NFC North Pissing Match

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

Ahhh ok.

Got it.

In your opinion, how many superbowls do the Vikes have to win in a row to validate picking up Brett Favre?

Is 3 enough?

Can you set the bar higher? You make excuses for every other team in the NFL, EXCEPT for the Vikes. You're so transparent.

What about the eagles and Vick, what do you think about that signing?

[GOMU1104]

Ahhh ok.

Got it.

In your opinion, how many superbowls do the Vikes have to win in a row to validate picking up Brett Favre?

Is 3 enough?

Can you set the bar higher? You make excuses for every other team in the NFL, EXCEPT for the Vikes. You're so transparent.

What about the eagles and Vick, what do you think about that signing?

Well, seeing as the Vikings have yet to even win ONE Super Bowl...even winning 1 would be a historic achievement. But...thats what Favre was brought there to do.

Its called common sense, not excuses. Are the bills a SB contender, are the bears? You contineu to try and make comparisons, that arent at all the same as the Brett Favre situation.

Not that it has anything to do with this argument AT ALL...The Vick signing was pointless for PHI.  He doesnt make them any better. Hes not the same QB or ATH that he was before he got locked up...and it shows.  Some clown on TV the other day said, "Even still, when Mike Vick steps on the field, hes the best athlete on the field." I almost threw up when I heard that.  Hes not running the wild cat, hes running a form of the college spread...which doesnt work in the NFL. PHI is a really good team...they dont need Mike Vick.

[NavinRJohnson]

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.

This is an excellent point. The goal is to win the Super Bowl. If they did not bring Favre in to do that, why did they bring him in? To give Sage or TJax another year on the bench?

Or was it just to get guys like Jay Bee to finally pony up for season tickets?

[Jay Bee]

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.

  2002mualum - I am EYE TO EYE with you.  Any sane person would be.  SaintPaulWarrior seems to also understand that you Packer people are talking nonsense.

  Wad's - the goal was to IMPROVE THE FREAKING TEAM.  That's it!  Get a better quarterback.  WOW, how crazy - a team wants to improve at a position?  Earth-shattering!  Numbskulls.  Does this move mean the front office does not believe Tarvaris Jackson is likely the answer going forward?  SURE.  That's why they were on the phone trying to trade the kid.  That's why I guarantee the front office is looking at college quarterbacks in great detail for the next draft (we may need to trade away some goods since our Super Bowl victory will give us a crappy draft pick!!!).

  There is NO way Favre can be a 'success' in some of your eyes.   That's fine, I don't care about your feelings and find it humorous you're so broken up over Brett's love of the Consensus Vikings.  But, try to get a little grip when posting on this message thread.  I know you're experienced with getting a little grip when you're not typing here.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

This is an excellent point. The goal is to win the Super Bowl. If they did not bring Favre in to do that, why did they bring him in? To give Sage or TJax another year on the bench?

Or was it just to get guys like Jay Bee to finally pony up for season tickets?

Isn't the point to put the best team on the field? Aren't the Packers trying to do the same thing? Was signing Charles Woodson a dramatic last ditch effort at winning the superbowl? Nope. It was just a chance to make the team better.

Guys, don't make this out to be more than it is. Favre is 1 football player. He is not football Jesus.

The Vikes feel Brett Favre gives them a better chance to win (this season) than either of the back-up QBs. (feel free to disagree, and that's fine, but the facts are the front office feels like favre gives them a better chance to win, just like drafting percy harvin gives them a better chance.)

Is the superbowl a goal? Sure. Just like the Superbowl is a goal for the Packers.

Also, the Back-ups might not be in the long term plans for the team, so screw it if they ride the bench. Also, if Favre sucks, they can put jackson in. It's no real risk.

And yes, Favre will help sell tickets, and owners like to make money.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

Are the bills a SB contender, are the bears?

   
  Super Bowl odds
    
    Baltimore Ravens  +600          
 
    Chicago Bears  +1200          
 
    Dallas Cowboys  +1800        
 
    Green Bay Packers  +1500        
 
    Indianapolis Colts  +1000          
 
    Minnesota Vikings  +1200    
 
    New England Patriots  +700    
 
    New Orleans Saints  +800    
 
    New York Giants  +1000    
 
    New York Jets  +1500          
 
    Philadelphia Eagles  +1500    
 
    Pittsburgh Steelers  +1000      
 
    San Diego Chargers  +1000    

Sure looks like the Bears are  contenders....same odds as Vikings and they already beat the defending champs.

