Unnamed Source Says: Ed Werder Is Still a Douchebag

I cited a source, so it must be true, right?

We have a back log here on LomHenn.com, and I apologize. I'll save the excuses, because there really aren't any. However, I can tell you that there will definitely be more activity here over the next couple of weeks.

And with people like ESPN's Ed Werder on the loose, there should be plenty of things to discuss.

I'm sure you've heard about the latest Werder fiasco involving some obscure, Canadian Football League draftee named Brett Favre. In case you have been blissfully unaware, Favre may again come out of retirement (which he's never really entered, I suppose) to play for the Minnesota Vikings. Favre has had some arm/shoulder trouble, and really the only thing stopping him from declaring a return is that he wants to make sure he's healthy enough to play.

Of course, the sports media world has been eager to engage in FavreWatch 2009: A Sequel to FavreWatch 2008! ESPN, which has never been known to over-hype anything, has led the charge and sent Dallas Cowboys team mascot Ed Werder to cover the Favre saga.

A couple of weeks ago, Werder--using two unnamed sources--reported that the Vikings and head coach Brad Childress had given Favre a deadline of the beginning of the team's OTAs to report or the Vikings would "move on." Favre did not show up to the team's OTAs. Also, Childress said on a sports radio talk show (on KFAN-AM in Minneapolis) that the team never gave Favre a deadline. Werder's reaction to that was to call Childress a liar.

Next, Favre appeared on the first episode of HBO's Joe Buck Live last Monday night, during which Favre said that the Vikings did not give him a deadline. Werder's reaction? Favre is a lair, too!

Werder's justification is that a) Childress doesn't want to admit to imposing a deadline because it would cause divisiveness in the locker room (?) and b) Favre didn't want to say that Childress had imposed a deadline because he didn't want to call Childress a liar. In other words, whenever his story is shown to be wrong, Werder just makes excuses and rationalizations by saying that everyone is lying, with the exception of his unnamed sources.

Here's the deal: you don't get to call everyone involved with a story a liar if you have no proof of it. And, unnamed sources DO NOT count as "proof." In one of the video stories, Werder laughably says that his sources have been "very reliable about this story."

Really? Here's a list of facts Werder has gotten right about this story:

1. A trainer for the Vikings went down to Mississippi to check on Favre's arm and suggest rehabilitation exercises.
2. Favre used to play for the Jets and the Packers, which most people older than 4 already know.
3. Werder's network is indeed called "ESPN."

Here's a list of things Werder has gotten wrong:

1. Vikings Coach Brad Childress imposed a deadline on Favre making a decision (Childress, Favre, and Favre's agent deny this)
2. The Vikings arranged for Favre's surgery (according to Favre, the first time the Vikings were directly involved was when the trainer came to Mississippi to check on his progress)
3. Werder's sources actually exist
4. Favre won an Academy Award for his performance in There's Something About Mary (although Favre deserved the Oscar by many accounts, it went to James Coburn for Affliction in perhaps the tightest race in Academy Award history)
5. Minnesota Coach Brad Childress REALLY IS Gerald McRaney (I know it's been done, but I had to go with the obvious)

(Points #4 and #5 may have been made up by me)

ESPN's reporters clearly don't care if their stories are right or not--they just run the stories with absolutely no accountability from the network. Ed Werder and Chris Mortensen are openly mocked by players, coaches, and media critics (like us) for not being accurate, yet ESPN does nothing to make its reporters more accountable.

Someday--and I hope I'm around to see it--someone will call ESPN out on this horseshit and sue the network for a million-zillion-gagoogly dollars. Perhaps then, when it affects its bottom line, will ESPN care about the integrity of its reporters.

O'Hoolix=EN FUEGO

Okay sports fans....guess who's back?............he's back.......yes he's back.......O'Hoolix is back (insert house of pain back ground music here!) Boy do I hate to scam a Dan Patrick line, but O'Hoolix is "EN FUEGO!" Yesterday was a great day if you were on O'hoolix's picks, 5-5 weeeners.

Look, yesterday O'Hoolix was Alex Logan and his picks were the DEATH BLOSSOM! I hope some of you were on the same side as the famous video game/universe savior/sports gaming wizard. Sunday's games were decent, not as good as Saturday evenings though. O'Hoolix will raise a glass to Siena after their run, boy were they fun to watch. Mizzu, Mich St were close, Syracuse and Kansas won handily. Before I get to Thursday's picks, I want to make a few observations.

