NFC North Pissing Match

[jmayer1]

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.

Favre's Int % is 3.3%
Elway's Int % is 3.1%
Aikman's Int % is 3.0%
Bradshaw's Int % is 5.4%

In my mind, there is no logical way to argue that any of those last 3 guys are better qbs than Favre.  Elway would still have zero titles without TD.  Aikman and Bradshaw were on some of the most talented teams ever assembled.  Favre played with exactly one sure-fire hall of famer (White) and possibly two others who might eventually get in (Sharpe and Butler).  Yet, his winning % is right up there with the other guys (actually ahead of Aikman).  Hardware is nice and all, but don't get carried away.  That would be like arguing that Russell is better than Wilt because he won all those titles but forgetting that he played on teams surrounded by HOFers.

[Moonboots]

Favre's Int % is 3.3%
Elway's Int % is 3.1%
Aikman's Int % is 3.0%
Bradshaw's Int % is 5.4%

In my mind, there is no logical way to argue that any of those last 3 guys are better qbs than Favre.  Elway would still have zero titles without TD.  Aikman and Bradshaw were on some of the most talented teams ever assembled.  Favre played with exactly one sure-fire hall of famer (White) and possibly two others who might eventually get in (Sharpe and Butler).  Yet, his winning % is right up there with the other guys (actually ahead of Aikman).  Hardware is nice and all, but don't get carried away.  That would be like arguing that Russell is better than Wilt because he won all those titles but forgetting that he played on teams surrounded by HOFers.

Not to play devil's advocate against my own team, but would Favre have won a Super Bowl without the #1 defense and the #1 special teams in the entire NFL? Sure, Desmond Howard may not be an NFL Hall of Famer, but for 1996, he sure as heck played like one.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Not to play devil's advocate against my own team, but would Favre have won a Super Bowl without the #1 defense and the #1 special teams in the entire NFL? Sure, Desmond Howard may not be an NFL Hall of Famer, but for 1996, he sure as heck played like one.

Agreed, that team was great, no doubt.

Other Packer teams had talent as well, and that's a big part of how they made the playoffs.

But, let's not pretend like the Packers largest (and most effective) weapon over the years hasn't been Favre's arm. Certainly it has cost them some games, but I would also argue that it has won them a whole bunch.

If I was drafting a QB, and you could tell me he'd turn out to be Brett Favre Jr, I'd do it in a second. The Bears and Vikings have wasted numerous draft picks and free agents in the past 18 years, all in an attempt to get a QB as good as #4.

Do you know how many 1st round QB busts there have been since Favre was the GB starter? A LOT. None of them were drafted by the Packers because they could just pencil in good 'ol #4 for 16 games per year.

That basically gave GB an extra draft pick every other year as the Vikes and Bears wasted their picks on QBs that didn't work out. The packers also drafted some good young arms, and then traded them away (smartly) for more picks. That wouldn't have been possible without #4.

[LON]

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.

Emmitt Smith was a product of his line, not his talent.  He is so overrated.

EDIT:  You also forgot the most underrated player, their TE, Jay Novacek (sp?)

[GOMU1104]

I think you posted the wrong link.

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

Thanks.

Listen, Brett Favre was brought to MIN to be the final piece of the puzzle...to get the team to the Super Bowl.

If that does not happen, his signing will be considered a failure.

If you dont see that, then you clearly dont get it.

[LON]

Listen, Brett Favre was brought to MIN to be the final piece of the puzzle...to get the team to the Super Bowl.

If that does not happen, his signing will be considered a failure.

If you dont see that, then you clearly dont get it.

It's the biggest PR stunt evvvarrrr!

[GOMU1104]

It's the biggest PR stunt evvvarrrr!

Oh I also forgot, it could've been to drum up some interest in the team...in the hopes they can actually get a new stadium.

That, will also be a failure.

[Jay Bee]

Listen, Brett Favre was brought to MIN to be the final piece of the puzzle...to get the team to the Super Bowl.

If that does not happen, his signing will be considered a failure.

If you dont see that, then you clearly dont get it.

  Geez, you're dense.  That's not true - he was brought in because our QB's blew.  He was an upgrade.  'Final piece of the puzzle' is b.s. talk.  If we don't get into the playoffs, our year would be a failure - while we would be disappointed not making it to the NFC Championship and/or Super Bowl, a lot of things can happen in a single playoff game.  Our season is going on now - every game is important.  It's not as if we're looking ahead to the NFC Championship game and saying, "that's all that matters.  That is the measuring stick".  

