NFC North Pissing Match

[jmayer1]

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).

Why did you use 60?  Seems like quite a random #.  Maybe because it fit your arguement.

Playing with arbitrary numbers if fun, let me see if I can do it.

# of Games Below 40 Passer Rating:

Aikman - 2/16
Favre - 0/22

# of Games Below 50 Passer Rating:

Aikman - 2/16
Favre - 0/22

# of Games Below 60 Passer Rating:

Aikman - 2/16
Favre - 5/22

# of Games Below 70 Passer Rating:

Aikman - 5/16
Favre - 5/22

# of Games Below 80 Passer Rating:

Aikman - 7/16
Favre - 7/22

So your thesis that "Favre just had MORE stinkers and LESS good games than the others" is really total bs.  Looking at the stats you took the only number where Aikman had a statistical advantage (how convenient).  By my calculation the Cowboys had to overcome a bad game in the playoffs by Aikman nearly 44% of the time while the Packers were put in the same position only 32% of the time.  Maybe if Favre would have been surrounded by the same talent Aikman was, he could have done it more often.  Of course, maybe if Aikman wasn't so britle/fragile, he could have played a little longer and the 'Boys wouldn't be going on 13 years without a playoff win.  However, I don't claim to be an expert on this (or every subject for that matter like some on this board with 5k posts often do) so I'll leave it up to them to decide.  I'm not sure if I've ever seen somebody list Aikman ahead of Favre in a listing of the greatest quarterbacks.  

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Not much pissing going on today.

Let's just do the official predictions:

I'll say
Vikes 28
Pack 24

I think it will be close, but the Vikes have homefield adv. I realize a lot of the crowd will be packer fans, but it will still be loud and the turf plays a little faster than grass.

Jared Allen will give Aaron all he can handle.

[LON]

Not much pissing going on today.

Let's just do the official predictions:

I'll say
Vikes 28
Pack 24

I think it will be close, but the Vikes have homefield adv. I realize a lot of the crowd will be packer fans, but it will still be loud and the turf plays a little faster than grass.

Jared Allen will give Aaron all he can handle.

It will be loud because of the artificial crowd noise they have to pump in at the newly minted MoA Field...

I could make an objective pick, but since I'm going to be a shameless homer I say Packers 27 and Vikings 23

I think at least 7 of those points (for GB) are from DEF.

EDIT:  50 total points also gets me the tie-breaker in my Pick 'Em league...

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

It will be loud because of the artificial crowd noise they have to pump in at the newly minted MoA Field...

I could make an objective pick, but since I'm going to be a shameless homer I say Packers 27 and Vikings 23

I think at least 7 of those points (for GB) are from DEF.

EDIT:  50 total points also gets me the tie-breaker in my Pick 'Em league...

Its definitely the artificial noise.

Everybody knows football is supposed to be played inside, on plastic, with fake crowd noise being pumped in.

Don't you remember fall afternoons as a kid playing with your friends? Weren't there speakers at the park that pumped out Todd Rundgren songs?

[LON]

Its definitely the artificial noise.

Everybody knows football is supposed to be played inside, on plastic, with fake crowd noise being pumped in.

Don't you remember fall afternoons as a kid playing with your friends? Weren't there speakers at the park that pumped out Todd Rundgren songs?

We always blasted Ace of Base...

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why did you use 60?  Seems like quite a random #.  Maybe because it fit your arguement.

Playing with arbitrary numbers if fun, let me see if I can do it.