1) I love that they moved the 3 point line to an adult male distance. I was sick of seeing grown ass men shoot 3's from the same distance jr. high boys and girls shoot it from. It has opened up the game and I enjoy it much better. Why do we wish to water everything down in this country because its harder?????? O'Hoolix thinks we are getting soft and sitting on our arses too much.
2) I didn't notice much mascot tomfoolery going on. O'Hoolix, being kind of a mascot himself was saddened to see his furry brothers being held down. Nothing is better than a good mascot fight or a mascot heckling other college students. In fact, I love it when a mascot reacts to a crappy ref call or to a crushing defeat! To see the Syracuse Orangeman ball type thing act like he got shot when they lose a tough game is priceless!!! Is there a gayer mascot than the damn teddy bear thing at UCLA????? I am embarrassed for all my other furry mascot friends due to that sweet honey bear. Maybe I am going a bit far here, but I like to see when me and my furry bro's play against kids at half-time. Usually, some lame ass guy tells us to take it easy on the kids during half-time, screw that O'Hoolix wants to win. If they ever get O'Hoolix out there during a half-time game to play football or basketball against the pee-wee's they are goin down! I will be like Deacon Jones and Brett Favre all rolled up into one, O'Hoolix doesn't like to lose. If its hoops, look out here comes Kobe "O'Hoolix" Bryant on those little punks. They most likely deserve to lose and have been acting bad at home or something. When me and my friend's handicap the half-time pee-wee games does that signal a problem????????

Anyway: You want winners, O'Hoolix wants winners, Warren Buffet wants winners as does Regis....so read em and weep.

Sunday 5-0
Total 12-5-1

MISSOURI +4.5: I like Memphis to win in a close one and continue on, but Mizzu has heart and may even pull the upset.

MISS/MEM over 141.5: I think this will be a shoot out with both teams pressing and gunning, should be fun to watch.


XAVIER +7: Pittsburgh has won, but not convincingly. Xavier shoots the 3 decently and rebounds well, I like them to stay close.

VILLANOVA: Tough team and Duke is vulnerable here after escaping Texas. I probably would take them on the money line, as it might go down to 1 or 1 1/2 by game time and the M/L might offer value.

Good luck, stayed tuned and may the winners be yours.

F.S.

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

Brett Favre has created a media storm by hinting he might want to return to the Packers for another season.

Dan Pompei feels that the Packers should welcome him back with open arms.

I'm not surprised Brett Favre wants to play football again now that the smell of training camp is in the air.

I am surprised the Packers are not welcoming him back.

Favre retired from the Packers and the NFL in March. The Packers have spent the offseason preparing their team around Aaron Rodgers. Just because he helped nearly lead the Pack to the Super Bowl last year does not mean they should roll out the red carpet, stike up the band and carry him on their shoulders back into the Packers facility.

But how in the world could the Packers not be interested in a player who:
A. Was the sixth best player at his position in the NFL a year ago, according to the NFL's passer rating system.

Brett Favre turns 39 this year. While that is not ancient, it typically is for a football player. Farve had a tremendous year in 2007, but he is past the age when most QBs start declining performance-wise. He may have been 6th last year, but he was 25th in 2006 and 31st in 2005. We are only two years removed from when Green Bay went 4-12 and some were clamoring for Brett to retire during and after that season. Some of that has to do with the players around him, but there is nothing that says he will stay at the level of last year.

B. Plays a position that is the most important on the field.

Only on offense. I don't think Brett does a whole lot from the sidelines while the defense is on the field.

C. Plays a position at which they lack a proven starter.

True, Aaron Rodgers has yet to start a game in the NFL, but he had studied under Favre for the past three years.

D. Is arguably the most beloved player in team history and one of the most beloved players in NFL history.

How many players and coaches have hung around one or two years too long? Reggie Miller had an excellent final season in 2004 before retiring. Yet, he still retired. I'm sure he had the itch to come back in 2005, but he stayed retired. Yet, there are several players who continued to play or came back when retirement was the better choice. Michael Jordan should not have come out of retirement for the second time.

This isn't about what Favre has done in the past. It's about what he can do this season.

See above. He'll be 39 this year. There is no guarantee that he will duplicate last season. At 39, the odds would say he will not do as well as 2007.

Does that mean Aaron Rodgers would be better than Favre in '08? Not at all. But I say you just can't welcome Brett immediately back to the team. The Packers drafted Rodgers to succeed Favre and since Brett retired, the Pack have rightfully put Rodgers as the head of the offense for next season.

Even if the Packers decide to bring Favre back, what happens if he starts having a bad year? At what point do you pull the plug and start playing Rodgers? Favre is the type of player who in the past could pull himself out of a poor start to the season, but that does not mean he could now. If Green Bay started 0-2 or 1-3 with Favre, what then? Bench him? Let him start one more game unless he loses then put Rodgers in? That's bad for both players and I don't think that benching Rodgers for another season is good either.

Frankly, the Packers should stick to their guns and tell Favre to stay retired.