 Get a clue.  Your claim is fabricated B.S. that is designed to hopefully make you feel better.  This way, when Favre drops a bomb with 2 seconds left in week three, it means absolutely nothing to you.  Bringing Favre in has already been a plus to us - keep living in your little fantasy world.

[LON]

 Geez, you're dense.  That's not true - he was brought in because our QB's blew.  He was an upgrade.  'Final piece of the puzzle' is b.s. talk.  If we don't get into the playoffs, our year would be a failure - while we would be disappointed not making it to the NFC Championship and/or Super Bowl, a lot of things can happen in a single playoff game.  Our season is going on now - every game is important.  It's not as if we're looking ahead to the NFC Championship game and saying, "that's all that matters.  That is the measuring stick".  

 Get a clue.  Your claim is fabricated B.S. that is designed to hopefully make you feel better.  This way, when Favre drops a bomb with 2 seconds left in week three, it means absolutely nothing to you.  Bringing Favre in has already been a plus to us - keep living in your little fantasy world.

I'd be worried that Greg Lewis was the ONLY WR in the endzone on that play...

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Listen, Brett Favre was brought to MIN to be the final piece of the puzzle...to get the team to the Super Bowl.

If that does not happen, his signing will be considered a failure.

If you dont see that, then you clearly dont get it.

ok, I get it now.

You're right. Thanks for setting me straight. I'll never root for my home team again. The Vikes suck.

You're the exact type of fan that I can't stand. You're so arrogant about your own team and fans that you can't look at any rival team objectively. Also, you are setting this up so you can come back to this thread and blast Favre and rip the vikings.

 #1 NOBODY in the Vikings organization has said Favre is the key to the superbowl.
 #2 NOBODY I talk with in the Twin Cities has claimed that Favre is the key to the superbowl, nor do they speak with people that feel like that.
 #3 NO media member with any objectivity or credibility has said Favre is the missing piece to the superbowl.

I'm not exactly sure where you are coming up with this stuff.

If YOU think that Favre is the key to the superbowl, you're nuts. 100 things have to go right before the Vikes can even dream about the superbowl.

[Jay Bee]

NEW STADIUM ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE VIKINGS, JUST MADE!!

ugh... starts Monday.  I refuse to ever call it MOA Field. 


Eden Prairie, MN – The Minnesota Vikings and Mall of America® announced today a partnership for the naming rights to the field that has served as the team’s home since 1982. The agreement, announced this morning from the Vikings Winter Park facility, provides that the field will be called Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome for a three-year period beginning October 5, 2009, and ending February 28, 2012.

“Branding the field as Mall of America Field represents an opportunity to share our name and image with an even larger nationwide audience,” said Maureen Bausch, executive vice president of business development at Mall of America. “It also connects two treasured Minnesota brands – Mall of America and the Minnesota Vikings – which adds value to both companies.”

As part of the agreement, Mall of America Field will be branded with new exterior and interior signage, as well as various promotional materials. 

“This was a great opportunity for the Vikings to uniquely partner with a very prominent business that has a deep commitment to the Minnesota community,” said Steve LaCroix, Vikings vice president of sales and marketing and chief marketing officer. “As another step in rebranding the stadium for the short-term, we hope Mall of America Field continues to give the team an important home field advantage while providing many exciting memories for our fans.”

Mall of America has a long-standing relationship with the Minnesota Vikings. The team has hosted several past events at Mall of America; in the coming weeks, Vikings RB Adrian Peterson will make an appearance on October 13 and the Minnesota Vikings Cheerleader Holiday show is scheduled for November 9.

[GOMU1104]

http://www.twincities.com/ci_13154517?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

""We feel we added a decent piece to the puzzle," Childress said.

Desperate for a shot at the Super Bowl, the Vikings know their chances of getting there take a leap with Favre at quarterback instead of Sage Rosenfels or Tarvaris Jackson. "

-------------------

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12911418?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

"Bob Sansevere: Are the Vikings a Super Bowl team with Favre?

Pete Bercich: Oh, yeah. You would have to say that they would be a contender."


-------------------------------

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d811faa27&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

"The goal: Help the Vikings win that elusive first Super Bowl championship."
 
------------------------------


You can try to hedge your bets all you want...but Ziggy and Chilly were/are desparate. Anything less than a SB, and it is a failure.