HINT:  Lower number = favorite...just saying since your arguments leave me to doubt how much NFL knowledge you actually have.


Odds to win NFC Championship     
 
    Chicago Bears  +600     
 
    Dallas Cowboys  +800         
 
    Green Bay Packers  +700     
 
    Minnesota Vikings  +600     
 
    New Orleans Saints  +325     
 
    New York Giants  +400     
 
    Philadelphia Eagles  +700     

 

[GOMU1104]

What was I thinking? The Bears have the next Tom Brady, they'll probably win 4 of the next 5.


This is fun.

[LON]

   
  Super Bowl odds
    
    Baltimore Ravens  +600          
 
    Chicago Bears  +1200          
 
    Dallas Cowboys  +1800        
 
    Green Bay Packers  +1500        
 
    Indianapolis Colts  +1000          
 
    Minnesota Vikings  +1200    
 
    New England Patriots  +700    
 
    New Orleans Saints  +800    
 
    New York Giants  +1000    
 
    New York Jets  +1500          
 
    Philadelphia Eagles  +1500    
 
    Pittsburgh Steelers  +1000      
 
    San Diego Chargers  +1000    

Sure looks like the Bears are  contenders....same odds as Vikings and they already beat the defending champs.

HINT:  Lower number = favorite...just saying since your arguments leave me to doubt how much NFL knowledge you actually have.


Odds to win NFC Championship     
 
    Chicago Bears  +600     
 
    Dallas Cowboys  +800         
 
    Green Bay Packers  +700     
 
    Minnesota Vikings  +600     
 
    New Orleans Saints  +325     
 
    New York Giants  +400     
 
    Philadelphia Eagles  +700     

 

Is Vegas setting these because they know that the crazies (that just became football fans in 2001) will bet that in a cocaine heartbeat?

[wadesworld]

I'm not saying Brett Favre will be a failure if the Vikings don't win the Super Bowl, I'm just saying the reason Brett Favre was (or at least SHOULD HAVE BEEN) brought in to get the Vikings to the Super Bowl.  If he was brought in for any other reason, it was a terrible move, and if I was a Vikings fan (thank God I am not, what a miserable life that must be) I would be pissed off.  The man is 40 years old, you're giving up $10 million for 1 year for him, and he will be around for 1 year and 1 year only.  You were already the NFC North Champion and in the playoffs.  You had a young quarterback who wasn't great but has some pretty decent potential.  Why bring in Brett Favre with any other reason in mind than to get you to the Super Bowl?  You were already in the playoffs and division champions, why change something if the goal is not to improve?  You were already in the playoffs, so the improvement that can be made is then making the Super Bowl.  That is why Brett Favre was brought in, and if it is not the reason then the Vikings are an even WORSE organization than I thought, which is VERY hard to imagine.

And you keep bringing up other teams bringing in new players and trying to compare it to the Vikings bringing in Brett Favre.  It's not close to the same.  I'll say it again.
Brett Favre: Around for 1 year.
BJ Raji, Clay Matthews, 3-4 Defense: Many more than 1 year.
Jay Cutler: Many more than 1 year.

You put all your marbles into this year, as evidence by the fact that you signed a 40 year old man to play quarterback who you know will only be around for this 1 year.  The Packers and Bears made moves on young players and a new scheme that will be around for many more than this 1 year.  There is a BIG difference there, so I'm not sure why you are trying to compare the situations.  The only similarity is that all of these teams are trying to improve.  The BIG difference you are blindly leaving out is that the Vikings brought in Brett Favre for THIS YEAR ONLY, while the Packers and Bears brought in new young players and new schemes for this year AND THE FUTURE.  The Vikings brought in Harvin and others for the future, but to that is not what you are arguing.  If you think otherwise then I am not sure what is going through your mind, and you will continue to sound like a broken record making really bad arguments.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I'm not saying Brett Favre will be a failure if the Vikings don't win the Super Bowl, I'm just saying the reason Brett Favre was (or at least SHOULD HAVE BEEN) brought in to get the Vikings to the Super Bowl.  If he was brought in for any other reason, it was a terrible move, and if I was a Vikings fan (thank God I am not, what a miserable life that must be) I would be pissed off.  The man is 40 years old, you're giving up $10 million for 1 year for him, and he will be around for 1 year and 1 year only.  You were already the NFC North Champion and in the playoffs.  You had a young quarterback who wasn't great but has some pretty decent potential.  Why bring in Brett Favre with any other reason in mind than to get you to the Super Bowl?  You were already in the playoffs and division champions, why chance something if the goal is not to improve?  The improvement that can be made after making the playoffs is then making the Super Bowl.  That is why Brett Favre was brought in, and if it is not the reason then the Vikings are an even WORSE organization than I thought, which is VERY hard to imagine.

