If Favre plays the initial snap and then steps off... (1 Viewer)

[faulkfan]

No, because Manning has done nearly the same during his streak.

Oh No he hasn't. Those were meaningless games at the end of year, not because he was hurt. BIG DIFF.

I've seen this in other posts and am not sure how coming in for a play for the sole purpose of keeping a streak alive, whether due to injury or meaningless game, is not a self serving bit of cheap individual promotionalism. It is cheap no matter what and I fear that the only reason you would say otherwise is because of the horseshoe under your name to the left. I am betting if it were Brady under the same circumstances you'd agree with the self-serving aspect of such an act.Perhaps I'm wrong, but until I hear a more convincing argument than "big diff" I will hold to my present convictions.

He never just played one play as you suggest. He either played a qtr or half. BIG DIFF. Even if he did it wasn't his choice. It's on record that he didn't want to come out. Favre's situation is different if he's not healthy enough to give his team the best chance to win. Also, BIG DIFF

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but you still haven't convinced me. Just out of curiosity, did Manning come in later in the game when they were losing to try and win? If not then why the heck play at all other than to protect the streak? You can't argue that he played for any other reason than the streak if it wasn't to win the game. Favre coming in, taking one snap, walking back to the sideline and taking off his pads means he doesn't care about the outcome of the game, only the streak, just like Manning coming in for a quarter, not to win a game, but to protect his streak.There isn't any shame in it, but I just don't see the big diff.

 

[Sinrman]

I'm hoping he takes a knee and then runs full blast off the field and out of the stadium.

And out of the NFL.........

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

It would most definately cheapen the streak. There's no way he'd do that nor do I think he'd be allowed to do it. Minnesota has a lot more to worry about than Farve's streak.....like winning!

 

[Jeremy]

It would most definately cheapen the streak. There's no way he'd do that nor do I think he'd be allowed to do it. Minnesota has a lot more to worry about than Farve's streak.....like winning!

This. You only get to suit up 45 players on game day. You're going to waste one of those spots just so Favre can hand the ball off to Peterson and extend his streak? I don't see it. He'll either start or be the inactive 3rd QB. Interesting discussion, but it would never happen. But to answer the hypothetical, I would agree with the poster who said I'd consider the streak over at that point. If he goes out and plays a series or two and discovers he just can't continue, that's a different story.

 

[kerntuber]

My guess is that Favre goes in with the intention of hobbling around all game and trying to make plays. Pats gameplan to blitz every down 1st play he overthrows a wide open Moss down the sideline, 2nd play he gets hit and has to be helped off. Streak continues.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

I can't belive people still buy this will he won't he crap from Favre. It never ends.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

No, because Manning has done nearly the same during his streak.

Oh No he hasn't. Those were meaningless games at the end of year, not because he was hurt. BIG DIFF.

I've seen this in other posts and am not sure how coming in for a play for the sole purpose of keeping a streak alive, whether due to injury or meaningless game, is not a self serving bit of cheap individual promotionalism. It is cheap no matter what and I fear that the only reason you would say otherwise is because of the horseshoe under your name to the left. I am betting if it were Brady under the same circumstances you'd agree with the self-serving aspect of such an act.Perhaps I'm wrong, but until I hear a more convincing argument than "big diff" I will hold to my present convictions.

He never just played one play as you suggest. He either played a qtr or half. BIG DIFF. Even if he did it wasn't his choice. It's on record that he didn't want to come out. Favre's situation is different if he's not healthy enough to give his team the best chance to win. Also, BIG DIFF

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but you still haven't convinced me. Just out of curiosity, did Manning come in later in the game when they were losing to try and win? If not then why the heck play at all other than to protect the streak? You can't argue that he played for any other reason than the streak if it wasn't to win the game. Favre coming in, taking one snap, walking back to the sideline and taking off his pads means he doesn't care about the outcome of the game, only the streak, just like Manning coming in for a quarter, not to win a game, but to protect his streak.

There isn't any shame in it, but I just don't see the big diff.

