Yesterday soon after Brett Farve ended his brief retirement and signed with the Minnesota Vikings, all the talk was has Favre stained or tarnished his legacy by coming back yet again.  I will say the Vikings mishandled the situation with all the mixed signals and on again off again deadlines while awaiting a decision from Favre.  While the whole process was tedious and reported on almost daily to the point of driving many following or reporting on it crazy.  How has what transpired detract from Favre's legacy?  Did he somehow lose a big game or throw another interception while trying to be the gunslinger people have exalted him for being?  No, he went to a division rival of the former team he will forever be linked with carrying for 17 years and rejuvenating the team and city in the process.  Legacy in terms of a player in sports are things a player is remembered for by fans and media and how they are celebrated and remembered.  Yet somehow something that really doesn't belong to anyone but athletes, in this case Favre is being  negatively talked and bantered about. It's as if everyone but him has a say in how, who and when he should play or not play for.  Pundits wondered what it will do to legacy he established with the team that he is a symbol, but  didn't want him starting anymore.  This is completely the circumstances of today's NFL.  No one let alone an iconic figure in the NFL should be judged or told they shouldn't play for a certain team or within a certain division, because it's somehow wrong.  If that's the case with that logic no one who had an established career could play anywhere else but where they established themselves. That's utter lunacy.

If that's the stance people who haven't played sports at a high level or those that have but haven't attained the stature of Favre want to take, then ok.  What about the legacy of pro sports athletes that didn't have to play against minorities for many years?  Would their legacy still be the same? How could that have changed the legacy of generations of players to come.  In baseball, America's pastime the titans of the game and who most players are referenced to, the likes of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ty Cob, Walter Johnson and Cy Young didn't have their sport intergrated with minorities, during the times they reigned over baseball.  So what other players legacy would forever be etched into the fabric of the game of baseball, had they been allowed to play?  Almost all of the major sports in America at one time or another had racial restrictions in them.  So again I ask what legacy of those who've played in leagues were minorities weren't allowed to participate?  Do we go back and re-evaluate what there accomplishments and legacy were as compared to those of intergrated teams now?  How do you even begin to?  That would be more than senseless to do.  We can't go back in time and assume what would've been had there been a different social policy in place.

That's my whole point.  How can anyone go back and say because Favre had a hall of fame career and arguably a top 3 QB of all time while playing in Green Bay, say that now that he play for the Vikings he's tainting his legacy.  Even if he's playing just to play Green Bay twice a year for vindictive reasons, What does that mean?  Most people in all walks of life like to stick it to a former or current employer they think have wronged them.  This has nothing to do with his legacy though it's a human emotion, albeit a frivoulos emotion.  Even last year as Favre played with the New York Jets, people thought he was tarnishing his legacy.  There were questions abound does he still have it?  What more does he want to accomplish?  Do you want to be remembered like this? Or just plain, why Brett?  At the end of the day it's Favre's right to go out anyway he wants, not how people want or see fit.  One thing is for sure he'll remembered as one of the best football players ever.  I'll let those who want to critique and nitpick his legacy to have at it.

---

Add this page to your favorite social bookmarking websites!