# of Games Below 40 Passer Rating:

Aikman - 2/16
Favre - 0/22

# of Games Below 50 Passer Rating:

Aikman - 2/16
Favre - 0/22

# of Games Below 60 Passer Rating:

Aikman - 2/16
Favre - 5/22

# of Games Below 70 Passer Rating:

Aikman - 5/16
Favre - 5/22

# of Games Below 80 Passer Rating:

Aikman - 7/16
Favre - 7/22

So your thesis that "Favre just had MORE stinkers and LESS good games than the others" is really total bs.  Looking at the stats you took the only number where Aikman had a statistical advantage (how convenient).  By my calculation the Cowboys had to overcome a bad game in the playoffs by Aikman nearly 44% of the time while the Packers were put in the same position only 32% of the time.  Maybe if Favre would have been surrounded by the same talent Aikman was, he could have done it more often.  Of course, maybe if Aikman wasn't so britle/fragile, he could have played a little longer and the 'Boys wouldn't be going on 13 years without a playoff win.  However, I don't claim to be an expert on this (or every subject for that matter like some on this board with 5k posts often do) so I'll leave it up to them to decide.  I'm not sure if I've ever seen somebody list Aikman ahead of Favre in a listing of the greatest quarterbacks.  

Why did I use 60, because that's a crappy passer rating.  I was pretty clear, if the QB plays crappy, you lose.  If the QB plays well, you win.

The AVERAGE QB rating in the last 10 years is 78.3.  Let's call that a C average.   60 and below is crap, an F.  That's why I used that number.  100 and above is an A, that's why I used that.

No argument building, I just did quick math by using the average and then going up or down from there by about 20 points.  To be "fairer" I should have used 98.3 and above for great games and 58.3 and below for crap games.  Guess what, it would have changed my numbers by exactly ZERO.


Simply put, if the QB has a great game, the stats show you almost ALWAYS win.  If the QB has a crappy game, the stats show you almost always lose.  Favre has had many more crap games and many fewer great games by % in the playoffs.  The stats don't lie.   Use Bradshaw instead of Aikman.  Use Brady instead of Aikman.  Use Montana instead of Aikman.  Doesn't matter to me, they all show the same thing.  In each case, they all beat Favre drastically because Favre has too many games where he played God awful. We know from the data, if the QB plays God awful, the team loses.  If the QB plays well, the team wins. It's very simple.

[NavinRJohnson]

Vikings - 23
Packers- 17

[jmayer1]

Why did I use 60, because that's a crappy passer rating.  I was pretty clear, if the QB plays crappy, you lose.  If the QB plays well, you win.

The AVERAGE QB rating in the last 10 years is 78.3.  Let's call that a C average.   60 and below is crap, an F.  That's why I used that number.  100 and above is an A, that's why I used that.

No argument building, I just did quick math by using the average and then going up or down from there by about 20 points.  To be "fairer" I should have used 98.3 and above for great games and 58.3 and below for crap games.  Guess what, it would have changed my numbers by exactly ZERO.


Simply put, if the QB has a great game, the stats show you almost ALWAYS win.  If the QB has a crappy game, the stats show you almost always lose.  Favre has had many more crap games and many fewer great games by % in the playoffs.  The stats don't lie.   Use Bradshaw instead of Aikman.  Use Brady instead of Aikman.  Use Montana instead of Aikman.  Doesn't matter to me, they all show the same thing.  In each case, they all beat Favre drastically because Favre has too many games where he played God awful. We know from the data, if the QB plays God awful, the team loses.  If the QB plays well, the team wins. It's very simple.

So 20 points up or down isn't an aribtrary number to use?  Why is 20 a better # to use than 10 or 30?

If 79.3 is the average of all qbs, then Aikman has had a higher % of games where he contribbuted less than the expected replacement player would than Favre has.  Simply put, he has hurt his team more often than he has helped his team as compared to Favre in the playoffs.

There are a lot guys that get paid to watch the NFL and form well-educated opinions based on this work.  Those guys nearly unanimously say that Aikman isn't nearly the qb that Favre is.  They also nearly unanimously say that Bradshaw isn't nearly the qb Favre is.  Some guys favor Elway over Favre and vice versa (I think Favre is better but it's fairly close).  I'll take their opinion over yours every day of the week and twice on Sunday, especially when you conveniently try to distort the numbers to fit your arguement.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Why did I use 60, because that's a crappy passer rating.  I was pretty clear, if the QB plays crappy, you lose.  If the QB plays well, you win.

