NFC North Pissing Match

[ChicosBailBonds]

Do you think Favre could have won superbowls if he played on Dallas?

Favre never won at Cowboys stadium so I don't think he would have done well.   


Honestly, I think Jimmie Johnson would have made Favre a different QB and it would be interesting to see if Favre could do it.  Johnson did not tolerate turnovers at all.  Favre would have driven him crazy.

Let's put it the other way, Ron Wolf said on multiple occasions that Aikman could throw for 300 yards a game every game of the season if the Cowboys wanted him to.  The thing is, the Cowboys didn't and only relied on Aikman to do that if they were in serious trouble.  Would the Packers have won more titles if Aikman was their QB?  Would Aikman had made all the silly turnovers that Favre made over the years?

Yes, the Cowboys had some Hall of Famers.  So did the 49ers.  So did the Steelers under Bradshaw.  Etc, etc.
Packers had talent, enough to win in 1997, clearly enough to beat the Falcons, enough to be in OT at Philly, enough to be in OT against the Giants.  Apparently they always seem to have just enough talent until that critical Favre turnover and then suddenly, they have no talent.  Yeah, the Giants ended up winning it all, but how did they get there?  What was the key play that allowed it to happen?

I just never understand the excuses because we all know if the Packers would have won that game, Favre would have received all the credit, but when they lose he seems to get none of the blame.  It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen in sports.  The love affair is odd, to say the least.

[wadesworld]

Wad's: "those two posts" - I don't know what you're talking about.  Is this in reference to screen shots you posted awhile back?  No idea, I don't pay much attention to your posts.

PXI: I'm glad you admit you're 'just a college kid with time on my hands'.  I realize you think you're doing well, cheering for the Packers, hating Favre, getting a 3.2 in liberal arts classes, drinking a couple brews at the hot party at Renee Row, etc... and you are.  You're doing great.  Awesome, man.  But, to call someone 'a middle-aged Vanilla Ice wanna be' is fine.. but don't include, 'creating 4th grade quality insults' in the same sentence.  

With respect to Favre, what I have said, time and time again.. is that he's an improvement compared to what we had several weeks ago.  Some CONTINUE, over and over again, to take issue with that.  And it's strange at first.. but quickly it's evident the issue is that those taking issue simply have it out for their former hero.  

Are any of you little freaks gunna burn your Favre jerseys like so many Packers fans will on Monday?  Why not?  I'm sure your cute little Erin Rodgers jerseys look better.  What is not to love about a 6-10 record, except for the fact that it sucks?


Wad's
1) The answer is readily available.  Why do you keep asking me?  
2) I don't think there was anything posted under a user name of Jay Bee.  You're apparently making things up again.  I'll pass on sending you a private message, unless your mom will be using your account tonight.

Wow VaJay Jay, you really struggle to answer some pretty basic questions.  There must be something wrong going on mentally with you.  I'm sorry to hear that.  Since you can't do it, I'll answer the questions for you.

#1. Zero.  Basically, they are the definition of "a$$" when it comes to professional sports organizations.  They can't even sell out 8 games a year.  It must be embarrassing.
#2. Yes it was me.

And no, my mom will not be on here tonight.  I remember when jokes about someone's mom were funny.  People typically used them around 7th grade.   And for you that's a LONG time ago!

Even more unfortunate for you, my teenage brother will not be on here tonight either.  I am sorry to inform you of that.  I know you're desperate to find those teenage males.  You'll have to look elsewhere.  Best of luck, brah!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Hmmm.. I know a quarterback who's showing a tendency to play like that...

Anyways, co-sign on everything.  I'll never back down on the fact that Favre will be my favorite player ever when all is said and done - both because of his ability and because I watched him at the time in a kid's life where sports stars are larger than life.  Within the last five years, I've grown more into a fan of the entire sport and started doing research and learning.  What did I learn? For my money, give me Starr as not only the best Packers QB of all time, but as the best QB ever, period, followed closely by Montana.

Exactly....his name is TONY #$&(^&#$ ROMO.  He's a joke.  Lots of pretty stats, lovable, "great guy", etc...but lays a HUGE EGG in big games. Just like his hero.  Sure, he'll throw for 300 yards, nice TD's, great escape artist at times and come the playoffs under the bright lights, BONK.  

No thanks, give me boring, smart, precision play where the ball is valued and the QB doesn't have to play defender 3 times a game because another stupid interception or fumble.


