Censored

Writers are a proud breed.

We are often arrogant and ego-driven. I have no problem admitting that, which brings me to the topic of the day -- Brett Favre.

I've had a lot of fun over the years ripping Favre. Usually I was on an island since criticizing "The Great One" was actually outlawed by Janet Reno in the '90s.

Most of my barbs were tongue and cheek and directed more at Lord Favre's minions in the national media, who refused to look objectively at a guy who has morphed from Hall of Fame quarterback to Terrell Owens' Mississippi-bred cousin.

Of course that's all changed over the past three weeks since Favre's latest antics have made him almost impossible to defend even to his most loyal subjects.

At least that's what I thought. Evidently. Favre's fan-club is still as strong as ever.

First, I give you a column I wrote for a national web site earlier this week:

Conventional wisdom says the Minnesota Vikings are just a quarterback away from being a serious Super Bowl contender.

So, that may explain why Vikings head coach Brad Childress and offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell were playing footsy with Brett Favre this offseason.

Problem is, Joe Buck's favorite quarterback isn't the answer.

Luckily for Vikings fans, Green Bay general manager Ted Thompson will never let Favre play for another NFC North team, saving Childress and Bevell from their own ignorance.

I'm not exactly sure when criticizing Favre became an indictable offense in this country. Somewhere between his vicodin addiction and his many personal travails I'm sure. Still, the endless lovefest has bordered on the absurd.

Today, most feel silly for ever lauding Favre -- a pariah that may even trump Terrell Owens as the most selfish player in the NFL.

He might not be doing situps in the driveway but somewhere along the line he transformed from great NFL quarterback to a narcissistic diva that's held the Packers hostage for the past few offseason as football's version of Roger Clemens.

Sure, he had a nice comeback season in 2007 when he was surrounded by a number of underrated receivers able to overcome his penchant for throwing into double coverage two to three times a game.

But, saving Favre's career, which is exactly what Donald Driver and Greg Jennings did last season, wasn't good enough for the haughty one. Only the best in the game is acceptable to Favre and his revisionist mind.

I'm sure in Brett's world, it was his receivers fault that the game's toughest and grittiest player (according to his followers) couldn't overcome a bad case of the sniffles in the NFC Championship Game.

And, his apologists on the network airwaves looked more and more foolish when defending him at the expense of every other player on his overachieving team -- most of which actually listened to their coaches and attempted to carry out an assignment properly.

Of course the future Hall of Famer's status in the game made it impossible for his own coaches to call him out for his willful ignorance of their game plans -- something every other NFL signal caller would get lambasted for on a daily basis.

In the woeful NFC, the Packers should have been sacrificed at the altar of the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII if Favre just managed his own ego in the NFC Championship Game.

Instead of waiting for the patented Manning playoff implosion that never came, every one's favorite gunslinger just hurled the ball to Corey Webster, and watched as his minions blamed his young receivers or his cold..

Simply put, Favre's play in the NFC title game last season was the ultimate act of selfishness on the football field and forced Mike McCarthy to forget about mapquesting Glendale.

Fast forward to 2008 and you can debate the reasons Favre is still hanging on -- whether it be ego, the record book or staying far away from that loving family his groupies drone on and on about.

Whatever the reason is immaterial -- what is germane to Thompson, McCarthy and Green Bay is that Favre's reason for staying isn't winning. That's why the unproven Aaron Rodgers is the starting quarterback and Thompson holds a prayer vigil every night, hoping Favre slinks away.

Unfortunately for the Packers faithful, Thompson, while steadfast in wanting Favre out of town, is not secure enough in his own beliefs and is clearly spooked that his nemesis might return to Lambeau Field wearing the Purple and Gold.

In reality, unleashing the Favre virus on an unsuspecting Minnesota team would derail the Vikings season. Favre isn't even a member of the Vikings and has already buried the franchise by admitting he has spoken not only with Bevell, one of his best friends, but also with Childress.

The Packers have already filed tampering charges against Minnesota because of those conversations and confirmation from the cell phone-challenged quarterback they want as their leader will make it very difficult for the NFL to avoid doling out discipline.

If Thompson truly wants to hurt the Vikings, forget about any tampering charges. Take a couple of draft picks from them and gleefully ship Favre across the border to destroy someone else's franchise from within.

You never read that column because it was spiked.

At first, I was told the piece was shelved because it was a non-issue, since the Packers would never let Favre play for Vikings, a specious argument since that very point was actually in the column.

Then I was told it was a non-story at the time the fiasco was page 1 on ESPN, The Sporting News and Fox Sports.

When that was pointed out, I was finally told the truth -- my editor was done tap-dancing and blurted out that it was too anti-Favre!

I was stunned...just like that, another sycophant was flushed out of the brush.

And I tendered my resignation with a smile...

"Sorry, there will be no reconsidering my stance (on the column)," I wrote. "However, I will agree with one point, the column is anti-Favre.

And may I ask you to you look in the mirror and ask yourself why that is a problem?

I have been doing this for 20 years and I'll be the first to admit I have an ego but it's a columnist's job to offer his opinion, popular or not, controversial or not.. The fact you don't agree with it or like it should be inconsequential. It's not an editor's job to force his or her opinion on a writer.

I have no idea if you like Brett Favre or not but after spiking this column, I could make assumptions.

In closing, I point you to the beginning of paragraph five of my piece.

It begins by saying 'I'm not exactly sure when criticizing Favre became an indictable offense in this country'...

Evidently, in some places, it still is."