So, one day after Carp and I discuss Brett Favre’s legacy, we’re now faced with a different question: Did the Jets make the right move?

To me, this was a no-brainer. The Jets are the longtime “other team” in this town, and never more so than this year when the Giants are defending champs. Favre is a significant upgrade over either Chad Pennington or Kellen Clemens, and the compensation (a conditional draft pick) was hardly overwhelming. The Jets had the chance to make a big move and they made it, giving themselves a quality quarterback and a legitimate star that will help make them a more visible team.

Will it work out? That I’m not so sure about. I think the Jets will see a big boost in media attention and attendance, but don’t necessarily feel like they’re suddenly a playoff lock. They still play in a tough division, still have the Pats sitting ahead of them and still have to wait and see whether a) Favre is in shape and ready to play; and b) whether he’ll be compatible with Eric Mangini and coordinator Brian Schottenheimer, two coaches Favre has never met before, let alone worked with.

That’s a lot of questions. Was it the right move for the Jets? Absolutely. Will it pay off the way they hope? Not so sure.

Carp says:

I agree that this is a move the Jets had to make. They gave up nothing. Now Favre can attempt to become the first quarterback in NFL history to put both New York teams in the Super Bowl in back-to-back years (he put the Giants in the Supe last winter, remember?).

Seriously, I doubt that Favre makes the Jets a serious contender for the Lombardi, but he makes them a playoff-potential team. Let’s not forget that in the seasons in which Chad Pennington was healthy—limited as he may have been—he got the Jets to the postseason. Favre right now is probably as good as Pennington ever was, and better than Kellen Clemens may ever be.

A lot of what happens depends on Favre—whether he really, really wants to win again, or if he’s just continuing his sad, pathetic unretiring act that’s been so sickening the last month or so. Does he really want to be a leader on a team that needs one; a veteran presence on a team that’s still rebuilding; a guy who goes along with the plan rather than forcing the Jets to re-do a plan around him?

Can he continue to pour his heart into it if the Jets get off to a bad start and head toward oblivion again? Can he really be a Gang Greener instead of a Green Bayer?

One thing’s for certain. He’ll get a hero’s welcome in the Meadowlands, and more media attention than he ever dreamed of getting in Wisconsin. He’ll be front and center, and that’s sure where he seems to want to be.

But he will also be a quick goat if he starts heaving up passes for grabs, or if the Jets struggle early. And he’s never been that in Green Bay. That will be pretty interesting.

And, no, I’m not going back on what I said yesterday. I don’t like the guy after what he did to the Packers. Don’t like the way he handled himself at all. I think there’s a lot of I in Favre. That said, going to Jets games just got a lot more intriguing.

This, of course, is assuming that you were like most of the rest of the football fans in the world, who seemed to revere good ol’ blue collar Brett.

I always thought Favre was sort of cool, probably for the same reasons everyone else did – he seemed pretty normal, down-to-earth, didn’t shave much and had no problem just throwing the ball down the field a lot. These were all good things.

But Favre’s latest saga and his waffling on retirement, puts him in a different light for me. One of the things I dislike most about professional athletes is when they believe that contracts – signed, binding contracts – do not apply to them. In the same way that I hope the Bengals will simply keep Chad Johnson on the sidelines (telling him, essentially, either you play for us like it says in your contract or you don’t play), I had been hoping the Packers would give Favre a similar response.

When Favre began trying to dictate the terms of his new home – saying he didn’t WANNA play for the Jets and didn’t WANNA play for the Bucs – that made me even more irritated with him. Fortunately, it looks like the Packers stood firm and a trade to the Bucs may be in the offing, but has Favre’s mishandling of the situation changed your opinion of him?

In the long run, it probably won’t. If he plays a few years in Tampa (or even just one), then retires again for good, I doubt it’ll change the perspectives of those who loved him for so long. But it will, at least a little bit, for me. Stringing the Packers along and acting childish for a month or so doesn’t make Favre a bad guy; it does, however, make him a little less of a good one than he was before.

Carp says:

This, sadly, will be my lasting impression of Favre. That of a selfish, me-me-me, doesn’t-know-when-to-quit phony who cries when he retires and whines when he unretires.

Personally, I always thought he was somewhat overrated. He’s a Hall of Famer, no doubt, with a rocket arm and a gambler of a fling-it attitude, who will own all sorts of records when (if?) he ever does retire.

But he’s not in the top 10 QBs of all time, while some with short memories or recent birth certificates place him as the greatest of all. Sorry. He ain’t.

And when he acts like this, it makes me think of his weaknesses more than his strengths—his addiction to pain killers at one point in his career; his ugly gift of the NFL sack record to Michael Strahan; his heaving up interceptions on ill-conceived prayers of passes such as the one that supposedly ended his career against the Giants on that frigid day in Lambeau last winter.

I was at that game and thought I was seeing a Canton-bound icon playing his final game. Instead he will play for the Bucs or somebody else and he will do it by abusing his popularity in Green Bay and turning the Lambeau faithful against an organization that has done nothing but deify him. Now they’re the bad guys.

Nice going, Brett. Now get out.

So my neighbor strolls up to me this morning as I go out to get the paper, and he says, “So when are you leaving?”

“Leaving?” I say. “Leaving for where?”

“China,” he said. “Aren’t you going to the Olympics?”

“Uh. No.”

Then I tell him that not only am I not going to the Olympics, but also that I probably won’t watch any of it on TV. Oh, I might catch something here or there while flipping the remote, but if there’s a baseball game on TV, and especially during the PGA Championship (or if there is any episode of Seinfeld on) I will not be watching the Olympics.