And yes, Bart Starr was the greatest QB in Packer history.  He GOT IT.  The greats do. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Favre never won at Cowboys stadium so I don't think he would have done well.   


Honestly, I think Jimmie Johnson would have made Favre a different QB and it would be interesting to see if Favre could do it.  Johnson did not tolerate turnovers at all.  Favre would have driven him crazy.

Agree.

Let's put it the other way, Ron Wolf said on multiple occasions that Aikman could throw for 300 yards a game every game of the season if the Cowboys wanted him to.  The thing is, the Cowboys didn't and only relied on Aikman to do that if they were in serious trouble.  Would the Packers have won more titles if Aikman was their QB?  Would Aikman had made all the silly turnovers that Favre made over the years?

Agree, aikman was great because he knew he had great players, and he played smart. How do you feel about Elway?

Yes, the Cowboys had some Hall of Famers.  So did the 49ers.  So did the Steelers under Bradshaw.  Etc, etc.
Packers had talent, enough to win in 1997, clearly enough to beat the Falcons, enough to be in OT at Philly, enough to be in OT against the Giants.  Apparently they always seem to have just enough talent until that critical Favre turnover and then suddenly, they have no talent.  Yeah, the Giants ended up winning it all, but how did they get there?  What was the key play that allowed it to happen?

This is where I guess we will just disagree. I don't see it as "The Packers had enough talent but Brett blew it". I see it as the Packers were a good team, but Brett couldn't make them a great team. I'm not saying he isn't to blame for his stupid mistakes. But, it's not like he sat out the whole season and the rest of the team got him to the championship game, and he threw it away. He was the main reason they were winning. What about the Ray Rhodes season? Brett almost single handedly won 3 games that year. I'm not saying he's perfect, I'm just saying he was AWESOME. He's on the short list of QB's I would want on my team. He's a top 10 qb of all time, and realistically top 5.

I just never understand the excuses because we all know if the Packers would have won that game, Favre would have received all the credit, but when they lose he seems to get none of the blame.  It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen in sports.  The love affair is odd, to say the least.

Agree. But, I feel like it's flipped now. It doesn't matter what he does, he won't get credit from some of you guys. Listen, I'm not John Madden, and I'm not the one trying to give #4 a hand job on air. I'm a fan who has seen the dude play a lot and do some AMAZING things. Let's not confuse disliking the media hype around Favre (which I do) with thinking he was not a once in a lifetime player (which we can all recognize).

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Exactly....his name is TONY #$&(^&#$ ROMO.  He's a joke.  Lots of pretty stats, lovable, "great guy", etc...but lays a HUGE EGG in big games. Just like his hero.  Sure, he'll throw for 300 yards, nice TD's, great escape artist at times and come the playoffs under the bright lights, BONK.  

No thanks, give me boring, smart, precision play where the ball is valued and the QB doesn't have to play defender 3 times a game because another stupid interception or fumble.


And yes, Bart Starr was the greatest QB in Packer history.  He GOT IT.  The greats do. 

Dude, how old are you?

"3 yards and a cloud of dust! That was back when football was football! We didn't have these wacky plays like the "forward pass".

Seriously, I like smart players too, but let's not get carried away. Steve Young was a smart QB, but also took a lot of chances with his feet. Do you hate him too? What about Elway? Cunningham?

Romo is a good QB and 75% of the NFL teams would him over their current starter in a second.

[Moonboots]

The top 10 QB argument is often an interesting one.  I'd be interested to see what people's lists around here look like.  It says a lot about what people value as a football fan.

Personally?

1a. Starr
1b. Montana
3. Brady
4. Young
5. Manning
6. Favre
7. Marino
8. Elway
9. Unitas
10. Aikman

HM: Warner, Baugh, Tarkenton, Moon, Kelly

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

The top 10 QB argument is often an interesting one.  I'd be interested to see what people's lists around here look like.  It says a lot about what people value as a football fan.

Personally?

1a. Starr
1b. Montana
3. Brady
4. Young
5. Manning
6. Favre
7. Marino
8. Elway
9. Unitas
10. Aikman

HM: Warner, Baugh, Tarkenton, Moon, Kelly

Well, I know some people love the older guys, but I'm just not sold on them. I feel like you'd almost have to break up football into "eras" in order to be more accurate.

