40's the new 40.

I love 40s. I love Old English, I love the NFL combine, and I love cougars. I don't really like Brett Favre, however. Dude is old. More importantly, dude looks old. Of course, fantasy owners should have known that Favre comes with risk. In fact, I proudly note that in the Mantasy League, Favre is a backup player on the Milk Steak and Jelly Beans team. As a backup, I have no issue, but I'm sure there are many owners out there who own Brett Favre thinking that he might duplicate last season's production. I hope that owner is not you.

A 40.

A 40.

A 40.

People are endlessly optimistic when it comes to fantasy sports and often too quick to see a career year and pay face value for it the year after. You see it more in baseball, but it certainly happens in football. In fact, how often does a player seem to put in one tremendous campaign and never recover? Too often. As a Giants fan, I fear the worst for Brandon Jacobs. There are pundits out there who see him as the Giants new goal line back, but to be honest, that is the area of his game that has always been a huge disappointment. The guy put performed his beast act for one, trampling his way to just over 1,000 yards and 15 touchdowns, only to follow it with 1,000 yards and 4 touchdowns. Then he had 423 yards. This kind of inconsistency is largely due to injury - a problem Brett Favre has never had - but that is likely tied in to the brutal nature of being a running back in the NFL. (Side note: Check out Ickey Woods' illustrious career - http://www.nfl.com/players/ickeywoods/profile?id=WOO480843. Sad, huh?) Still, if you drafted Brandon Jacobs in the second round after his 15 scores and 1,000 yards, you overpaid for an unproven commodity. (I drafted B.J. last year...in the second round...and I now know that spending early picks on risky players is not good policy.) 

But is Brett Favre risky? Not really, at least in theory. He plays all the games, he tries hard, and he is on a good team. Unfortunately, he's turning 41 in October and he had the best year of his career last season and just reeks of a guy who doesn't know when to quit and will end up going out limping. Football is a young man's game and these stats just don't make sense:

Passing
Year	Team	G	Att	Comp	Pct	Att/G	Yds	Avg	Yds/G	TD	TD%	Int	Int%	Lng	20+	40+	Sck	SckY	Rate
2010	Minnesota Vikings	1	27	15	55.6	27.0	171	6.3	171.0	1	3.7	1	3.7	33	3	0	1	9	71.7
2009	Minnesota Vikings	16	531	363	68.4	33.2	4,202	7.9	262.6	33	6.2	7	1.3	63	52	13	34	247	107.2
2008	New York Jets	16	522	343	65.7	32.6	3,472	6.7	217.0	22	4.2	22	4.2	56T	40	7	30	213	81.0
2007	Green Bay Packers	16	535	356	66.5	33.4	4,155	7.8	259.7	28	5.2	15	2.8	82T	49	16	15	93	95.7
2006	Green Bay Packers	16	613	343	56.0	38.3	3,885	6.3	242.8	18	2.9	18	2.9	82T	49	8	21	134	72.7
2005	Green Bay Packers	16	607	372	61.3	37.9	3,881	6.4	242.6	20	3.3	29	4.8	59	40	7	24	170	70.9
2004	Green Bay Packers	16	540	346	64.1	33.8	4,088	7.6	255.5	30	5.6	17	3.1	79T	50	12	12	93	92.4
2003	Green Bay Packers	16	471	308	65.4	29.4	3,361	7.1	210.1	32	6.8	21	4.5	66T	42	7	19	137	90.4
2002	Green Bay Packers	16	551	341	61.9	34.4	3,658	6.6	228.6	27	4.9	16	2.9	85T	39	7	26	188	85.6
2001	Green Bay Packers	16	510	314	61.6	31.9	3,921	7.7	245.1	32	6.3	15	2.9	67T	53	13	22	151	94.1
2000	Green Bay Packers	16	580	338	58.3	36.2	3,812	6.6	238.2	20	3.4	16	2.8	67T	41	7	33	236	78.0
1999	Green Bay Packers	16	595	341	57.3	37.2	4,091	6.9	255.7	22	3.7	23	3.9	74T	52	11	35	223	74.7
1998	Green Bay Packers	16	551	347	63.0	34.4	4,212	7.6	263.2	31	5.6	23	4.2	84T	47	9	38	223	87.8
1997	Green Bay Packers	16	513	304	59.3	32.1	3,867	7.5	241.7	35	6.8	16	3.1	74	61	9	25	176	92.6
1996	Green Bay Packers	16	543	325	59.9	33.9	3,899	7.2	243.7	39	7.2	13	2.4	80T	49	11	40	241	95.8
1995	Green Bay Packers	16	570	359	63.0	35.6	4,413	7.7	275.8	38	6.7	13	2.3	99T	59	5	33	217	99.5
1994	Green Bay Packers	16	582	363	62.4	36.4	3,882	6.7	242.6	33	5.7	14	2.4	49	44	4	31	188	90.7
1993	Green Bay Packers	16	522	318	60.9	32.6	3,303	6.3	206.4	19	3.6	24	4.6	66T	37	5	30	199	72.2
1992	Green Bay Packers	15	471	302	64.1	31.4	3,227	6.9	215.1	18	3.8	13	2.8	76T	30	9	34	208

(I excluded his year in Atlanta, which has nothing to offer us.)

Favre threw 7 interceptions last seasons. That is insane, particularly if you've ever watched the guy play. In addition, he is without Sydney Rice, who looked good at catching things last year. Now, it is much easier to get on the guy after one mediocre game, but I watched and I just don't know if Visanthe Shiancoe is going to be able to shoulder the entire receiving load each week. I mean, did anyone see Bernard Berrian or Percy Harvin? Neither are big (as in tall - Harvin 5'11'', Berrian 6'1") bodies and I just don't know if Favre has the same numbers without Rice (6'4") retrieving his aimlessly chucked throws.

Does he aim? I don't know.

Still, it's one game. Just one. And Favre has easier games ahead of him. The Saints are, after all, a good defensive team with a good secondary, so it isn't time to pronounce Brett Favre as dead, but he is creeping up there in age and his ailments are piling up. Again, I'm fine with the guy as a back up for a fantasy team, but if you are hoping for him to be a top ten QB the rest of the way, please stop disrespecting your Mantasy. It is one game into week one, and you don't have to throw away all of the other good picks that you made...have a plan B.