Forget Favre

I don't even like Brett Favre. But even so, the Chiefs could probably use the guy.

Why do I dislike Favre? For starters, I despise the way he held the Green Bay Packers hostage the last two offseasons. Favre constantly put himself before the team, rudely inserted himself into the contract negotiations of other players, and in general did as much as possible to get as much face time as possible.

Favre once called a press conference to announce he was undecided about retiring. Can you imagine anything more self-serving, a bigger waste of anyone's time? What's next? Will Favre call a press conference to tell us how happy he is with the comfortable fit of the new pair of Wranglers he just bought?

Hyperbole aside, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Favre. Despite all of that, when you think about it, he might be just what Kansas City needs.

If you believe the Chiefs have a good defense and have fixed the offensive line, adding Favre makes sense. With Larry Johnson, Dwayne Bowe and Tony Gonzalez, Kansas City's offense has all the other chess pieces to run a successful attack – if it's directed by a Hall-of-Fame talent like Favre.

Favre's presence would immediately clear running lanes for Johnson, removing safeties from the box. Bowe is the perfect wide receiver to snatch Favre's errant/exciting passes away from defensive backs. And a Gonzalez/Favre connection is way too tantalizing to ignore.

Let's not forget that the best years of Brett Favre's career came with a Pro Bowl tight end catching his passes. Favre's league MVP seasons all played out with Mark Chmura providing a safety blanket and a red-zone threat.

Chmura and Gonzalez are about the same size, but the former never racked up 100 catches in one season. It's entirely possible Favre and Gonzalez, given the opportunity to play together, might extend each other's careers by a year or two. Both are iron men, and neither is going to go anywhere when the chance of a Super Bowl presents itself.

Then of course, there's the off-the-field effect of Brett Favre. As Warpaint Illustrated Publisher Nick Athan rightfully pointed out earlier this week, Arrowhead Stadium would be packed this year if Favre became a Chief. No. 4 jerseys would fly off the shelves. Heck, the Chiefs might even make an appearance on primetime television.

So there are plenty of reasons to consider Favre wearing red and gold this season. But it's just not going to happen.

I know it's not going to happen, because Herm Edwards is a man of strong convictions. He's not the type to change directions at the drop of a hat, even for a Hall-of-Fame talent like Brett Favre.

Edwards has spent the entire offseason heading a youth movement and putting his trust in his young quarterback, Brodie Croyle. The Chiefs, on their website and through the media this offseason, have attempted to sell Croyle to fans as a legit NFL starter. There's clearly a commitment there.

Putting Croyle on the shelf for Favre flies in the face of everything the Chiefs have built up since last season finished.

And here's the other reason – Herm and Favre really don't mix.

Favre is the classic gunslinger, the guy who threw a touchdown pass underhanded and throws more ducks into coverage than Jake Plummer once did. Favre loves to go deep and more often than not, doesn't give a damn about "taking what the defense gives you."

Herm wants to play it safe on offense, keep turnovers to a minimum and eat up clock. He'll take what the defense gives him all day long, especially when he has the lead. Quick strikes at the risk of interceptions don't fit into Herm's offensive philosophy.

I'm not saying Favre is right and Herm is wrong, or vice versa. You can win a Super Bowl either way. I just doubt the two could co-exist, especially on a team filled with so much youth.

It's too bad Favre isn't more like Joe Montana, because that might work for the Chiefs today. Montana accepted Marty Schottenheimer's conservatism even though he didn't really like it, and it led to playoff wins. Unfortunately, Favre is more gusto than guile - especially when Mike McCarthy isn't around to suppress his tendency to take risks.

So, forget it. Unless he's traded to an opponent on KC's schedule, you won't see Favre playing football in Kansas City this year. It sounds great, it would sell tickets, and it could even get the Chiefs back to the playoffs, but there are just too many problems with the scenario.

And if you had your heart set on Brett Favre as a Chief, don't be too disappointed. Thirty-nine year-old quarterbacks not named John Elway don't win Super Bowls, at least according to NFL history. Especially 39-year-old quarterbacks on their second team. In light of that, the Chiefs will be just fine without Brett Favre.

Besides, I don't even like the guy. Top Stories