The difference is that this streak/record is all about being tough and durable, and being able to start and play 250+ games. Manning was obviously able to play in any of those games where he only played a series.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Since he already has the record by a large margin, I wouldn't care although it would be cheap. If he did this for a couple games because he was trying to break someone else's record, that'd be horrible. Especially if he's making his team worse by doing it.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

No, because Manning has done nearly the same during his streak.

Oh No he hasn't. Those were meaningless games at the end of year, not because he was hurt. BIG DIFF.

I've seen this in other posts and am not sure how coming in for a play for the sole purpose of keeping a streak alive, whether due to injury or meaningless game, is not a self serving bit of cheap individual promotionalism. It is cheap no matter what and I fear that the only reason you would say otherwise is because of the horseshoe under your name to the left. I am betting if it were Brady under the same circumstances you'd agree with the self-serving aspect of such an act.Perhaps I'm wrong, but until I hear a more convincing argument than "big diff" I will hold to my present convictions.

He never just played one play as you suggest. He either played a qtr or half. BIG DIFF. Even if he did it wasn't his choice. It's on record that he didn't want to come out. Favre's situation is different if he's not healthy enough to give his team the best chance to win. Also, BIG DIFF

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but you still haven't convinced me. Just out of curiosity, did Manning come in later in the game when they were losing to try and win? If not then why the heck play at all other than to protect the streak? You can't argue that he played for any other reason than the streak if it wasn't to win the game. Favre coming in, taking one snap, walking back to the sideline and taking off his pads means he doesn't care about the outcome of the game, only the streak, just like Manning coming in for a quarter, not to win a game, but to protect his streak.There isn't any shame in it, but I just don't see the big diff.

There are very valid reasons Manning would only play the first 1/3 - 1/2 of a week 16 or 17 game. If the Colts already have a playoff seed locked up, they don't want him to get rusty sitting on the bench for three weeks, but they don't want to risk getting him injured by leaving him in the second half of a meaningless game. This is the first time I've ever heard it suggested that Manning coming out of games like that had anything whatsoever to do with a consecutive starts streak. That's just silly.

 

[ScottyFargo]

A reporter asked him if he would do just that, and he said there's no chance. Does anyone honestly think he would just to keep it going?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

A reporter asked him if he would do just that, and he said there's no chance. Does anyone honestly think he would just to keep it going?

I don't think he would.

 

[ScottyFargo]

A reporter asked him if he would do just that, and he said there's no chance. Does anyone honestly think he would just to keep it going?

I don't think he would.

The media would absolutely kill him and I think a lot of players would lose respect for him. He's got enough issues to deal with right now with a foundering Viking team, Sterger-gate, and Wrangler cutting back on his commercials.

 

[Pipes]

NFL Headlines

Favre practices Friday, takes first-team reps

Brett Favre (ankle) returned to practice Friday and took all of the first-team reps during the media-access portion of the workout.

ESPN's Ed Werder predicts that Favre will start at New England, citing "the expectation of everyone" in the Vikings' organization. Werder noted that Favre got around "with a noticeable limp" in his high-top cleats, but looks poised to lead Minnesota onto the field against the Patriots. Randy Moss and Percy Harvin appear safe to use in fantasy leagues. Favre, though, is just our No. 16 quarterback for the week. Oct. 29 - 1:07 pm et

For the record he also leads the team in published pictures of his junk, which gives a whole new meaning to the idea of a streak...

Isn't he tied with Visanthe Shiancoe in this category?

 

[Billy1x]

I said no, only because 291 is already impressive, it's not like there's that much of a difference to me between 291 and 300

:(

 

[sho nuff]

If he takes only 1 snap (and its not going to happen that way anyway), it may cheapen the rest of the streak, but not the whole thing.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

No, because Manning has done nearly the same during his streak.

Oh No he hasn't. Those were meaningless games at the end of year, not because he was hurt. BIG DIFF.

I've seen this in other posts and am not sure how coming in for a play for the sole purpose of keeping a streak alive, whether due to injury or meaningless game, is not a self serving bit of cheap individual promotionalism. It is cheap no matter what and I fear that the only reason you would say otherwise is because of the horseshoe under your name to the left. I am betting if it were Brady under the same circumstances you'd agree with the self-serving aspect of such an act.Perhaps I'm wrong, but until I hear a more convincing argument than "big diff" I will hold to my present convictions.