The AVERAGE QB rating in the last 10 years is 78.3.  Let's call that a C average.   60 and below is crap, an F.  That's why I used that number.  100 and above is an A, that's why I used that.

No argument building, I just did quick math by using the average and then going up or down from there by about 20 points.  To be "fairer" I should have used 98.3 and above for great games and 58.3 and below for crap games.  Guess what, it would have changed my numbers by exactly ZERO.


Simply put, if the QB has a great game, the stats show you almost ALWAYS win.  If the QB has a crappy game, the stats show you almost always lose.  Favre has had many more crap games and many fewer great games by % in the playoffs.  The stats don't lie.   Use Bradshaw instead of Aikman.  Use Brady instead of Aikman.  Use Montana instead of Aikman.  Doesn't matter to me, they all show the same thing.  In each case, they all beat Favre drastically because Favre has too many games where he played God awful. We know from the data, if the QB plays God awful, the team loses.  If the QB plays well, the team wins. It's very simple.

Chico's, you and I have agreed on a lot of stuff in the past, but I think you're crazy on this one.

I understand that you hate interceptions, and you value superbowls... but I think you're missing a lot of other variables that go into QB play.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So 20 points up or down isn't an aribtrary number to use?  Why is 20 a better # to use than 10 or 30?

If 79.3 is the average of all qbs, then Aikman has had a higher % of games where he contribbuted less than the expected replacement player would than Favre has.  Simply put, he has hurt his team more often than he has helped his team as compared to Favre in the playoffs.

There are a lot guys that get paid to watch the NFL and form well-educated opinions based on this work.  Those guys nearly unanimously say that Aikman isn't nearly the qb that Favre is.  They also nearly unanimously say that Bradshaw isn't nearly the qb Favre is.  Some guys favor Elway over Favre and vice versa (I think Favre is better but it's fairly close).  I'll take their opinion over yours every day of the week and twice on Sunday, especially when you conveniently try to distort the numbers to fit your arguement.

Those "guys"...did they include Ron Wolf?      (I say that because he said the only QB he would take over Favre was Aikman).   At any rate, I disagree with your "near unanimous" conclusion.  There are many that don't even put Favre in their top 15 QBs.   There are some that put him at number 1, the responses are all over the board from the "experts".  As many of them will tell you, it comes down to what the criteria is.  For wins in playoffs it's not Favre.

If I can find the article, I'll post it...several years ago they interviewed current and former GMs about who they would want as QB in a must win game like the Super Bowl.   Favre barely registered....it was Montanta, Aikman, Bradshaw, etc that those current and past GMs chose.  Because GM's get it...it's about winning....it's about playing well. 

Favre played like crap too many times and his teams lost.  I really can't make it any more simpler.  Let's not forget that the QB rating formula doesn't even factor in fumbles, which Favre was also wonderful at putting on the ground during key playoff games.   I'm going to side with the GMs on this Jmayer1....give me a QB that protects the ball and actually WINS big games at a clip that exudes greatness.  Barely 50% isn't that clip.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chico's, you and I have agreed on a lot of stuff in the past, but I think you're crazy on this one.

I understand that you hate interceptions, and you value superbowls... but I think you're missing a lot of other variables that go into QB play.

Didn't I use the passer rating that you used the other day?     The data is pretty clear, if the QB passer rating is crappy, the team loses.  If it's great, the team wins.  If it's average (around 78.3 and a plus or minus), then it's up for grabs who is going to win.  Based on that data, why on earth wouldn't you want a QB that has a high passer rating in the playoffs and does it consistently....it correlates beautifully with winning.  In fact, I couldn't find ANY comparison where the team lost a playoff game amongst the QB's I looked at that had a 100 or better passing rating in that game.  I'm sure there are some examples as I didn't look that long, but by and large....the teams win that have great QB play and they often lose if they have crappy QB play. 

[Strokin 3s]

Packers 30
Queens 13

in a laugher....