And you keep bringing up other teams bringing in new players and trying to compare it to the Vikings bringing in Brett Favre.  It's not close to the same.  I'll say it again.
Brett Favre: Around for 1 year.
BJ Raji, Clay Matthews, 3-4 Defense: Many more than 1 year.
Jay Cutler: Many more than 1 year.

You put all your marbles into this year, as evidence by the fact that you signed a 40 year old man to play quarterback who you know will only be around for this 1 year.  The Packers and Bears made moves on young players and a new scheme that will be around for many more than this 1 year.  There is a BIG difference there, so I'm not sure why you are trying to compare the situations.  The only similarity is that all of these teams are trying to improve.  The BIG difference you are blindly leaving out is that the Vikings did it for THIS YEAR ONLY, while the Packers and Bears did it for this year AND THE FUTURE.  If you think otherwise then I am not sure what is going through your mind, and you will continue to sound like a broken record making really bad arguments.

All valid points.

My gut is this:

#1 The vikes are not the most popular team in town, and there is not a HUGE demand like there are for Packer tickets
#2 The vikes have a pretty good all-around team, but are missing a competent QB. I don't hate jackson, but realistically he hasn't taken enough steps forward to be handed the keys to a team this good. He'd be stunting the teams abilities.
#3 Chilly is under the gun (somewhat) and needs to win this season. He is supposed to be a great offensive mind, but has yet to prove it yet. In his mind, he's probably missing the QB that he needs to run the show.

Brett Favre does the following:
#1 Gives the fans something to talk about, and maybe get them excited
#2 Gives them the best chance to win. If he turns out to suck, the Vikes still have Jackson for this season. My guess is that Jackson nor Rosenfels did enough this year in training camp to make the coaching staff confident that they could win, and even if Brett came in and bombed, they could cut him and go back to jackson.
#3 Brett gives them the best chance to win this season, and the best chance to make Chilly look good.

Now, I'm not dumb enough to see that the Vikes are concentrating on only this season, but some people here (not necessarily you) have said that Brett was brought in to win a superbowl, and anything less is a failure.

I just don't think NFL football is that simple.

If Brett plays well, then the risk was worth it. The Vikes are a good team, but could use a boost from solidifying the QB position.

I don't want to make this more complicated than it should be.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

What was I thinking? The Bears have the next Tom Brady, they'll probably win 4 of the next 5.


This is fun.

Well, realistically, vegas thought the bears had the same chance as the vikes.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

Favre also played in the NFC North which was largely a pathetic division the last 20 years.  With juggernauts like the Bucs, Lions and at times the Bears....ugly. 1 Super Bowl champion while the NFC East had a crap load.  So winning percentage has to also be put in that context. 

You're again focusing on regular season games which are great and they are important, but I think I've consistently said it's the BIG games, the truly important games, the games that win championships that are most important to me.  I don't really care much how someone does against the 4-12 Lions each year.

We all judge things differently.  For me, I want the championships.  Piling up records and nice stats in the regular season only to lay egg after egg after egg in the playoffs isn't what I like to see (which is why Romo is dead to me until he actually wins something ...he's DONE NOTHING).

You can argue about who had the better talent, I get it...certainly is very important, but for some reason in games where the Packers clearly had better talent and lost, it's excused.  I'll never understand why.