He never just played one play as you suggest. He either played a qtr or half. BIG DIFF. Even if he did it wasn't his choice. It's on record that he didn't want to come out. Favre's situation is different if he's not healthy enough to give his team the best chance to win. Also, BIG DIFF

Not true. In 2008 he played one DRIVE in week 17. What's the purpose of that if not to keep a streak alive?

 

[destro]

No, because Manning has done nearly the same during his streak.

Oh No he hasn't. Those were meaningless games at the end of year, not because he was hurt. BIG DIFF.

I've seen this in other posts and am not sure how coming in for a play for the sole purpose of keeping a streak alive, whether due to injury or meaningless game, is not a self serving bit of cheap individual promotionalism. It is cheap no matter what and I fear that the only reason you would say otherwise is because of the horseshoe under your name to the left. I am betting if it were Brady under the same circumstances you'd agree with the self-serving aspect of such an act.Perhaps I'm wrong, but until I hear a more convincing argument than "big diff" I will hold to my present convictions.

He never just played one play as you suggest. He either played a qtr or half. BIG DIFF. Even if he did it wasn't his choice. It's on record that he didn't want to come out. Favre's situation is different if he's not healthy enough to give his team the best chance to win. Also, BIG DIFF

Not true. In 2008 he played one DRIVE in week 17. What's the purpose of that if not to keep a streak alive?

Even if we assume that was solely for the purpose of keeping a streak alive, don't you think it would be unfair for Manning to be penalized in the annals of NFL history because he had done such an amazing job all year that his team locked up a bye in week 15 and his coaches didn't want to risk him playing in a meaningless game? Does that somehow make him less tough? Doesn't the fact that his removal was involuntary change your stance? This type of record, as mentioned earlier, is about toughness, about staying healthy, and never missing a game. Manning is clearly doing exactly that, in spades.

 

[jon_mx]

No, because Manning has done nearly the same during his streak.

Oh No he hasn't. Those were meaningless games at the end of year, not because he was hurt. BIG DIFF.

Um, sure. Meaningless games <> hurt

oh please, that is such manure. Manning did not hurt the team by playing and in fact wanted to play much more of the game. That was the coaches decision. Besides, it was important to give Manning a few snaps to keep him game ready for the playoffs. Besides, I think sitting Manning probably cost them a Super Bowl that year, as the Colts played crappy in the playoffs. It also cost Manning having the single season TD record. He could have easily ended the season with over 53 or 54 TDs. Again, this was not Manning's call, but in fact against his wishes. The Colts players wanted to go for a perfect season.

 

[Bad_Mo]

First series - He will hand off to Peterson twice, throw an incomplete pass to Moss and come out of the game after his typical 3 and out claiming he aggravated his injury.

Guy is a dooooooosh.

 

[Warrior]

Doesn't matter, won't happen. He'll stay in or not go in at all.

 

[DBIsports]

No, because Manning has done nearly the same during his streak.

Oh No he hasn't. Those were meaningless games at the end of year, not because he was hurt. BIG DIFF.

Um, sure. Meaningless games <> hurt

oh please, that is such manure. Manning did not hurt the team by playing and in fact wanted to play much more of the game. That was the coaches decision. Besides, it was important to give Manning a few snaps to keep him game ready for the playoffs. Besides, I think sitting Manning probably cost them a Super Bowl that year, as the Colts played crappy in the playoffs. It also cost Manning having the single season TD record. He could have easily ended the season with over 53 or 54 TDs. Again, this was not Manning's call, but in fact against his wishes. The Colts players wanted to go for a perfect season.

I would like to add if there was ever a scenario that Manning was hurt, and he felt his injury put the teams chance of winning in peril if he started, Peyton would ask "What streak?" in a heartbeat. Does anyone believe the same about Favre?

 

[PhilLynott]

No, because Manning has done nearly the same during his streak.

Oh No he hasn't. Those were meaningless games at the end of year, not because he was hurt. BIG DIFF.