[ChicosBailBonds]

Packers 27, Vikings 21

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Didn't I use the passer rating that you used the other day?     The data is pretty clear, if the QB passer rating is crappy, the team loses.  If it's great, the team wins.  If it's average (around 78.3 and a plus or minus), then it's up for grabs who is going to win.  Based on that data, why on earth wouldn't you want a QB that has a high passer rating in the playoffs and does it consistently....it correlates beautifully with winning.  In fact, I couldn't find ANY comparison where the team lost a playoff game amongst the QB's I looked at that had a 100 or better passing rating in that game.  I'm sure there are some examples as I didn't look that long, but by and large....the teams win that have great QB play and they often lose if they have crappy QB play. 

Passer rating is a decent way of looking at it.

The problem I have is that what goes into the passer rating.

On a great team, a QB might only have to throw 10 times and complete 9 of them with 2 TDs.

While I give that QB credit for an extremely efficient and smart game, I also have to look at another QB who is asked to carry his team differently.

My point is, QB rating without context isn't really worth that much. It's not like baseball where a lot of individual stats are solely based upon that individual. It's a true team sport, and therefore I feel like you need a lot of context when evaluating any player.

Aikman was a great player, no doubt. He played his role perfectly, and came up clutch in plenty of games.

However, he's not head and shoulders better than favre because he threw less interceptions by .3%. Farve was asked to do A LOT more than Aikman through the years, and therefore his TD's and INTs are inflated.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Fair points in terms of the passer rating and what goes into it.  I agree with you on that.


However, I don't think there is any denying the incredibly strong correlation of a high passing rating equals wins in the playoffs.  Whether the QB attempted 10 passes or 40 passes, those with a high QB Rating = playoff wins.  Low QB rating = losses.   It only makes sense because the rating rewards for TDs (i.e. points) and penalizes for interceptions = (lost scoring chances and potential scoring chances for opponent) among other things.

That correlation seems like a slam dunk to me, but what do I know.  I know you were only proving a point that if a guy completed 9 of 10 passes and 2 were TD's he'd have a killer QB rating....I say, so what.  That's efficient as hell.  Besides, we all know looking at the real world stats, those examples don't happen.  These guys are almost always throwing 20 times or more.  In six of Aikman's 100+ playoff rating games, he threw more than 30 attempts.  Only once was it less than 20 (18 attempts).

Playoff games, by their very nature, are more conservative and require absolute worship of the football.  There are only so many possessions a team is going to get.  Teams will shorten the game, run it, milk the clock.  Every possession critical.  Turnovers absolutely killer.  Can't have them in the playoffs, simply can't.

Also, I don't want this to be an Aikman love affair with me.  I would rather have him than Favre in a playoff game, no doubt.  But there are plenty of other QB's I'd rather have than Favre...and Aikman for that matter.

[jmayer1]

Those "guys"...did they include Ron Wolf?      (I say that because he said the only QB he would take over Favre was Aikman).   At any rate, I disagree with your "near unanimous" conclusion.  There are many that don't even put Favre in their top 15 QBs.   There are some that put him at number 1, the responses are all over the board from the "experts".  As many of them will tell you, it comes down to what the criteria is.  For wins in playoffs it's not Favre.

If I can find the article, I'll post it...several years ago they interviewed current and former GMs about who they would want as QB in a must win game like the Super Bowl.   Favre barely registered....it was Montanta, Aikman, Bradshaw, etc that those current and past GMs chose.  Because GM's get it...it's about winning....it's about playing well. 

Favre played like crap too many times and his teams lost.  I really can't make it any more simpler.  Let's not forget that the QB rating formula doesn't even factor in fumbles, which Favre was also wonderful at putting on the ground during key playoff games.   I'm going to side with the GMs on this Jmayer1....give me a QB that protects the ball and actually WINS big games at a clip that exudes greatness.  Barely 50% isn't that clip.

I would like to see some of these articles.  

I really can't make it any more simple: Aikman gave the Cowoboys a worse than average outing a greater percentage of playoff starts than Favre did, even though many of his teams weren't nearly as strong as those Aikman played on.  

