MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: NavinRJohnson on August 26, 2009, 12:44:00 PM
-
With baseball season all but over for most of us, I think its time...
As a Packer fan I am cautiously optimistic. I think they might actually be pretty good. Obviously it will take Viking fans several weeks to realize what a mistake the Favre signing was, and Bear fans don't know what to do now that they actually seem to have a real QB in town. Should be a fun season...perhaps going all the way to week 17 before anything is decided.
-
I like the Packer's depth, and their adjustment to the 3-4 looks to be going well. Dom Capers has a proven track record of improving defenses in his 1st year as DC. The Vikings and Bears both have significant question marks, while the packers look solid all around.
-
Best by position:
QB: Packers
RBs: Vikings
WRs: Packers
TEs: Bears (but Packers are closer than many realize. Finley is legit.)
O-Line: Bears (probably)
D-Line: Vikings (without suspensions)
LBs: Bears
Secondary: Packers
Special Teams: Bears
-
With baseball season all but over for most of us, I think its time...
As a Packer fan I am cautiously optimistic. I think they might actually be pretty good. Obviously it will take Viking fans several weeks to realize what a mistake the Favre signing was, and Bear fans don't know what to do now that they actually seem to have a real QB in town. Should be a fun season...perhaps going all the way to week 17 before anything is decided.
Bears have a real QB in town? Hadn't heard that.
-
I like the Packer's depth, and their adjustment to the 3-4 looks to be going well. Dom Capers has a proven track record of improving defenses in his 1st year as DC. The Vikings and Bears both have significant question marks, while the packers look solid all around.
Not a Packers fan are you by chance? As most analysts have the Pack at #3 in the North with MN at the top.
-
The Lions win a game this year!
-
Vikings actually play in the NFC North. As we know, the consensus pick to win the division is Minnesota. I think the question is how long it takes. Minnesota starts off with a couple of road games that are winnable (Cleveland and Detroit), then we head home for the 49ers and GB (again, very winnable games). If we stumble out of the gate, things could get interesting. But, if we get through the first four at 4-0 and 3-1, I feel great about wrapping this thing up early.
People think the Bears have the best o-line? Crazy. If Loadholt holds his weight and Sullivan is servicable at center, we are golden. Not many people talk about AD being injury prone anymore like they did when he came into the league, but the possibility of an injury to him scares me probably more than anything else.
-
The Packers definitely have questions. I don't think any fan should be sitting comfy with Ryan Grant. While the 3-4 is hopefully a good implementation, we are still in preseason and very little should be taken from the results.
The Bears also have a lot of questions. Aging defensive (secondary especially), no #1 wide receiver, will Forte last or was he a fluke last year, plenty to go around.
The Vikings return the best RB in the league, but still have no QB. Receiver options are better than the Bears, but not as good as the Packers.
It's a tough call, no team will set the division on fire. I have to think the Vikings are the favorites, but it would be an easy one to bet against. There's a lot of talk about the Bears, but I think they have the most severe questions. The Packers have better depth, but I wouldn't trust the 3-4 quite yet.
-
In all seriousness, it may end up looking like the AL Central. First one to 9 wins takes the division. The top 3 teams are relatively even. If the retiring diva gets hot and stays healthy, and the Vikes can get past their d-line suspensions, they are probably marginal favorites. If Cutler really does walk on water in Chicago, da Bears can do it. But as in most years, the team with the least injuries and most karma probably wins this division.
-
As most analysts have the Pack at #3 in the North with MN at the top.
Kinda like last year, when many predicted teh Packers at the top of the divsion? How'd that turn out? When you factor in everything...changes, additions, subtractions, schedule, etc., the Packers look like they could surprise. Best offense in the division along with what looks to be a much improved defense. They suffered many injuries and several close losses last season.
That said, the top 3 spots will probably be separated by just a game or two.