Um, sure. Meaningless games <> hurt

oh please, that is such manure. Manning did not hurt the team by playing and in fact wanted to play much more of the game. That was the coaches decision. Besides, it was important to give Manning a few snaps to keep him game ready for the playoffs. Besides, I think sitting Manning probably cost them a Super Bowl that year, as the Colts played crappy in the playoffs. It also cost Manning having the single season TD record. He could have easily ended the season with over 53 or 54 TDs. Again, this was not Manning's call, but in fact against his wishes. The Colts players wanted to go for a perfect season.

I would like to add if there was ever a scenario that Manning was hurt, and he felt his injury put the teams chance of winning in peril if he started, Peyton would ask "What streak?" in a heartbeat. Does anyone believe the same about Favre?

The fact that three teammates had to fly to Miss. to "convince" him to come back tells you all you need to know about this guy's ego. On a side note, his streak will probably never be snapped. With the new emphasis on concussions I just don't see anyone (maybe Manning) catching that streak.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Even if we assume that was solely for the purpose of keeping a streak alive, don't you think it would be unfair for Manning to be penalized in the annals of NFL history because he had done such an amazing job all year that his team locked up a bye in week 15 and his coaches didn't want to risk him playing in a meaningless game? Does that somehow make him less tough? Doesn't the fact that his removal was involuntary change your stance? This type of record, as mentioned earlier, is about toughness, about staying healthy, and never missing a game. Manning is clearly doing exactly that, in spades.

Of course it was for the purpose of keeping the streak alive. What other reason would there be? It's not about "fair." Either you have a consecutive start streak or you don't. I agree that Manning earned the right to take a token "start" just to keep his streak alive...but that's exactly what he did. I'm not knocking him for that indulgence. But it was no more legit than Favre playing one drive and leaving...or Art Monk catching a quick out and leaving a game to keep his streak intact. Manning started that game just to say he kept his streak alive...just like Favre could hypothetically do. I don't see why some fans would consider Favre's streak "over" while considering Manning's streak "ongoing." That type of record is about one thing-- starting a number of games consecutively. If you start the game the streak continues. if you don't you don't. It's really that simple. Normally I'm down with some Favre bashing, but this is silly. If Manning played one drive-- for whatever reason-- just to keep his streak alive, what's the difference if Favre does it?

 

[davearm]

Even if we assume that was solely for the purpose of keeping a streak alive, don't you think it would be unfair for Manning to be penalized in the annals of NFL history because he had done such an amazing job all year that his team locked up a bye in week 15 and his coaches didn't want to risk him playing in a meaningless game? Does that somehow make him less tough? Doesn't the fact that his removal was involuntary change your stance? This type of record, as mentioned earlier, is about toughness, about staying healthy, and never missing a game. Manning is clearly doing exactly that, in spades.

Of course it was for the purpose of keeping the streak alive. What other reason would there be? It's not about "fair." Either you have a consecutive start streak or you don't. I agree that Manning earned the right to take a token "start" just to keep his streak alive...but that's exactly what he did. I'm not knocking him for that indulgence. But it was no more legit than Favre playing one drive and leaving...or Art Monk catching a quick out and leaving a game to keep his streak intact. Manning started that game just to say he kept his streak alive...just like Favre could hypothetically do. I don't see why some fans would consider Favre's streak "over" while considering Manning's streak "ongoing." That type of record is about one thing-- starting a number of games consecutively. If you start the game the streak continues. if you don't you don't. It's really that simple. Normally I'm down with some Favre bashing, but this is silly. If Manning played one drive-- for whatever reason-- just to keep his streak alive, what's the difference if Favre does it?

If Manning was the only Colts' starter to play a series or two in a meaningless week 17 game, then you'd have a point.But so long as Manning played roughly the same amount as the rest of the Colts' starters, then you don't have a point.That would indicate continuing the streak was not the motivation for Manning playing a little bit and then coming out. It would instead support all of the other valid reasons that have been outlined.

 

[ookook]

Favre has never done ANYTHING to suggest he would ever do this. And he won't.

Just more nonsensical drivel without basis.

He plays for his own reasons, not records.

 

[JohnnyU]

On a side note, his streak will probably never be snapped. With the new emphasis on concussions I just don't see anyone (maybe Manning) catching that streak.