With that said, if I were starting a franchise tomorrow (in no particular order because I'd need to sit down to think about it some more)

Elway - won a ton of games almost by himself, and then won even more when he got quality help.
Montana - Winner, "clutch"
Favre - Yes, I know about the interceptions, but seriously, the dude has won a TON of games, and I don't think the talent around him was as good as some people like to pretend.
Tarkenton - He always was an ass, but he helped change the position with his ability to scramble and make plays, also tough to evaluate, not enough good footage
Young - Maybe the best of the bunch, but shorter career due to USFL and being traded
Moon - Ton of yards, enormous arm.
Fouts - underrated. He was making big time throws and a ton of yards back when nobody else was
Marino - Maybe the best pure passer. It's too bad he was a statue.
Brady - We've all seen it. It's like he's playing the game in slow motion
Manning - Crazy good at reading defenses and capitalizing
Jim Kelly - I don't think this guy gets enough credit. He was payton manning before payton manning. He was reading defenses and running no huddle. 
Bart Starr - winner, but I have a tough time evaluating guys this far back, not enough good footage
Terry Bradshaw - The best actor of the bunch.
aikman - winner, great feel for the game

[ChicosBailBonds]

Dude, how old are you?

"3 yards and a cloud of dust! That was back when football was football! We didn't have these wacky plays like the "forward pass".

Seriously, I like smart players too, but let's not get carried away. Steve Young was a smart QB, but also took a lot of chances with his feet. Do you hate him too? What about Elway? Cunningham?

Romo is a good QB and 75% of the NFL teams would him over their current starter in a second.

I'm in my 40's.  

Like I said, I don't hate Favre.  Young....good, but not great in my opinion.  Still think he never should have won a Super Bowl....1994 was gifted to him.  Cunningham....ugh.  Elway, I liked but appreciated much more at the end of his career.

I grew up out here with UCLA football (family friends of Terry Donahue and Dick Vermeil), the Cowboys under Landry (I was a Conejo Cowboy for the organization as a kid), the Rams, etc.  I was old school.  When Terry told us about Aikman, he said he was the best college QB he had ever seen.  That perked me up...he didn't disappoint.

I've always felt you judge QB's by big wins and championships.  You build your team around the QB.  Yes, I love watching athletic QBs do their thing and Favre was a joy to watch, but having one of those types of players playing for my teams drove me insane.  I don't believe in 3 yards and a cloud of dust, but I do believe in ball control offense, smart plays by the QB and keeping your team in the game.


My top 10

1) Montana
2) Starr
3) Unitas
4) Elway
5) Graham (I'm including his days in the AAFC)
6) Brady
7) Bradshaw
8) Aikman
9) Manning (could move up...love the guy and he's also a class act...work with him on a lot of commercial stuff...has a losing playoff record...must improve or he drops out)
10) Roger Staubach (the Navy cost him some key years to his career)


Brett Favre, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Moon, Jurgenson, Dawson,etc...all right there but I just value championships and wins...LEADERSHIP.  Taking a team from nothing and leading them to championships.  Almost all of the guys on my list were QBs of their team when they were horrible and people thought they sucked as QBs.  Over time they got better, more mature, and they led their teams to championships.  Stats are great, but give me the hardware every day.

[Moonboots]

Discussing quarterback play across eras is something I've put a bit of work into as a hobby.

It's tough, and there's not really a right or wrong way to go about it. 

I always started with a baseline, and that's statistics.  if a QB didn't measure up, at least remotely comparably, it kind of took them out of the running.  For instance, Daunte Culpepper had one of the better passing seasons in NFL history, but with no consistency, he obviously hasn't established himself with the top tier of QBs in his era.

Now, inflation must be accounted for with passing stats in the same way that money is.  Just as $1,000,000 in 1960 doesn't have the same value as $1,000,000 today, passing stats are weighted differently.  Take Starr as an example.  His 152 career TDs are none too spectacular when compared with the premier passers of the 90's and beyond.  It looks even worse when you consider his 138 career INTs.  But we also have to look at the structure of passing games back in the 60's.  They were very much boom or bust, high risk and high reward.  The west coast offense wasn't invented yet, and quick slants, curl routes, screens and dump offs didn't exist to boost completion percentages and dumb down INT numbers.  To illustrate this statistically, take a look at the yards/attempt of guys like Starr and Unitas.  Starr's 7.8 career Y/A is higher than even the most prolific passers of today.

Once we determine the statistical baseline in comparing how QBs fare against their competition in a given era, we see that Starr was actually one of the premier passers of the 60's, even if his stats don't measure up in contemporary terms.

