packers locker room would welcome Favre'

Packers Wideout James Jones, who enjoyed a successful Rookie campaign under the leadership of Brett Favre, has spoken to ESPN radio regarding the potential comeback of No.4, as reported yesterday.

The chemistry was great, so I'm sure if he came back late it wouldn't hurt. We're excited for Aaron (Rodgers), but at the same time we'd be excited if Brett came back.

-Packers WR James Jones

Jones seems open to the idea of Favre coming back, and says that he 'would be welcome on the team' if and when he came back. It's still early in this story, and until Favre comes out and states in an unequivocal manner what his intentions are, then it will run and run.

In the meantime, it's difficult not to have some sympathy with Rodgers, who will likely have to deal with this for at least a few more months.

Mooch: Rodgers becoming a leader

Steve Mariucci, long time friend and mentor to Brett Favre, has spoken on the NFL Network to apparently quash the rumours that No.4 might consider coming out of retirement. He stated that Favre's successor Aaron Rodgers has become 'a vocal leader in the huddle' during Mini Camp, and that the coaching staff had been unanimous in their praise of the fourth year Quarterback.

Mariucci was only offering an opinion on Favre's mindset, but he seemed unequivocal that Favre would not want to upset the balance in Green Bay. Host Rich Eisen asked Mooch if Favre would ring up the Packers and ask to be shoehorned back into the equation.

" I don't know that Brett would ring them up and say 'make room for me' really... Could he do it? Absolutely, but I'm just not sure that's his style"

- Ex-Packers Coach Steve Mariucci on NFL: Total Access

As we (and Favre himself) noted, he was always going to feel this way as the off-season wore on. Mariucci explains that he would be starting to work out at this time of year, and as we said last night, the fact that he has not embraced media work means that there is a huge, football-shaped void in Brett Favre's life.

Brett Favre 'Has itch'

ESPN's Chris Mortensen is tonight claiming that the story that we all thought would never go away - but then actually went away - has returned like a deadly sequel.

Brett Favre may be reconsidering his retirement.

The 'source' says that "Favre has communicated his potential desire to coach Mike McCarthy but talks have not advanced to a substantive stage". If true, it obviously throws a huge, planet-sized Spanner into the Packers' offseason program. Don't forget that Aaron Rodgers has spent three seasons waiting for this moment, and the entire organisation has already made it's peace with Favre's retirement. For him to come back would not only (in our opinion) be unfair on Rodgers, it would be unfair on the personnel team that drafted Brian Brohm and Matt Flynn during this year's draft.

If Favre truly loves the Packers as he said he did, he would appreciate that the time has come for them to move on as a team.

For us, there is another reason to not come back, and that is the legacy that Favre leaves. When he went out in tears, it would take a robot not to have welled up at his emotional goodbye. Consequently, if he was to come back, his career is almost certain to end with a muted goodbye that we will not remember.

The piece also mentions the possibility of a trade, but to where? You'd have to be pretty sure that you had a Superbowl contending offence - and that the only piece missing was at Quarterback - to convince Favre to join. Then you would need to give the Packers at least a first rounder, and pay Favre's $12m salary for a year. All whilst knowing that you'd be lucky to get more than one season out of him. It's basically the Jason Taylor situation multiplied by a million.

No, we think this is just a story that was bound to come out at some point. Of course Brett was going to miss the locker room as the months wore on. Who wouldn't? Many retired players say that the hardest part of retirement is not being part of the team anymore. In our opinion, Favre should have a stab at media work, even if it's not his ultimate desire. The reason he feels this way is more than likely that he will have no role next year, Whereas Michael Strahan will have his own 'big game' to get ready for every Sunday.

You know there would be no shortage of takers...