It's not like it's that great of a record. I think it ranks pretty low for QB records.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Even if we assume that was solely for the purpose of keeping a streak alive, don't you think it would be unfair for Manning to be penalized in the annals of NFL history because he had done such an amazing job all year that his team locked up a bye in week 15 and his coaches didn't want to risk him playing in a meaningless game? Does that somehow make him less tough? Doesn't the fact that his removal was involuntary change your stance? This type of record, as mentioned earlier, is about toughness, about staying healthy, and never missing a game. Manning is clearly doing exactly that, in spades.

Of course it was for the purpose of keeping the streak alive. What other reason would there be? It's not about "fair." Either you have a consecutive start streak or you don't. I agree that Manning earned the right to take a token "start" just to keep his streak alive...but that's exactly what he did. I'm not knocking him for that indulgence. But it was no more legit than Favre playing one drive and leaving...or Art Monk catching a quick out and leaving a game to keep his streak intact. Manning started that game just to say he kept his streak alive...just like Favre could hypothetically do. I don't see why some fans would consider Favre's streak "over" while considering Manning's streak "ongoing." That type of record is about one thing-- starting a number of games consecutively. If you start the game the streak continues. if you don't you don't. It's really that simple. Normally I'm down with some Favre bashing, but this is silly. If Manning played one drive-- for whatever reason-- just to keep his streak alive, what's the difference if Favre does it?

If Manning was the only Colts' starter to play a series or two in a meaningless week 17 game, then you'd have a point.But so long as Manning played roughly the same amount as the rest of the Colts' starters, then you don't have a point.That would indicate continuing the streak was not the motivation for Manning playing a little bit and then coming out. It would instead support all of the other valid reasons that have been outlined.

Yes. It's the same reason starters only play a series or two during preseason games. They need to play a little to stay on top of their game, but don't need to play the whole game when it means nothing.

 

[slayer666]

I used to have a lot of respect for that guy.

Yep. Can't stand the old #### now.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Even if we assume that was solely for the purpose of keeping a streak alive, don't you think it would be unfair for Manning to be penalized in the annals of NFL history because he had done such an amazing job all year that his team locked up a bye in week 15 and his coaches didn't want to risk him playing in a meaningless game? Does that somehow make him less tough? Doesn't the fact that his removal was involuntary change your stance? This type of record, as mentioned earlier, is about toughness, about staying healthy, and never missing a game. Manning is clearly doing exactly that, in spades.

Of course it was for the purpose of keeping the streak alive. What other reason would there be? It's not about "fair." Either you have a consecutive start streak or you don't. I agree that Manning earned the right to take a token "start" just to keep his streak alive...but that's exactly what he did. I'm not knocking him for that indulgence. But it was no more legit than Favre playing one drive and leaving...or Art Monk catching a quick out and leaving a game to keep his streak intact. Manning started that game just to say he kept his streak alive...just like Favre could hypothetically do. I don't see why some fans would consider Favre's streak "over" while considering Manning's streak "ongoing." That type of record is about one thing-- starting a number of games consecutively. If you start the game the streak continues. if you don't you don't. It's really that simple. Normally I'm down with some Favre bashing, but this is silly. If Manning played one drive-- for whatever reason-- just to keep his streak alive, what's the difference if Favre does it?

If Manning was the only Colts' starter to play a series or two in a meaningless week 17 game, then you'd have a point.But so long as Manning played roughly the same amount as the rest of the Colts' starters, then you don't have a point.That would indicate continuing the streak was not the motivation for Manning playing a little bit and then coming out. It would instead support all of the other valid reasons that have been outlined.