[LON]

NEW STADIUM ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE VIKINGS, JUST MADE!!

ugh... starts Monday.  I refuse to ever call it MOA Field. 


Eden Prairie, MN – The Minnesota Vikings and Mall of America® announced today a partnership for the naming rights to the field that has served as the team’s home since 1982. The agreement, announced this morning from the Vikings Winter Park facility, provides that the field will be called Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome for a three-year period beginning October 5, 2009, and ending February 28, 2012.

“Branding the field as Mall of America Field represents an opportunity to share our name and image with an even larger nationwide audience,” said Maureen Bausch, executive vice president of business development at Mall of America. “It also connects two treasured Minnesota brands – Mall of America and the Minnesota Vikings – which adds value to both companies.”

As part of the agreement, Mall of America Field will be branded with new exterior and interior signage, as well as various promotional materials. 

“This was a great opportunity for the Vikings to uniquely partner with a very prominent business that has a deep commitment to the Minnesota community,” said Steve LaCroix, Vikings vice president of sales and marketing and chief marketing officer. “As another step in rebranding the stadium for the short-term, we hope Mall of America Field continues to give the team an important home field advantage while providing many exciting memories for our fans.”

Mall of America has a long-standing relationship with the Minnesota Vikings. The team has hosted several past events at Mall of America; in the coming weeks, Vikings RB Adrian Peterson will make an appearance on October 13 and the Minnesota Vikings Cheerleader Holiday show is scheduled for November 9.

I can see the commercials now...

Ragnar running through the MoA like the guys in those Capital One commercials.

[Jay Bee]

http://www.twincities.com/ci_13154517?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

""We feel we added a decent piece to the puzzle," Childress said.

Desperate for a shot at the Super Bowl, the Vikings know their chances of getting there take a leap with Favre at quarterback instead of Sage Rosenfels or Tarvaris Jackson. "

-------------------

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12911418?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

"Bob Sansevere: Are the Vikings a Super Bowl team with Favre?

Pete Bercich: Oh, yeah. You would have to say that they would be a contender."


-------------------------------

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d811faa27&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

"The goal: Help the Vikings win that elusive first Super Bowl championship."
 
------------------------------


You can try to hedge your bets all you want...but Ziggy and Chilly were/are desparate. Anything less than a SB, and it is a failure.

  Dimwit, no one said that not going to the Super Bowl would equal failure.  Favre helps our chances in getting there, no doubt.  You're simply making things up to make yourself feel better.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

http://www.twincities.com/ci_13154517?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

""We feel we added a decent piece to the puzzle," Childress said.

Desperate for a shot at the Super Bowl, the Vikings know their chances of getting there take a leap with Favre at quarterback instead of Sage Rosenfels or Tarvaris Jackson. "

-------------------

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12911418?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

"Bob Sansevere: Are the Vikings a Super Bowl team with Favre?

Pete Bercich: Oh, yeah. You would have to say that they would be a contender."


-------------------------------

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d811faa27&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

"The goal: Help the Vikings win that elusive first Super Bowl championship."
 
------------------------------


You can try to hedge your bets all you want...but Ziggy and Chilly were/are desparate. Anything less than a SB, and it is a failure.

Well, I appreciate the research, but I'm not sure it's the smoking gun that you think it is.

While I agree that Ziggy and Chilly would love to win a superbowl, I don't think quotes like: "Oh, yeah. You would have to say that they would be a contender."  = Brett Favre is the savior and they must win a superbowl.

Several pundits predicted that the Packers will be in the superbowl. If they don't win it, it doesn't mean that the 3-4 defense is a failure (the new defense brought in that is supposed to be better than the old one, just like Favre is supposed to be better than jackson).

I'm not sure why are you talking in such absolutes. Also, Bob Sansevere is a columnist, so while he does have some insight, his job is not really to be objective or knowledgeable, it's to get readership. It's similar to the sports writers here in Milwaukee that aren't exactly factual with their columns.

[GOMU1104]

 Dimwit, no one said that not going to the Super Bowl would equal failure.  Favre helps our chances in getting there, no doubt.  You're simply making things up to make yourself feel better.

If you cant see this move for what it is...then I dont really know what to say anymore.

[GOMU1104]

Well, I appreciate the research, but I'm not sure it's the smoking gun that you think it is.