Favre in the playoffs = 12-10 54.5%
Aikman in the playoffs = 11-4  73.3%
Bradshaw in the playoffs = 14-5  73.7%
Montana in the playoffs = 16-7  69.6%
Elway in the playoffs = 14-7 66.7%    (he went 7-0 in his last playoff games to break away from .500)
Brady in the playoffs = 14-3 82.4%

Etc, etc

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

Fair argument, but that's also the direction the two teams went in.  The Packers installed a west coast offense to throw the ball, Favre benefited his stats as a result of this.  The Cowboys played a power game, Aikman's stats suffered as a result.  Favre also played in an easier division.  

I'm also not saying the interceptions on their own don't prevent him from being one of the greatest ever, but his interceptions in crucial, big games often were the difference maker which I do believe hurts that claim.  Is he one of the 20 best ever...of course.  One of the 15 best ever, most people would say yes....top 10, you start getting some disagreements, top 5....I don't think so, he fell short in too many big games.  Still makes him great, but the GREATEST of QB's don't make the bonehead plays he did in the biggest of games.

You should run your analysis of turnovers in playoff games vs the others and I think it will support what I'm saying.  30 TDs, 4000 yards in the regular season is wonderful....throwing 6 interceptions in a playoff game, turning the ball over 3 times at home against the Falcons in the playoffs, airmailing your first pass in OT against the Eagles for a INT, etc, etc.....just killer killer killer plays that the GREATEST QBs don't make in those situations.

[wadesworld]

All valid points.

My gut is this:

#1 The vikes are not the most popular team in town, and there is not a HUGE demand like there are for Packer tickets
#2 The vikes have a pretty good all-around team, but are missing a competent QB. I don't hate jackson, but realistically he hasn't taken enough steps forward to be handed the keys to a team this good. He'd be stunting the teams abilities.
#3 Chilly is under the gun (somewhat) and needs to win this season. He is supposed to be a great offensive mind, but has yet to prove it yet. In his mind, he's probably missing the QB that he needs to run the show.

Brett Favre does the following:
#1 Gives the fans something to talk about, and maybe get them excited
#2 Gives them the best chance to win. If he turns out to suck, the Vikes still have Jackson for this season. My guess is that Jackson nor Rosenfels did enough this year in training camp to make the coaching staff confident that they could win, and even if Brett came in and bombed, they could cut him and go back to jackson.
#3 Brett gives them the best chance to win this season, and the best chance to make Chilly look good.

Now, I'm not dumb enough to see that the Vikes are concentrating on only this season, but some people here (not necessarily you) have said that Brett was brought in to win a superbowl, and anything less is a failure.

I just don't think NFL football is that simple.

If Brett plays well, then the risk was worth it. The Vikes are a good team, but could use a boost from solidifying the QB position.

I don't want to make this more complicated than it should be.

Fair enough.  I just think the move was made to get the Vikings to the Super Bowl since they were already a playoff team without him and Brett isn't the LONG TERM answer to their quarterback problem from last year.  I don't mean to say that the whole Vikings team and organization are set up to win this year or not win at all, but the move to get Brett Favre by itself was for this year and this year only, no doubt about it.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Fair enough.  I just think the move was made to get the Vikings to the Super Bowl since they were already a playoff team without him and Brett isn't the LONG TERM answer to their quarterback problem from last year.  I don't mean to say that the whole Vikings team and organization are set up to win this year or not win at all, but the move to get Brett Favre by itself was for this year and this year only, no doubt about it.

I agree with you. Brett was brought in to win this year.

I'm just trying not to give into the whole "He has to win the superbowl" thing that others are trying to promote.

Winning the superbowl is the goal for every playoff team. The Vikes are no different.

With this said, Favre isn't jesus, and doesn't make the Vikings superbowl aspirations any larger than any other teams.

Do you think Chilly wants it MORE than McCarthy? No. They ALL want to win. Right?

[GOMU1104]

I agree with you. Brett was brought in to win this year.

I'm just trying not to give into the whole "He has to win the superbowl" thing that others are trying to promote.

Winning the superbowl is the goal for every playoff team. The Vikes are no different.

With this said, Favre isn't jesus, and doesn't make the Vikings superbowl aspirations any larger than any other teams.

Do you think Chilly wants it MORE than McCarthy? No. They ALL want to win. Right?

So if the Vikings go 9-7, and lose in the 1st round of the playoffs, this experiment will be considered a success? He won, right?