I'm not sure why people want to make excuses for Manning while attacking Favre. I guess it's because Favre has been such a jerk these past two years. If you don't think the streak is why Manning plays the first drive of a meaningless game and then sits out, I don't know what to tell you. If you think they're keeping him "on his game" by playing in one drive and then having a bye week, that's what you'll believe. Playing one drive is technically keeping the streak alive, whether it's week 17 or week 8. The circumstances are different, but it's the same thing-- playing just a little bit in a game to keep that number progressing.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Even if we assume that was solely for the purpose of keeping a streak alive, don't you think it would be unfair for Manning to be penalized in the annals of NFL history because he had done such an amazing job all year that his team locked up a bye in week 15 and his coaches didn't want to risk him playing in a meaningless game? Does that somehow make him less tough? Doesn't the fact that his removal was involuntary change your stance? This type of record, as mentioned earlier, is about toughness, about staying healthy, and never missing a game. Manning is clearly doing exactly that, in spades.

Of course it was for the purpose of keeping the streak alive. What other reason would there be? It's not about "fair." Either you have a consecutive start streak or you don't. I agree that Manning earned the right to take a token "start" just to keep his streak alive...but that's exactly what he did. I'm not knocking him for that indulgence. But it was no more legit than Favre playing one drive and leaving...or Art Monk catching a quick out and leaving a game to keep his streak intact. Manning started that game just to say he kept his streak alive...just like Favre could hypothetically do. I don't see why some fans would consider Favre's streak "over" while considering Manning's streak "ongoing." That type of record is about one thing-- starting a number of games consecutively. If you start the game the streak continues. if you don't you don't. It's really that simple. Normally I'm down with some Favre bashing, but this is silly. If Manning played one drive-- for whatever reason-- just to keep his streak alive, what's the difference if Favre does it?

If Manning was the only Colts' starter to play a series or two in a meaningless week 17 game, then you'd have a point.But so long as Manning played roughly the same amount as the rest of the Colts' starters, then you don't have a point.That would indicate continuing the streak was not the motivation for Manning playing a little bit and then coming out. It would instead support all of the other valid reasons that have been outlined.

Yes. It's the same reason starters only play a series or two during preseason games. They need to play a little to stay on top of their game, but don't need to play the whole game when it means nothing.

So playing that one drive matters in a meaningless game when there's no game the following week? That's keeping him on top of his game? Mmmmkay.

 

[destro]

Even if we assume that was solely for the purpose of keeping a streak alive, don't you think it would be unfair for Manning to be penalized in the annals of NFL history because he had done such an amazing job all year that his team locked up a bye in week 15 and his coaches didn't want to risk him playing in a meaningless game? Does that somehow make him less tough? Doesn't the fact that his removal was involuntary change your stance? This type of record, as mentioned earlier, is about toughness, about staying healthy, and never missing a game. Manning is clearly doing exactly that, in spades.

If Manning played one drive-- for whatever reason-- just to keep his streak alive, what's the difference if Favre does it?

First of all, your phrasing here is kind of a logical pretzel. You say "for whatever reason" and then you provide the very reason you just implied should be treated as unknown: "just to keep his streak alive." To ignore that weird booby trap and answer the question I think you were asking... there are several very apparent differences between Manning's Week 17 situations and this threads hypothetical.The differences are:1.) It wasn't really Manning's decision, and he wasn't being pulled for his performance. Kind of a big one, there.2.) The rest of the first team played just as much as Manning in these instances, so he clearly wasn't being targeted for special "record keeping" treatment.3.) The situation was created by the fact that Manning played so well that his team was forced to play meaningless games. Hard to fault him on that, no?4.) Manning was never injured in any of these cases, and the record is only impressive in terms of the ability to avoid injury for many seasons. Someone playing one snap while too injured to play is an obvious attempt at circumventing the actual criteria of the record, whereas I'm pretty sure the Colts brass has clearly demonstrated that they don't give a #### about records and did not have that in mind.Those should all be rather obvious, and they were implied or explained several times in this thread. It's clearly an entirely different scenario.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Even if we assume that was solely for the purpose of keeping a streak alive, don't you think it would be unfair for Manning to be penalized in the annals of NFL history because he had done such an amazing job all year that his team locked up a bye in week 15 and his coaches didn't want to risk him playing in a meaningless game? Does that somehow make him less tough? Doesn't the fact that his removal was involuntary change your stance? This type of record, as mentioned earlier, is about toughness, about staying healthy, and never missing a game. Manning is clearly doing exactly that, in spades.

If Manning played one drive-- for whatever reason-- just to keep his streak alive, what's the difference if Favre does it?