While I agree that Ziggy and Chilly would love to win a superbowl, I don't think quotes like: "Oh, yeah. You would have to say that they would be a contender."  = Brett Favre is the savior and they must win a superbowl.

Several pundits predicted that the Packers will be in the superbowl. If they don't win it, it doesn't mean that the 3-4 defense is a failure (the new defense brought in that is supposed to be better than the old one, just like Favre is supposed to be better than jackson).

I'm not sure why are you talking in such absolutes. Also, Bob Sansevere is a columnist, so while he does have some insight, his job is not really to be objective or knowledgeable, it's to get readership. It's similar to the sports writers here in Milwaukee that aren't exactly factual with their columns.

The difference is...no single move the Packers made, was meant to have the type of impact that the addition of Brett Favre is supposed to have on MIN.

He was added to be the final piece. Ziggy and Chilly were so desparate, they put up/enabled his actions this summer and allowed him to do everything his way.

[NavinRJohnson]

Mall of America Field...LOL!...That is awesome.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

The difference is...no single move the Packers made, was meant to have the type of impact that the addition of Brett Favre is supposed to have on MIN.

He was added to be the final piece. Ziggy and Chilly were so desparate, they put up/enabled his actions this summer and allowed him to do everything his way.

Changing the defense to the 3-4, then going 3-1 in preseason, and having several publications pick the pack for the superbowl doesn't raise the stakes for the Packers?

I'm just trying to apply the same logic that you are using.

The Vikes upgraded their weakest point by getting Favre. The packers upgraded their weakest point by getting a new coordinator (with a proven track record) and some highly drafted personnel to play in the scheme.

That sounds similar, no? Upgrading your weakness with a proven commodity? Capers and his system are certainly an upgrade, especially with the personnel they added.

Listen, we're never going to agree on this, but I just don't think it's as black and white as "The Vikes have to win the superbowl.", because if it were, then you could say that about every team that tried to upgrade in the off season.

"The bills have to win a superbowl now that they have TO, anything less will be a failure"

"The Bears have to win the superbowl now that they have Cutler, anything less will be a failure."

It CAN'T work like that.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

http://www.twincities.com/ci_13154517?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

""We feel we added a decent piece to the puzzle," Childress said.

Desperate for a shot at the Super Bowl, the Vikings know their chances of getting there take a leap with Favre at quarterback instead of Sage Rosenfels or Tarvaris Jackson. "

Exactly what JayBee has been saying all along.


-------------------

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12911418?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

"Bob Sansevere: Are the Vikings a Super Bowl team with Favre?

Pete Bercich: Oh, yeah. You would have to say that they would be a contender."

This Q and A was in July...everyone, besides the Lions, were contenders.


-------------------------------

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d811faa27&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

"The goal: Help the Vikings win that elusive first Super Bowl championship."

Which is the the goal of every NFL team. Win the Super Bowl.
 
------------------------------


You can try to hedge your bets all you want...but Ziggy and Chilly were/are desparate. Anything less than a SB, and it is a failure.

So I see that you agree with JayBee and 2002...you helped their arguments immensely with your search engine fact finding.

[wadesworld]

The arguments that people have on here with 2002alum are the most circular arguments I've ever seen.  Let's try this.

NOBODY is saying that Brett Favre was a bad quarterback for the Green Bay Packers.  Not a single person.  NOBODY is trying to turn on Brett Favre and say that he sucked when he played for the Packers.  Brett Favre WAS amazing for the Green Bay Packers.  He was a VERY GOOD THING for the Green Bay Packers organization.  He was NOT a bad thing for the organization.  I, and all Packer fans, LOVED him when he played for the Green Bay Packers.  I am not sure how to make this any more clear.

NOW we think that he is NOT an AMAZING quarterback anymore.  He is no longer in the prime of his career.  He will be 40 years old in the next 2 weeks.  His talent (to go along with his dedication) has declined greatly.  He has always turned the ball over, but RECENTLY it has been more than it ever was (see: 95 TDs, 95 INTs since 2005).  Some people believe that it would be better for the Vikings to have a quarterback who has dedicated himself to the sport and the organization year round, not just during the season when he can just show up and play, and someone who has not RECENTLY been the quarterback who is most prone to turnovers in the NFL.  So some people on here do NOT think this was a GREAT move for the Vikings.  Note: I, AND NOBODY ON HERE, ARE SAYING THAT BRETT FAVRE WAS TERRIBLE FOR THE GREEN BAY PACKERS OR SAYING ANYTHING OTHER THAN HE WAS AMAZING FOR THE PACKERS!  SO GET OVER THAT IDEA, NOBODY BELIEVES THAT ON HERE!