Chilly is far more desparate than McCarthy. Chilly's job is in on the line...which is why he pulled out all of the stops to bring in Favre.

[LON]

Question:  Has Childress ever been addressed publicly as Chilly prior to Favre in that press conference?

I'm just curious, because until I heard Favre say it I didn't know that was his nickname. 

And there is definitely a TLC joke that needs to be made, I'm just too lazy to do it.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

So if the Vikings go 9-7, and lose in the 1st round of the playoffs, this experiment will be considered a success? He won, right?
Here is my expectation:

Barring major injury, I would say a successful season would be 11 wins or more and at least 1 playoff victory. I'm certainly hopeful for more, but I just think so many things have to fall into place to make it to the superbowl that it's hard for me to pin that expectation on any team. Ask Carolina, or Tennessee.

Chilly is far more desparate than McCarthy. Chilly's job is in on the line...which is why he pulled out all of the stops to bring in Favre.
Agree somewhat, but let's face it, these are all highly motivated, highly competitive guys. They all want to win all of the time. If they didn't, they wouldn't work 100+ hours per week coaching football.

[Jay Bee]

We were a playoff team last year, yes.  We were NFC NORTH CHAMPIONS and many expected us to win the division again prior to Favre's arrival.  So should we have said, 'eff it, let's not look at upgrading our QB.  Tarvaris started a few games last year, absolutely bombed in the playoffs, and we can't imagine the kid ever throwing for more than 180 yards in a single game... but, hey, we made the playoffs with Frerotte.  Let's just stand pat.

WTF are you thinking?  No, you upgrade where you can.  In a city where our teams are notorious for NOT spending money on their rosters, it's been nice to see Wilf pony up over the years.  Favre makes us better this year and Tarvaris (and Sage) are not in the long term plans.  Easy choice - get Favre. 

This isn't an 'experiment'.  We had an opportunity to sign a better quarterback for the season and we did it - good job. 

Yes, Childress has been called Chilly a million times - it's not just Brett's pet name for the guy.  I'm not a big fan of Childress and I do believe his a$$ being on the line played into him going after Favre (again, better quarterback, better chances this season).... I also think from Wilf's perspective, especially as it relates to stadium desires, he was willing to pay for Favre (again, better quarterback, better chances this season... and it shows people he's willing to spend money to improve the team).   

Signing Favre was a BRILLIANT MOVE. 

non-Chilly TLC-related lyrics.. name the artists and songs for small props:
"Stab you in your Left Eye, make you see how I write / you ****s, don't sleep on me without your nightlight / eff the bedbugs I don't want your chick to bite / I'm the only Superhero to smoke kryptonite"
"T-boz was a goddess, I'm honest, .. I wouldn't lie to you / but I procrastinated like a paper overdue.."

Depending on a number of variables, we need to make the playoffs to have a decent year.  The variables do not all include Favre, not in the slightest.  Luckily we're in a division where the 'young stud QB" has a lifetime 42% winning percentage as a starter.

[jmayer1]

Favre in the playoffs = 12-10 54.5%
Aikman in the playoffs = 11-4  73.3%
Bradshaw in the playoffs = 14-5  73.7%
Montana in the playoffs = 16-7  69.6%
Elway in the playoffs = 14-7 66.7%    (he went 7-0 in his last playoff games to break away from .500)
Brady in the playoffs = 14-3 82.4%

Etc, etc

You act like Favre played horribly in big games and all these other guys were flawless.  Of course, that isn't the case, but you like to bring up a few times where Favre wasn't able to make the big play.  Nevermind that oftentimes one of the only reasons the Packers were there was because of #4. Favre has had some downright stinkers, especially recently, but nobody is confusing the Packers of the 2000's to the 90's Cowboys, 70's Steeler, or even the middle/late 90's Packers and Broncos.

Career Playoff Passer Rating (I know rating isn't perfect but it's the best there is):
Favre: 85.2
Aikman: 88.3 (You think Favre has had some bad games in the playoffs recently, look at the steaming pile of poo Aikman put out there over his last 4 playoff games)
Elway: 79.7
Bradshaw: 83.0

Btw, I'm leaving out Brady and Montana because I would rank them as better qbs than Favre, but I wouldn't rank any of the above 4 higher, especially considering what they did for each of their respective teams.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You act like Favre played horribly in big games and all these other guys were flawless.  Of course, that isn't the case, but you like to bring up a few times where Favre wasn't able to make the big play.  Nevermind that oftentimes one of the only reasons the Packers were there was because of #4. Favre has had some downright stinkers, especially recently, but nobody is confusing the Packers of the 2000's to the 90's Cowboys, 70's Steeler, or even the middle/late 90's Packers and Broncos.