First of all, your phrasing here is kind of a logical pretzel. You say "for whatever reason" and then you provide the very reason you just implied should be treated as unknown: "just to keep his streak alive." To ignore that weird booby trap and answer the question I think you were asking... there are several very apparent differences between Manning's Week 17 situations and this threads hypothetical.The differences are:1.) It wasn't really Manning's decision, and he wasn't being pulled for his performance. Kind of a big one, there.2.) The rest of the first team played just as much as Manning in these instances, so he clearly wasn't being targeted for special "record keeping" treatment.3.) The situation was created by the fact that Manning played so well that his team was forced to play meaningless games. Hard to fault him on that, no?4.) Manning was never injured in any of these cases, and the record is only impressive in terms of the ability to avoid injury for many seasons. Someone playing one snap while too injured to play is an obvious attempt at circumventing the actual criteria of the record, whereas I'm pretty sure the Colts brass has clearly demonstrated that they don't give a #### about records and did not have that in mind.Those should all be rather obvious, and they were implied or explained several times in this thread. It's clearly an entirely different scenario.

When I said "for whatever reason" I meant a meaningless game or banged up. The overall reason would be to keep the streak alive. I should have said "regardless of circumstance" or something.For a team that doesn't care about records, they sure seem to always make sure Manning plays at least one series, don't they? Maybe they want to keep their best player happy when it comes to personal records. They HAVE shown that they care about those, like getting Clark to 100 catches in a final game, etc. Even if the game is meaningless. Wonder why Clark got all those early targets. Just the game plan? I already allowed that Manning earned the right to have a token start to keep his streak going since his success is the reason why the team might not play him. But it was just that-- a token start, keeping the streak alive. Like when Art Monk trotted on the field and caught a pass. Yeah, it counts. That's what the record measures. Same with Favre and a hypothetical start where he gives way after a drive or something. I don't see why one is bogus and the other is completely acceptable. In both cases the person technically started, but then left the field and put the majority of the game in someone else's hands. if you're going to do that...why play at all? Manning's circumstance is more impressive, but both records are equally valid (or not valid, if you want to think of it that way).

 

[FunkyPlutos]

The fact that three teammates had to fly to Miss. to "convince" him to come back tells you all you need to know about this guy's ego his teammates' belief in him being the best man for the job.

You can believe whatever you want about Favre, but he played on a BROKEN ankle and almost brought his team back to victory...

 

[Spike]

I think a bunt single and a QB taking one snap only to leave to keep the streak intact are 2 vastly different situations. Favre will never do that although if he does, he arrives at a new low in destroying his legacy

Frankly, I cannot see how anyone could vote "No" in this poll.

 

[Spike]

If he takes only 1 snap (and its not going to happen that way anyway), it may cheapen the rest of the streak, but not the whole thing.

In the minds of a lot of people, it would cheapen the whole thing because that's what they would remember."Hey, remember how Favre had that mega long streak of games played?"

"Yeah, but wasn't there that game at the end that he just played one play?"

Really, people would remember it, no matter how impressive it was to have had that many before the bogus one.

Let's put it another way. For the Strahan sack season, what does everyone remember? That Strahan had a sack season for the ages? No, that Favre laid down for the last one.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Let's say Favre starts, and on the first play, he takes a low hit on the injured ankle, and then sits for the rest of the game. How suspicious are you that he shouldn't have been out there in the first place?

2nd Question: With all that Favre has legitimately done wrong this season, why the conjecture about something he's never indicated he'd be interested in doing?

 

[RandyDB]

Cheapened or not, if Farve starts today and the rest of the season the consecutive game mark would be 301 and no one would supplant his name at the top of the list until 302.

 

[fatness]

Ed Werder of ESPN reports that Favre isn't sure he can make it through the game,

He's just sure he can start it to keep the streak alive.

 

[griff321]

His record alone is all the evidence I need to know that he's a fierce competitor. For those of you that actually played organized sports I know that you have seen this type of player out there that's so intense you'd have to drag them off the field in order for them not to play. They can be a shell of themselves due to injury and still feel like they're the best player out there.