-
Vikings actually play in the NFC North. As we know, the consensus pick to win the division is Minnesota. I think the question is how long it takes. Minnesota starts off with a couple of road games that are winnable (Cleveland and Detroit), then we head home for the 49ers and GB (again, very winnable games). If we stumble out of the gate, things could get interesting. But, if we get through the first four at 4-0 and 3-1, I feel great about wrapping this thing up early.
People think the Bears have the best o-line? Crazy. If Loadholt holds his weight and Sullivan is servicable at center, we are golden. Not many people talk about AD being injury prone anymore like they did when he came into the league, but the possibility of an injury to him scares me probably more than anything else.
Who is "we"....do you play for the Vikings?
-
Grabbed a couple magazines in the last week.
Athlons had 1. Chi 2. GB 3. Minn
The Joint Yahoo! Sports and Pro Football Weekly had 1. Chi 2. Minn 3. GB
Clearly, despite what one chump here seems to think there is no consensus as to the division winner. Of course, these predictions were made before the Vikes switched (some of their players think downgraded) from Jackson to Favre. Clearly, this looks like a very exciting race this year, but the NFL is so unpredictable I also wouldn't be surprised to see one team run away with it.
I was at the GB exhibition game last week and they look pretty good. The offense will almost assuredly be very explosive as long as Rodgers stays upright. In addition, the o-line definitely looks to be improving. The D has looked good so far but they have played a couple of pretty feeble offenses and the preseason doesn't count for jack.
-
It's anyones division to win, well except for Detroit! They do have a chance to win a game this year. I think the Bears, Vikes, and Packers all have a chance to end up in the 9-7 / 10-6 range, if a few bounces go their way, maybe 11-5. It doesn't hurt that we draw the NFC west this year. I'm a Bears fan, so obviously I want them to end up on top, but if I had to pick a division winner right now, I'm going with the Vikings. I'm not exactly sure why, but I just think they will come out on top.
-
In terms of schedule...all 3 teams play the same 14 teams, its the extra 2 where the Packers may have an advantage.
GBP - @ TB, vs. DAL
MIN - @ CAR, vs. NYG
CHI - @ ATL, vs. PHI
All teams play the entire NFCW and AFCN.
-
I was at the GB exhibition game last week and they look pretty good. The offense will almost assuredly be very explosive as long as Rodgers stays upright. In addition, the o-line definitely looks to be improving. The D has looked good so far but they have played a couple of pretty feeble offenses and the preseason doesn't count for jack.
We'll see how the Packer's D holds up against Zona this Friday. It should be the first real test they've had thus far.
-
I like Green Bay to win the north and I"m far from a Packer fan.
-
Hate to give a cliche answer... but these teams are all pretty close and injuries really could be the deciding factor.
The team that has their best players playing the most amount of downs will probably win the division (a little madden-esque, but you get the idea).
None of these teams are good enough to survive an serious injury to a key starter (top 3 players on either side of the ball)
-
Hate to give a cliche answer... but these teams are all pretty close and injuries really could be the deciding factor.
The team that has their best players playing the most amount of downs will probably win the division (a little madden-esque, but you get the idea).
None of these teams are good enough to survive an serious injury to a key starter (top 3 players on either side of the ball)
So your vote is for a 3 way tie, that way no one's feelings are hurt by having to lose? ;)
I say Chicago and MN tie, but Chicago wins on Tie breaker rule #6 (strength of schedule) due to the Atlanta/Philly games.
Is that a homer pick? Yes.
Do I care? No.
-
Who is "we"....do you play for the Vikings?
No, Kyle, I don't play for the Vikings. Is using 'we' really that upsetting to you? You have used 'we' when discussing Marquette basketball dozens of time on this site - do you play for the Marquette's men basketball team?
jmayer1: "Grabbed a couple magazines in the last week.
Athlons had 1. Chi 2. GB 3. Minn
The Joint Yahoo! Sports and Pro Football Weekly had 1. Chi 2. Minn 3. GB
Clearly, despite what one chump here seems to think there is no consensus as to the division winner. "
Oh, so some predictions that were made pre-Favre? Big deal. Go look at this Athlon article and tell me they would still put Minnesota at #3.
http://www.athlonsports.com/pro-football/17463/nfl-favre-in-position-to-succeed-with-vikings
"Cutler doesn’t have the defense behind him that Favre does. Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers doesn’t, either, and his running game is questionable. Favre, in Minnesota, has everything a quarterback could need.