Once we've broken that down, the process begins of weighing intangible plusses and minuses and determining what sort of value is attributed to each.  Obviously, championships carry weight.  Great performances in big games.  In Starr's case, leading the final drive in the NFL's most iconic game under the worst conditions in league history is certainly something of a plus.  In Favre's case, 280-whatever consecutive starts is something that weighs as a big plus. At the same time, the recent playoff meltdowns are minuses in the final tally.  And so on and so forth for every QB.

There's an infinite amount of ways to approach this.

Now I promise I'm done boring you with needless football babble that I find fascinating.

Back to the pissing.

The Vikings suck.

[GOMU1104]

Soft demand in the secondary ticket market...

http://www.jsonline.com/business/63007317.html


Too much supply...nobody wants to waste their time and money in that joke of a stadium...even if their savior is playing.

[MU B2002]

Romo is a good QB and 75% of the NFL teams would him over their current starter in a second.

Let's test this theory ( I will give my opinion, and feel free to correct me)
Would they take Romo over their current starter. (*to signify if I am on the fence)

Chi-No
GB-No
MIN-Yes
Det- No *

Atl- No
Car- Yes
NO- No
TB- Yes

NYG-No
PHI- Yes*
WAS- Yes

SF- Yes
STL- Yes
SEA-Yes
ARI-Yes


NE- No
NYJ- No*
MIA- Yes
BUF- Yes

PIT- No
BAL- No
CIN - No
CLE- Yes

Ten- Yes
JAX- Yes
HOU- Yes*
Ind- No

DEN- Yes
KC- Yes
OAK- YEs
SD - No


I count 13 teams that would not which means 59% of teams would replace their current QB with Carrie Underwood/Jessica Simpson's ex boyfriend.  I was on the fence on 4 teams, and I gave 2 teams yes and 2 no.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Soft demand in the secondary ticket market...

http://www.jsonline.com/business/63007317.html


Too much supply...nobody wants to waste their time and money in that joke of a stadium...even if their savior is playing.

Do Packer fans really believe that Viking fans think Brett is their "Savior", and is there where some of this trash talk is coming from?

I assure you, all rational fans see Favre for what he is, an aging QB, but he's still knows the game and has a good arm. Certainly every game is Adrian Peterson's to win or lose. If a team chooses to shut him down, then I'd rather take my chances with Brett against an 8 or 9 man front vs Tavaris against an 8 or 9 man front.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Let's test this theory ( I will give my opinion, and feel free to correct me)
Would they take Romo over their current starter. (*to signify if I am on the fence)

Chi-No
GB-No
MIN-Yes
Det- No *

Atl- No
Car- Yes
NO- No
TB- Yes

NYG-No
PHI- Yes*
WAS- Yes

SF- Yes
STL- Yes
SEA-Yes
ARI-Yes


NE- No
NYJ- No*
MIA- Yes
BUF- Yes

PIT- No
BAL- No
CIN - No
CLE- Yes

Ten- Yes
JAX- Yes
HOU- Yes*
Ind- No

DEN- Yes
KC- Yes
OAK- YEs
SD - No


I count 13 teams that would not which means 59% of teams would replace their current QB with Carrie Underwood/Jessica Simpson's ex boyfriend.  I was on the fence on 4 teams, and I gave 2 teams yes and 2 no.

That's fair, I guess I should have said 60%.

Also, you're right, a lot of these are close. Philip Rivers is a good player, and has put up some nice numbers, but certainly you could say the same for Romo.

I'm not saying Romo is better (I think Rivers is), but Chico's original point was that Tony Romo was a stat stuffer who would never win the big game. The same could be said for Rivers. He had the road playoff win a couple of years ago, but he hasn't won a superbowl.

[GOMU1104]

Do Packer fans really believe that Viking fans think Brett is their "Savior", and is there where some of this trash talk is coming from?

I assure you, all rational fans see Favre for what he is, an aging QB, but he's still knows the game and has a good arm. Certainly every game is Adrian Peterson's to win or lose. If a team chooses to shut him down, then I'd rather take my chances with Brett against an 8 or 9 man front vs Tavaris against an 8 or 9 man front.

Vikings fans definately consider Brett Favre their savior. They are expecting to win the Super Bowl. Anything less is considered a disappointment...and their franchise will look like absolute fools, more than they already do.

Did they have these same expectations before Favre came? No, they did not.

If that isnt a savior, I dont know what is...

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I'm in my 40's.  

Like I said, I don't hate Favre.  Young....good, but not great in my opinion.  Still think he never should have won a Super Bowl....1994 was gifted to him.  Cunningham....ugh.  Elway, I liked but appreciated much more at the end of his career.

