MMQB Mail (cont.)

Marc Bulger and the Rams have had a difficult first half of the season, going 1-7. Getty Images Peter King's Mailbag Peter King will answer your questions each week in Monday Morning Quarterback: Tuesday Edition. Name: Email: Hometown: Question: SEND Follow Peter King on Twitter

Now onto your e-mail:

• AIKMAN MADE A GOOD POINT TO ME ABOUT THIS SUNDAY NIGHT. From T. Smith of St. Paul, Minn.: "I read your stats about Brett Favre playing well in these so-called pressure games, but I think it's a little flimsy. He's had a lot of bad games too -- the six-interception playoff game against the Rams, the end of the game against the Giants in the championship game a couple of years ago. I'm happy he's here, but I want to see how well he plays in the playoffs before we judge him.''

Good point, and I'm sure Favre would say the same thing. My point was the three games in which Favre has the 11-to-0 TD-to-interception ratio were games with a different kind of pressure, with his father's death laying on him and the two games against the Packers this year.

When I spoke with Troy Aikman on Sunday night, I thought he made a great case for why he thought Favre would play well Sunday. He said this on the air too, about how he expected Favre to play well, because he'd won 76 percent of his games on this field, and because once the hoopla was over and it was a football game, Favre has played in a lot of pressure games in his life and it'd pretty quickly turn into a football game and not a circus. That's exactly what Favre said to me after the game. Smart call by Aikman.

• THE CASE OF THE THROBBING GROIN. From Fred in Houston, Texas: "Favre's a drama queen. It can't just be about the game -- it has to be about him and how he overcame this big injury to play.''

The Twitterverse -- at least those people who follow me and write me Monday -- were all over Favre for his admission to me that he hurt his groin in practice Wednesday, strained it Sunday, and told offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell and backup quarterback Tarvaris Jackson he might not be able to make it through the game. I guess I'd ask you this question: Would you rather have an athlete who didn't tell you what was wrong with him, or would you rather have an athlete who leveled with you about how he felt? Now, Favre took a lot of heat for hiding his arm injury last year with the Jets. Now he tells me he had a sore groin that affected Packer play-calling in the game and you don't think he should talk about that? Can't have it both ways, I'd say.

• THANKS FOR READING IN SERBIA. From Oliver Zlatkovic of Belgrade, Serbia: "Regards from Serbia (yes, we're reading your column, although due to the time difference it's more of a 'Monday Afternoon Quarterback' over here.) I'm a Rams fan, and my question relates to your opinion of the future of the Rams: Can Marc Bulger reinvent himself and be the QB that management thought he would when they awarded him with long-term contract, or should we watch college games to see the new Rams starting QB next year? If the latter, does Steven Jackson have time to wait for the Rams rebuilding process, since he will be approaching 30 by the time the new QB fully establishes himself?''

So good of you to write, Oliver, and to read the column. Thanks. Tough call for the Rams because they have so many holes to fill. Let me take you back to last April, when I was in St. Louis reporting on the Rams before the draft. They were seriously considering taking USC quarterback Mark Sanchez with their first-round pick. But they decided to take the tackle, Jason Smith, and try to build up a bad offensive line before picking a quarterback.

The only way Bulger has a chance to be the quarterback long-term in St. Louis is to have a very good, very durable season, and he hasn't so far. It's up to him, really. In the second half of the season, if he can stay on the field and perform better than he has in the last couple of years -- and I understand it's not his fault -- the Rams will put off drafting a young quarterback. But I don't think that's going to happen.

• DISPUTING THE JARED ALLEN OPINION. From Ian of Overland Park, Kan.: "How in the same article can you make the claim that there is no better defensive player in football than Jared Allen and also say that Aaron Rodgers takes too many sacks? There is no doubt that he is an impact player, but when 7.5 of his 10.5 sacks came against Rodgers, he hasn't had that much of a game-changing impact in the other Vikings games.''

Good point, but in my job at NBC and in covering one of the Minnesota's game, I've seen at least 50 percent of the Vikings' defensive snaps this year, and he's the best defensive player I've seen. Even if Rodgers threw the ball away on two of those plays, or three, that's Allen-related impact resulting in incomplete passes. His impact is about more than sacks, too.

• HERO WORSHIP, HE ACCUSES ME OF. From Luke Fleeman of Tulare, Calif.: "Peter, you were one of the voices of reason in the Favre retirement saga, pointing out when he fibbed. But now it seems like you've joined the choir, falling down to help worship Favre with the rest of the media. I have to say I am disappointed, because I think most of us are just sick of hearing about him.''

My job is to report on what happens in the NFL. On Sunday, the story of the day in the NFL was the all-time passing leader's return to the place where he parted so bitterly in 2008. Favre played well for the second time this year against the Packers under pressurized circumstances. I wrote about it. I'm not kneeling at his feet. I'm reporting the story of the day in the NFL, interviewing the player, like him or not, who is a polarizing figure.

• DEFENDING FOX. From Eric Jesperson of Denver: "No Peter, Fox absolutely did the right thing switching to the Carolina-Arizona game. After three hours of the Brett Favre Show (complete with online Brett Favre Cam) and a week of listening to the media Favregasm, the last thing I needed was more Brett Favre.''

I respectfully disagree that rushing -- and I mean, Fox sprinted off the Favre game -- to the last two minutes of a game that was already decided (it was a 13-point game) that was being shown to about 6 percent of the country was the right idea.