So forget about his legacy, his constant indecision about retirement, and the fact that he went only 1-for-4 in his first preseason action. The Vikings were strong contenders to represent the up-for-grabs NFC at the Super Bowl even before Favre arrived. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that they’re even stronger contenders now."
Serious question, I'm ignorant here: What does the backup RB situation look like in Green Bay this year?
-
Serious question, I'm ignorant here: What does the backup RB situation look like in Green Bay this year?
In my opinion...maybe better than the starting RB situation.
-
I'm ignorant...
Good of you to finally admit it.
-
No, Kyle, I don't play for the Vikings. Is using 'we' really that upsetting to you? You have used 'we' when discussing Marquette basketball dozens of time on this site - do you play for the Marquette's men basketball team?
Serious question, I'm ignorant here: What does the backup RB situation look like in Green Bay this year?
I dont want to hijack the thread, so I think it may be deserving of another one, but using the "we" term really bothers me. As discussed on "Mike and Mike in the Morning" a while back...you can use "we" for your alma mater, but not if you are simply a fan of the team.
As for the Packers' RB situation... Grant, Brandon Jackson, Sutton/Wynn/Lumpkin.
-
So your vote is for a 3 way tie, that way no one's feelings are hurt by having to lose? ;)
Do I care? No.
Well, I'll say MN, because if their players stay healthy, they probably have the most upside.
The bears defense feels like it's 2 years past their prime (although maybe some of the younger guys can come in and surprise) The Packers don't have the most talent, but they have pretty good depth, so I'd say they as 2nd in the division.
Vikes 11-5
Pack 10-6
Bears 8-8
-
jmayer1: "Grabbed a couple magazines in the last week.
Athlons had 1. Chi 2. GB 3. Minn
The Joint Yahoo! Sports and Pro Football Weekly had 1. Chi 2. Minn 3. GB
Clearly, despite what one chump here seems to think there is no consensus as to the division winner. "
Oh, so some predictions that were made pre-Favre? Big deal. Go look at this Athlon article and tell me they would still put Minnesota at #3.
http://www.athlonsports.com/pro-football/17463/nfl-favre-in-position-to-succeed-with-vikings
Haha, you're quoting one article written by one of the many writers at Athlon to say that they would now put Minny at #1. Maybe they would but there's no way to say for sure based on what 1 guy wrote. I guess I can use these two articles to say that SI won't have them as favorites to win the division then (I think Zimmerman's were usually the picks in the magazine, not sure what they'll do now):
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ross_tucker/08/19/favre/index.html (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ross_tucker/08/19/favre/index.html)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/08/18/favre/index.html (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/08/18/favre/index.html)
You sure are dense. Do you even know the meaning of consensus? I guess not!!
As for my prediction, right now based on my homer feeling I'd put them like this:
1. Pack
2. Bears
3. Vikes
-
I'm a homer but I think if the Bears aging defense shores itself up a bit they could eek out a division title.
1. Bears (10-6)
2. Pack (9-7)
3. Vikes (9-7)
-
Vikes go 0-16 and the team moves to LA before the playoffs even start.
/homer'd
-
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/news/story?id=4424660 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/news/story?id=4424660)
Going to be awesome to watch how Childress handles this (which is to say doesn't handle this) when Favre goes bust!
-
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/news/story?id=4424660 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/news/story?id=4424660)
Going to be awesome to watch how Childress handles this (which is to say doesn't handle this) when Favre goes bust!
Not surprising at all.
If they lose, the Favre move will be blamed (and probably rightfully so).
If they win, Favre will be hailed as a great veteran who brought a winning attitude.
It will come down to W's and L's. Divided locker room or not. "Just win baby" is the approach this season.
Plain and simple.