Also, some people do think that he will play great for the 1st half of the season and then decline in production in the 2nd half of the season.  Nobody said this after week 3 after seeing him play fairly well so far, and nobody will say it after week 8 if they are 8-0 (which they won't be).  We said it from day 1 of the signing.  So no, we aren't just saying this so that we can say it when the Vikings lose in the Super Bowl after going 18-0 and Brett Favre throws his first interception of the year in the Super Bowl.  If that is the case, we will admit we're wrong.

Now I just started a new motion of the SAME EXACT CONTENT coming in numerous posts.  My bad.

[GOMU1104]

Changing the defense to the 3-4, then going 3-1 in preseason, and having several publications pick the pack for the superbowl doesn't raise the stakes for the Packers?

I'm just trying to apply the same logic that you are using.

The Vikes upgraded their weakest point by getting Favre. The packers upgraded their weakest point by getting a new coordinator (with a proven track record) and some highly drafted personnel to play in the scheme.

That sounds similar, no? Upgrading your weakness with a proven commodity? Capers and his system are certainly an upgrade, especially with the personnel they added.

Listen, we're never going to agree on this, but I just don't think it's as black and white as "The Vikes have to win the superbowl.", because if it were, then you could say that about every team that tried to upgrade in the off season.

"The bills have to win a superbowl now that they have TO, anything less will be a failure"

"The Bears have to win the superbowl now that they have Cutler, anything less will be a failure."

It CAN'T work like that.

The Capers example isnt relevant. The Packers weren't hot for Capers for over a year, the way Ziggy and Chilly were for Favre.  Yes, GB got better by adding Capers, but it does not make them an instant SB contender...The way the Favre addition does.

The Bills and Bears examples arent relevant either...as I would think we would agree that MIN is closer to a contender than either CHI or BUF.  The Bills add TO, and there still a pretty average team. The Bears add Cutler...but still have significant questions at other postions. For MIN...Favre was to be the final piece.

[wadesworld]

Changing the defense to the 3-4, then going 3-1 in preseason, and having several publications pick the pack for the superbowl doesn't raise the stakes for the Packers?

I'm just trying to apply the same logic that you are using.

The Vikes upgraded their weakest point by getting Favre. The packers upgraded their weakest point by getting a new coordinator (with a proven track record) and some highly drafted personnel to play in the scheme.

That sounds similar, no? Upgrading your weakness with a proven commodity? Capers and his system are certainly an upgrade, especially with the personnel they added.

Listen, we're never going to agree on this, but I just don't think it's as black and white as "The Vikes have to win the superbowl.", because if it were, then you could say that about every team that tried to upgrade in the off season.

"The bills have to win a superbowl now that they have TO, anything less will be a failure"

"The Bears have to win the superbowl now that they have Cutler, anything less will be a failure."

It CAN'T work like that.

The Packers, and many other teams that made upgrades during the offseason, aren't putting all of their marbles into this season like the Vikings did by going out and getting Favre.  The Vikings won their division and were in the playoffs last year.  If their goal now is not to get to the Super Bowl then why would they go out and give a 40 year old man $10 million for this year, while potentially (I'm NOT saying he FOR SURE will/would) messing with the chemistry of the team?  They did this in order to go from losing their first playoff game to losing their 2nd playoff game?  I doubt it.  Their goal was to go from being a playoff team to being a SUPER BOWL team.  If this WASN'T the goal then it was an AWFUL move.

Whereas the Packers and Bears moves were for the future.  Changing the defense isn't for this year alone.  They aren't going to switch back to the 4-3 next year.  BJ Raji and Clay Matthews won't be retiring this summer.  Neither will Jay Cutler.  These moves were for improvements for the future (and, hopefully, this year).  Brett Favre was in hopes of an improvement THIS YEAR ONLY, or they would not have done it.

By the way, I thought the dome couldn't become any more of an embarrassment than it already is.  But now it is called "Mall of America Field."  HAHAHAHAHA!  Move to LA already!

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

The arguments that people have on here with 2002alum are the most circular arguments I've ever seen.  Let's try this.