Career Playoff Passer Rating (I know rating isn't perfect but it's the best there is):
Favre: 85.2
Aikman: 88.3 (You think Favre has had some bad games in the playoffs recently, look at the steaming pile of poo Aikman put out there over his last 4 playoff games)
Elway: 79.7
Bradshaw: 83.0

Btw, I'm leaving out Brady and Montana because I would rank them as better qbs than Favre, but I wouldn't rank any of the above 4 higher, especially considering what they did for each of their respective teams.

Absolutely agree that they have all had some stinkers. That's really my point.  Those last 4 Aikman games...terrible.  He contributed mightily to them losing, that's exactly my point about Favre.  In two of those games, Aikman had 3 interceptions, very difficult for a team to overcome. Equally agree that Favre had some good games.

Honestly, who has the reputation for playing poorly in playoff games among Favre, Aikman, Montana, Elway, Bradshaw, etc?   Favre just had MORE stinkers and LESS good games than the others.  I think that bears out in reality. 

Using passer rating is interesting.  In 9 of the 15 (60%) Aikman playoff games, he had a rating of over 100.  They won all 9 playoff games.  In 9 of 22 (40.9%) Favre playoff games, he had a rating of over 100.  They won all 9 playoff games.   Pretty simple, if the QB plays well, you're more likely to win.

Now for the stinkers:

Aikman had 2 games of a rating 60 or lower (13.3%).  They went 0-2 in those games.

Favre had 5 games of a rating 60 or lower, pretty bad 22.7%).  They went 1-4 in those games. 


How well the QB plays is one of the biggest contributing factors to winning or losing.  I want a guy with fewer stinkers and more of the better games.  Passer rating by game most certainly points it out.  If you do it by average, the way you've done it, it melds in the highs and the lows.  When Aikman played well, which was often in playoff games, they won.  When Favre played well, which was only 41% of the time, they won.  When Aikman played like crap, which was 13% of the time, they lost.  When Favre played like crap, nearly a quarter of the time, the almost always lost (winning one time).

[SaintPaulWarrior]

What was I thinking? The Bears have the next Tom Brady, they'll probably win 4 of the next 5.


This is fun.

Quoting an imbecile sports columninst is fun?

[GOMU1104]

Quoting an imbecile sports columninst is fun?

No, seeing MIN fans lying to themselves, and setting themselves up to not be disappointed...thats the fun part.

[Jay Bee]

No, seeing MIN fans lying to themselves, and setting themselves up to not be disappointed...thats the fun part.

  You're claiming that I am lying when I say, 'we did not sign Favre for the only reason that we believe it would assure us of a Super Bowl ring'?  You're a tahd.

  BTW, Favre is on the NFL official injury list.  The only reason he went as bad as he did last year is that he was injured... as evidenced by the fines received by the Jets and the former Jets coach recently (for not admitting it back then).  We are honest here in Minnesota, despite the petty tampering crying the disgraceful Packurs organization did last year.

  No matter, the guy has played with injuries and pain for years.. the only difference is now he's an upstanding family man and team guy, whereas back then he was wacked out by working in Green Bey and needing to take many drugs to stay halfway sane and deal with all the big girls. 

  Beating Wisconsin will be fun Saturday.  Beating Green Bey will be fun Monday.  Maybe the Twins can pull off a miracle, or at least the Wild can open nicely.  The next several days will be beautiful.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

No, seeing MIN fans lying to themselves, and setting themselves up to not be disappointed...thats the fun part.

Yep, you're right. I'm making excuses already.

Now that the Vikes have Favre, I have to think they are going to the superbowl, right?

It's not ok to think the defense is a year past it's prime, to think the offensive line isn't as good as we like to pretend (given up a lot of sacks so far), and to think that the old QB might breakdown.

I'm sorry for being a realist.

I'll start claiming they are going to the superbowl so you can feel better.