I grew up out here with UCLA football (family friends of Terry Donahue and Dick Vermeil), the Cowboys under Landry (I was a Conejo Cowboy for the organization as a kid), the Rams, etc.  I was old school.  When Terry told us about Aikman, he said he was the best college QB he had ever seen.  That perked me up...he didn't disappoint.

I've always felt you judge QB's by big wins and championships.  You build your team around the QB.  Yes, I love watching athletic QBs do their thing and Favre was a joy to watch, but having one of those types of players playing for my teams drove me insane.  I don't believe in 3 yards and a cloud of dust, but I do believe in ball control offense, smart plays by the QB and keeping your team in the game.


My top 10

1) Montana
2) Starr
3) Unitas
4) Elway
5) Graham (I'm including his days in the AAFC)
6) Brady
7) Manning (could move up...love the guy and he's also a class act...work with him on a lot of commercial stuff)
8) Bradshaw
9) Aikman
10) Roger Staubach (the Navy cost him some key years to his career)


Brett Favre, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Moon, Jurgenson, Dawson,etc...all right there but I just value championships and wins...LEADERSHIP.  Taking a team from nothing and leading them to championships.  Almost all of the guys on my list were QBs of their team when they were horrible and people thought they sucked as QBs.  Over time they got better, more mature, and they led their teams to championships.  Stats are great, but give me the hardware every day.

Oh, and just because we were talking about "valuing the football", here is Favre's numbers vs aikman's.

            TDs   INTs      Ratio
Airkman   165   141      1.17 / 1
Favre           469   311      1.5 / 1

Favre's ratio is better. Also, his INT % is 3.3 vs Aikman's 3.0. Not a huge jump like we would expect.

I think Aikman was a great player, no doubt. But, I think people are jumping off of the deep end thinking that Brett threw/throws so many picks that he's not an all time great.

Also, judging a QB on championships is an honest way of looking at it, but I don't think it's really accurate. Way too many players and way too many variables to judge a QB this way.

I don't think there is an exact science to it, but I'd want to look at era, stats, wins, MVPs, talent around the QB, etc.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Vikings fans definately consider Brett Favre their savior. They are expecting to win the Super Bowl. Anything less is considered a disappointment...and their franchise will look like absolute fools, more than they already do.

Did they have these same expectations before Favre came? No, they did not.

If that isnt a savior, I dont know what is...

Who are you talking to?

Where are you reading this?

I have a lot of friends who live in the cities, and none of them are talking like this, nor is the general population that they deal with.

Is there a poll or something out there that you've seen?

People are excited to have a competent QB to go with AP. THAT is true. AP is a once in a lifetime player, and with the short shelf life of RB's, the vikes needed to move quickly to find a competent QB.

[GOMU1104]

Who are you talking to?

Where are you reading this?

I have a lot of friends who live in the cities, and none of them are talking like this, nor is the general population that they deal with.

Is there a poll or something out there that you've seen?

People are excited to have a competent QB to go with AP. THAT is true. AP is a once in a lifetime player, and with the short shelf life of RB's, the vikes needed to move quickly to find a competent QB.

So you are telling me, that Vikings fans arent expecting a Super Bowl this year?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

So you are telling me, that Vikings fans arent expecting a Super Bowl this year?

That is correct. Vikings fans (that I know, and the general group I communicate with in MN) are NOT expecting a superbowl this year.

Is there someplace out there where you are hearing about MN fans expecting a superbowl? I'll be the first to tell them to slow down.

Now, if the Vikings go 13-3 and have homefield adv. (not saying they will), then I think they could talk about superbowl.

Talking superbowl for any team in week 4 is premature and will ultimately lead to heavy disappointment for fans of almost any team.

You can be a big fan and still be realistic.

[Jay Bee]

Vikings fans definately consider Brett Favre their savior. They are expecting to win the Super Bowl. Anything less is considered a disappointment...and their franchise will look like absolute fools, more than they already do.

Did they have these same expectations before Favre came? No, they did not.

If that isnt a savior, I dont know what is...

  Vikings fans do not "definately" do anything - that's not a word.  But, you're completely off here.  All along 95% of the Vikings faithful have said, "we have a great team and a chance to compete this year.  QB is a weak spot.  With or without Favre, we will be an excellent team.".  Favre comes, "good move - QB upgrade.  We addressed our weakest spot... we're still an excellent team and the Consensus pick to win the NFC North"...