NOBODY is saying that Brett Favre was a bad quarterback for the Green Bay Packers.  Not a single person.  NOBODY is trying to turn on Brett Favre and say that he sucked when he played for the Packers.  Brett Favre WAS amazing for the Green Bay Packers.  He was a VERY GOOD THING for the Green Bay Packers organization.  He was NOT a bad thing for the organization.  I, and all Packer fans, LOVED him when he played for the Green Bay Packers.  I am not sure how to make this any more clear.

NOW we think that he is NOT an AMAZING quarterback anymore.  He is no longer in the prime of his career.  He will be 40 years old in the next 2 weeks.  His talent (to go along with his dedication) has declined greatly.  He has always turned the ball over, but RECENTLY it has been more than it ever was (see: 95 TDs, 95 INTs since 2005).  Some people believe that it would be better for the Vikings to have a quarterback who has dedicated himself to the sport and the organization year round, not just during the season when he can just show up and play, and someone who has not RECENTLY been the quarterback who is most prone to turnovers in the NFL.  So some people on here do NOT think this was a GREAT move for the Vikings.  Note: I, AND NOBODY ON HERE, ARE SAYING THAT BRETT FAVRE WAS TERRIBLE FOR THE GREEN BAY PACKERS OR SAYING ANYTHING OTHER THAN HE WAS AMAZING FOR THE PACKERS!  SO GET OVER THAT IDEA, NOBODY BELIEVES THAT ON HERE!

Also, some people do think that he will play great for the 1st half of the season and then decline in production in the 2nd half of the season.  Nobody said this after week 3 after seeing him play fairly well so far, and nobody will say it after week 8 if they are 8-0 (which they won't be).  We said it from day 1 of the signing.  So no, we aren't just saying this so that we can say it when the Vikings lose in the Super Bowl after going 18-0 and Brett Favre throws his first interception of the year in the Super Bowl.  If that is the case, we will admit we're wrong.

Now I just started a new motion of the SAME EXACT CONTENT coming in numerous posts.  My bad.

That's good, I can agree with all of this.

Maybe where we disagree is although Brett certainly has his warts (which you correctly listed above), he's the best option they have.

From a Vikings fan perspective:

- Brett is not jesus, and is not going to win the superbowl and get the Vikes a new stadium
- Brett does not have to win the superbowl to be considered a good signing
- Adrian Peterson is still the main man on this team
- I am aware that Brett would be better if he were 25 and in training camp, but 25 year old Favre wasn't available, so the Vikes took what was available
- We've seen what Jackson can do, so it's worth the risk to bring in Brett. If he sucked b*lls, they can pull him and put in Jackson, and they could cut Favre outright if they had to. The Vikes don't "owe" anything to Brett (there's no history there), so they can treat him like a piece of meat. Seems pretty low risk to me. Either you ride with Jackson, or you keep Jackson for insurance.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

The Packers, and many other teams that made upgrades during the offseason, aren't putting all of their marbles into this season like the Vikings did by going out and getting Favre.  The Vikings won their division and were in the playoffs last year.  If their goal now is not to get to the Super Bowl then why would they go out and give a 40 year old man $10 million for this year, while potentially (I'm NOT saying he FOR SURE will/would) messing with the chemistry of the team?  They did this in order to go from losing their first playoff game to losing their 2nd playoff game?  I doubt it.  Their goal was to go from being a playoff team to being a SUPER BOWL team.  If this WASN'T the goal then it was an AWFUL move.

Whereas the Packers and Bears moves were for the future.  Changing the defense isn't for this year alone.  They aren't going to switch back to the 4-3 next year.  BJ Raji and Clay Matthews won't be retiring this summer.  Neither will Jay Cutler.  These moves were for improvements for the future (and, hopefully, this year).  Brett Favre was in hopes of an improvement THIS YEAR ONLY, or they would not have done it.

By the way, I thought the dome couldn't become any more of an embarrassment than it already is.  But now it is called "Mall of America Field."  HAHAHAHAHA!  Move to LA already!

Listen, let's not get confused.

I'm not saying that Brett doesn't make the Vikes a better team.

I'm not saying that Brett doesn't make them a playoff contender.

I'm saying that Brett Favre does NOT have to win the superbowl to be considered a good signing.

This is not an all or nothing deal, NO offseason move is. If he plays well, he's a good signing. Don't need to make it more complicated than that.

Every team that makes the playoffs tries to improve and make the superbowl the following year. It's the next step in the progression. If they don't make the superbowl the following year, it doesn't mean their off season moves were automatically failures.

Have some perspective, people.