Going by your criteria, Kurt Warner would rate ahead of Aikman-Much better playoff winning %, Much better playoff rating, Much fewer playoff stinkers.  

Obviously this is just my opinion, but if you put Favre in his prime on some of those Cowboy teams I'm not so sure that the '72 Dolphins would be standing alone as the only undefeated team.  Aikman wasn't the best player on his own team, let alone better than Favre.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I would like to see some of these articles.  

I really can't make it any more simple: Aikman gave the Cowoboys a worse than average outing a greater percentage of playoff starts than Favre did, even though many of his teams weren't nearly as strong as those Aikman played on.  

Going by your criteria, Kurt Warner would rate ahead of Aikman-Much better playoff winning %, Much better playoff rating, Much fewer playoff stinkers.  

Obviously this is just my opinion, but if you put Favre in his prime on some of those Cowboy teams I'm not so sure that the '72 Dolphins would be standing alone as the only undefeated team.  Aikman wasn't the best player on his own team, let alone better than Favre.

Laughable....Jimmie Johnson wouldn't have tolerated Favre's turnovers, nor would the team.  Besides, Favre could never win at Cowboys stadium, he never could handle the crown in the field.     Poor Brett, he never had any talent and had to do everything himself.  Good grief, such a canard.

Yes, you are correct by saying that in those playoff games Favre had more games above the average passer rating.  Of course that's also playing with the margins of average.  He had FEWER great games by percentage and MORE crappy games by %.   If the average rating is 78.3 and the QB has a 77...I mean really, give me a break...it's still an average game.  I was talking about the high and the low ends....the truly great playoff performances and the truly crappy ones.  I can't make it any more simple for you....when you have a great performance as a QB, your team wins.  When you have a crappy performance as a QB, your team loses.

Favre has had more crappy performances and fewer great performances by %....that is why he has a near .500 record in the playoffs. 


I'll look for the article tonight, think it was Oates or McGinn but it could have been Dr. Z who did it.

[wadesworld]

Packers 24
Vikings 14

Both TDs come from AP, who goes for just under 100 yards.  Favre throws 2 INTs and AP fumbles once.

Favre 2 TDs and 0 INTs.  Grant gets a TD.

[MU B2002]

Packers 24
Vikings 14

Both TDs come from AP, who goes for just under 100 yards.  Favre throws 2 INTs and AP fumbles once.

Favre 2 TDs and 0 INTs.  Grant gets a TD.

Did miss something, are there 2 Favre's?  Does the devoted Packer fan in you cringe at what you just did? 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Fair points in terms of the passer rating and what goes into it.  I agree with you on that.


However, I don't think there is any denying the incredibly strong correlation of a high passing rating equals wins in the playoffs.  Whether the QB attempted 10 passes or 40 passes, those with a high QB Rating = playoff wins.  Low QB rating = losses.   It only makes sense because the rating rewards for TDs (i.e. points) and penalizes for interceptions = (lost scoring chances and potential scoring chances for opponent) among other things.

Agree, but receivers, offensive line, defensive interceptions, etc. all play into how efficient a QB can be, and that's why QB rating needs context.

That correlation seems like a slam dunk to me, but what do I know.  I know you were only proving a point that if a guy completed 9 of 10 passes and 2 were TD's he'd have a killer QB rating....I say, so what.  That's efficient as hell.  Besides, we all know looking at the real world stats, those examples don't happen.  These guys are almost always throwing 20 times or more.  In six of Aikman's 100+ playoff rating games, he threw more than 30 attempts.  Only once was it less than 20 (18 attempts).

Great point, and I don't disagree that Aikman was effective. All I would say is that his effectiveness and QB rating are helped by being on a great team.

Playoff games, by their very nature, are more conservative and require absolute worship of the football.  There are only so many possessions a team is going to get.  Teams will shorten the game, run it, milk the clock.  Every possession critical.  Turnovers absolutely killer.  Can't have them in the playoffs, simply can't.