Sorry. I just can’t get into it. I’m so sick of the individual athletes being hyped and overhyped, and by TV and the media telling us who we have to root for, and who is going to win what. As for the team sports, well the basketball might be intriguing now that some of the rest of the world has caught up to the NBAmericans, but I have no interest when they’re romping over countries who haven’t caught up.

I’m sick of athletes who test positive then deny it. I’m sick of athletes who wrongly accept medals (I won’t mention any names here, but he is a gymnast) they didn’t deserve. I’m sick of me-me-me guys who think the Olympics are a reality show, or an excuse to party in a foreign land.

So, no, I won’t watch much. Will you?

12 p.m., Sam says:

Uh, yes. Yes, I will. If you want to know why, just read this.

Carp, your complaints about the Olympics are not particularly unique (because lots of folks feel that way) and not particularly isolated to the Olympics. You’re sick of players that test positive then deny it, but you don’t have a problem watching Jason Giambi? You’re sick of me-me-me, yet you don’t have a problem watching A-Rod? You’re sick of overhyped athletes and people telling you who to root for yet you don’t have a problem watching ESPN?

People who kill the Games are often disingenuous about the reasons for their dislike. Why not just say you don’t like track? Or that you don’t like swimming? Or that you think the pomp & circumstance of an Olympics medals ceremony is just a little too over the top?

To me, the best part of the Olympics is the ability to drop in and drop out. Unlike rooting for the Mets or Yankees or Giants or Jets, there does not have to be a lingering consequence to whatever we, as sports fans, watch during the Olympics. Every win or loss doesn’t mean a game in the standings or a something bigger – it just means a win or a loss. To us as the fans, we can simply look at a competition, pick who we like and then move on when it’s over. The rest of it – the overexposure and the me-me-me as Carp put it – is stuff that’s actually pretty easy to ignore.

Those who choose to focus on it are probably just looking for another reason to rip something they already hate.

Carp says:

I dislike Giambi for his ‘roid-use and A-Rod for his lifestyle and selfishness, too. I am not a big ESPN fan, for the same reasons you mentioned, as you may have read in some of my stories. And, OK, if you want me to say it, I don’t enjoy watching track or swimming or gymnastics. There.

In sports, I guess. Though I’m sure my wife would offer some votes for Tom Bergeron from “Dancing with the Stars” or Cat Deeley from “So You Think You Can Dance”—- she really likes dancing shows.

I was thinking about this question last night because I’d just heard the sad news about Skip Caray’s passing. Caray was a longtime voice of the Atlanta Braves – 33 years – and because he worked on TBS, just about anyone who’s ever enjoyed a) baseball and b) flipping channels has probably heard him. I also got to hear him a lot during my time at Emory.

I always enjoyed Caray, mostly because I enjoyed his unique tones and timbres. To me, baseball is one of those sports where an unusual voice is a plus – basketball and hockey move so quickly that you need a strong, even voice, but baseball is for the characters. Caray was a character.

As a kid, I remember listening a lot to Tim McCarver on Mets telecasts on WWOR, and the variety of voices the Yankees had on MSG and WPIX. Since my family was more of a Mets family – and they were a lot better – back then, I always found Ralph Kiner somewhat reassuring when I heard him on the microphone.

As for other sports, I’ve always been a Marv Albert guy. Always. Love the Knicks, can’t believe Marv isn’t still calling them (though Mike Breen does a good job) and absolutely, positively miss the NBA on NBC (with Marv and the best intro music ever). I’ll also watch just about any hockey game Mike Emrick calls – he’s the best.

One last thing: Joe Buck. A lot of people hate him, think he’s way, way, way too understated and sarcastic on the air. I actually don’t mind him at all. Again, baseball is the perfect sport for that sort of style. I don’t love him on football, but for baseball, I’m much more comfortable listening to him than plenty others.

Carp says:

It’s good to be back from vacation (sort of). I was going to post this question: Did I miss anything the last two weeks? Holy cow. I was in Boston on vacation when the Manny Ramirez stuff blew up. That was pretty awesome.

Anyway, back to Sam’s question, and what I’ve always said is that, despite a few complete clowns (no names mentioned, but you don’t really have much imagination to figure out who they are) we are blessed with some of the absolute best announcers in sports right here in New York.

Think about it: Gary Cohen, Mike Breen, Sam Rosen, Mike Emrick, Marv of course, Howie Rose, Kenny Albert, Bob Papa. I happen to like Michael Kay, but I think part of that is because I knew him and liked him when he was a newspaper guy—even if he’s of a completely different DNA than the others, and even if he doesn’t subscribe to the Vin Scully, Red Barber, Jack Buck old-school, proper baseball vernacular.

I’m a couple of years (couple?) older than Sam, and I remember Barber and Jerry Coleman, Mel Allen and of course Scooter, Frank Messer and Bill White doing Yankees games, Marv on the Knicks and Rangers—with Jim Gordon and the Big Whistle on the Rangers, too—and of course Lindsay Nelson, Ralph Kiner and Bob Murphy on the Mets.

We have always been blessed around here. And some of the new baseball analysts are pretty good, too: my golf buddy David Cone being the newest, but including Ken Singleton and Ron Darling and Keith Hernandez.

I don’t get too caught up in the national broadcasters. For some reason, the network chiefs still think we tune in based on who’s calling the game, rather than who’s playing. I still like Verne Lundqvist’s voice, even if he botches a call once in a while, and I think analysts Phil Simms and Troy Aikman are fabulous. Most of the rest are background noise. I’m not going to turn on or turn off a game based on who’s calling it, even if that means the Yankees on the radio, live from the Lowe’s broadcast booth (funny, I’ve been going to Yankee Stadium for more than 40 years and I’ve never seen the Lowe’s broadcast booth).