That's it.  There has been no 'savior' talk - any such nonsense has come from weirdo Packers fans who are burning Favre jerseys one minute and banging elk in their backyard the next.  

The ticket sales 'story' says nothing.  I'm selling two crappy tickets right now and they will go for well over face value - there are tickets available to EVERY event.  

[SaintPaulWarrior]

Soft demand in the secondary ticket market...

http://www.jsonline.com/business/63007317.html

"Minnesota people are cheap people," Mike Holzberger, who runs Connections Ticket Service in the Milwaukee area said "They are bringing the price down."

Hilarious.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not saying Romo is better (I think Rivers is), but Chico's original point was that Tony Romo was a stat stuffer who would never win the big game. The same could be said for Rivers. He had the road playoff win a couple of years ago, but he hasn't won a superbowl.

Rivers has at least won A playoff game.  He also won some crucial games at the end of the season to get them to the playoffs.  Romo....nothing.  Favre jr.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Oh, and just because we were talking about "valuing the football", here is Favre's numbers vs aikman's.

            TDs   INTs      Ratio
Airkman   165   141      1.17 / 1
Favre           469   311      1.5 / 1

Favre's ratio is better. Also, his INT % is 3.3 vs Aikman's 3.0. Not a huge jump like we would expect.

I think Aikman was a great player, no doubt. But, I think people are jumping off of the deep end thinking that Brett threw/throws so many picks that he's not an all time great.

Also, judging a QB on championships is an honest way of looking at it, but I don't think it's really accurate. Way too many players and way too many variables to judge a QB this way.

I don't think there is an exact science to it, but I'd want to look at era, stats, wins, MVPs, talent around the QB, etc.

Huh?  You're doing it on TD to int ratio.....that doesn't talk about valuing the ball at all.  That's not the way you do it.  How many turnovers per game did Favre do vs Aikman.  Turnovers = LOST points by your team and potential points for the other team.

I don't understand why you used your approach.  Favre had many more turnovers (ints and fumbles) per game than Aikman did.  That was my point.

[GOMU1104]

 Vikings fans do not "definately" do anything - that's not a word.  But, you're completely off here.  All along 95% of the Vikings faithful have said, "we have a great team and a chance to compete this year.  QB is a weak spot.  With or without Favre, we will be an excellent team.".  Favre comes, "good move - QB upgrade.  We addressed our weakest spot... we're still an excellent team and the Consensus pick to win the NFC North"...

That's it.  There has been no 'savior' talk - any such nonsense has come from weirdo Packers fans who are burning Favre jerseys one minute and banging elk in their backyard the next.  

The ticket sales 'story' says nothing.  I'm selling two crappy tickets right now and they will go for well over face value - there are tickets available to EVERY event.  

Brett Favre was brought to MIN to win a Super Bowl. If he does not, it will be considered a huge failure.

Vikings want that stadium, good luck...

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/businessofsports.html

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Brett Favre was brought to MIN to win a Super Bowl. If he does not, it will be considered a huge failure.

Vikings want that stadium, good luck...

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/businessofsports.html

I think you posted the wrong link.

There's nothing in here about the Vikings expecting to win the superbowl.

Thanks.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Huh?  You're doing it on TD to int ratio.....that doesn't talk about valuing the ball at all.  That's not the way you do it.  How many turnovers per game did Favre do vs Aikman.  Turnovers = LOST points by your team and potential points for the other team.

I don't understand why you used your approach.  Favre had many more turnovers (ints and fumbles) per game than Aikman did.  That was my point.

Their INT % is reasonably close at 3% vs 3.3%. Neil Odonnel has a career INT # of 2.1%. That doesn't make him a great QB. Forgot INT vs TD if you want.

Favre was asked to throw the ball A LOT more. Aikman had one the best running backs ever, one of the best offensive lines ever, and a fantastic wide out. He has less turnovers per game because he has less attempts per game. He wasn't asked to carry the team.  


I like INT vs TD because I think it shows risk vs. reward. 20 ints in a season is bad, but if the QB threw for 60 TD's, then it's not so bad. In that scenario, you're asking that QB to do a lot. It's similar to usage % in basketball that Henry Sugar puts out. The more you ask a QB to carry the team, the more likely he is to have increased turnovers.

Again, I'm not saying that Favre didn't throw a lot of INTs, some of them being stupid. I'm just saying that I don't think those INTs prevent him from being one of the greatest ever.

You can rank Aikman ahead of him, it's all just opinion. It just seems like you are talking about him like he was never that good.