Well, then the version of the west coast offense that the Packers ran was terrible, because it featured Favre's arm as it's primary weapon, and anytime you throw it a lot, you'll be intercepted (please see favre's 3.3% INT ratio vs Aikman's 3.0% interception ratio.) I guess the packers should have run the ball more often like the cowboys did, it would have led to less turnovers and more playoff wins because the simple math is that less turnovers = more wins, right?

Also, I don't want this to be an Aikman love affair with me.  I would rather have him than Favre in a playoff game, no doubt.  But there are plenty of other QB's I'd rather have than Favre...and Aikman for that matter.

Fine. You are obviously welcome to your opinion, I just think you're leaving out a lot of context and variables in your evaluation.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Completely agree that the offensive line, receivers, etc play a key role.  The problem is, there isn't a stat really to show how well they are playing.  Beside, we can believe our own lying eyes with throws like this


http://funnycrave.com/brett-favres-6-greatest-interception-fests-of-all-time/1497/

 

http://jasonjeffrey.wordpress.com/brett-favre-career-interception-record-watch/

http://jasonjeffrey.wordpress.com/brett-favre-career-playoff-interception-record-watch/

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Completely agree that the offensive line, receivers, etc play a key role.  The problem is, there isn't a stat really to show how well they are playing.  Beside, we can believe our own lying eyes with throws like this


http://funnycrave.com/brett-favres-6-greatest-interception-fests-of-all-time/1497/

 

http://jasonjeffrey.wordpress.com/brett-favre-career-interception-record-watch/

http://jasonjeffrey.wordpress.com/brett-favre-career-playoff-interception-record-watch/

This doesn't really mean anything. You found a blog that lists his interceptions. Great. We already know that, I've never denied it.

Favre won 3 consecutive MVPs, and almost won another one in 07.

How many MVPs would he have to win to be considered a top 10 QB all time (in your mind)? If he wins one this year, is he better than Aikman?

He was ALWAYS GB's main weapon, and every offensive gameplan was designed to take advantage of that. Thus, his interception rate and chance for a great game/clunker game was increased. If you only ask a QB to throw 10 time per game, the odds are that he won't have a great or terrible game because it's hard to have an impact with only 10 throws.

Ask Favre to drop back 30 times, and you have to know that it might turn out fantastic, it might turn out bad. Either way, it's on Brett's arm.

Dallas rarely (if ever) put the game on Aikman's arm.

Brett has lost more games with interceptions, but he's also won more games with his arm than Aikman ever did. And yea, I know you can tell me that Aikman COULD HAVE made all of the throws, but in real life, he didn't.

[wadesworld]

Did miss something, are there 2 Favre's?  Does the devoted Packer fan in you cringe at what you just did? 

Haha oops...

[jmayer1]

He had FEWER great games by percentage and MORE crappy games by %.   

Actually, I've already show that not to be necessarily true.  You picked 60 for no real reason other than it was 20 points lower than the average.  If that's not an arbitrary number, then I don't know what is.  Again, why did you use 20?  Why not 10 or 30?  Personally I would say any game under 70 is a bad game and anything over 90 is a good game.  In between is prolly pretty average.  Of course, there is nothing set in stone to say what is or is not a good/bad passer rating. 

As posted previously:

# of Games Below 40 Passer Rating:
Aikman - 2/16
Favre - 0/22
Advantage: Favre

# of Games Below 50 Passer Rating:
Aikman - 2/16
Favre - 0/22
Advantage: Favre

# of Games Below 60 Passer Rating:
Aikman - 2/16
Favre - 5/22
Advantage: Aikman

# of Games Below 70 Passer Rating:
Aikman - 5/16
Favre - 5/22
Advantage: Favre

# of Games Below 80 Passer Rating:
Aikman - 7/16
Favre - 7/22
Advantage: Favre

Favre did have some talent around him, I'm not saying he didn't, but it would be quite disingenuous to say that he had the same array of weapons available as Aikman did.

[wadesworld]

  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.

Hmm, looks like VaJay Jay is 0-1.  This is the first time I've ever been happy that any University of Wisconsin sports team won.