-
Vikings actually play in the NFC North. As we know, the consensus pick to win the division is Minnesota. I think the question is how long it takes. Minnesota starts off with a couple of road games that are winnable (Cleveland and Detroit), then we head home for the 49ers and GB (again, very winnable games). If we stumble out of the gate, things could get interesting. But, if we get through the first four at 4-0 and 3-1, I feel great about wrapping this thing up early.
People think the Bears have the best o-line? Crazy. If Loadholt holds his weight and Sullivan is servicable at center, we are golden. Not many people talk about AD being injury prone anymore like they did when he came into the league, but the possibility of an injury to him scares me probably more than anything else.
So you're talking about question marks on 2/5 of your offensive line, one involving a rookie starting right tackle and the other about replacing all pro center Matt Birk, but you're going to be "golden"? That's interesting.
-
You beat me to it PXI
-
In terms of schedule...all 3 teams play the same 14 teams, its the extra 2 where the Packers may have an advantage.
GBP - @ TB, vs. DAL
MIN - @ CAR, vs. NYG
CHI - @ ATL, vs. PHI
All teams play the entire NFCW and AFCN.
In my opinion, it will be decided in the last 5 weeks. Looking at the schedules there:
Vikings
@ AZ
Cincy
@ Car
@ Chi
NYG
Bears
Stl
GB
@ Bal
Min
@ Det
Pack
Bal
@ Chi
@ Pit
Sea
@ Az
If it comes down to these final five weeks with the 3 teams locked tight, the Bears have a huge advantage. They'd essentially control their own destiny, getting both the Vikings and Packers at home, mix in the Rams and Lions in there, and it's advantage Chicago. A lot of football has to be played before that however.
-
The FootballOutsiders.com statistical analysis has the Bears as the team most likely to finish with the #1 seed in the NFC.
So much for consensus.
-
The FootballOutsiders.com statistical analysis has the Bears as the team most likely to finish with the #1 seed in the NFC.
So much for consensus.
Definitions are subjective in Minnesota.
-
http://n2.nabble.com/Brett-Favre-Drama-Queen-td3472139.html (http://n2.nabble.com/Brett-Favre-Drama-Queen-td3472139.html)
Drama Queen.
For you Viking fans, Favre will lose more games than AP will win.
Be prepared for an egomaniacal heartache.
For you Bear fans, Cutler is just gonna get frustrated because the system sucks and so does the surrounding personel.
For you Lion fans, Stafford will help with a 4 win season-not too shabby.
For the Packer fans, still no run game and no run stop game (don't trust the 3-4 yet), but the Pack-Attack will be able to throw the football all over the place.
I agree with the first to 9 wins gets the division. Let it be the Pack-Attack (Big time homer pick, but this is a pissing match and Rodgers is the big D*** around town).
-
Favre claims to have a cracked rib, even though he appears nowhere on the injury report (Don't teams sometimes get fined for such things, or is that only in the regular season?).
How convenient for him to throw this little nugget out before tonight's game knowing full well the Monday Night Boo Ya crowd will lap it up and beg for more. Another built in excuse should he put up a poor performance.
Will Viking fans turn on him before or after the bye week?
(http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/news/story?id=4434939)
-
Will Viking fans turn on him before or after the bye week?
(http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/news/story?id=4434939)
Well, a logical fan would probably truthfully acknowledge that he wasn't what they wanted around week 3.
But we are talking about Minnesotans and Viking fans. Including the decreased IQ into the "fandom expectations and is it ok to boo yet" equation. I predict they will lose favor in favre around week 14 and demand Jackson Back.
-
Favre claims to have a cracked rib, even though he appears nowhere on the injury report (Don't teams sometimes get fined for such things, or is that only in the regular season?).
How convenient for him to throw this little nugget out before tonight's game knowing full well the Monday Night Boo Ya crowd will lap it up and beg for more. Another built in excuse should he put up a poor performance.
Will Viking fans turn on him before or after the bye week?
(http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/news/story?id=4434939)
The excuses are starting, and we aren't even to week 1 yet?
-
I hear his vajay-jay is hurting too...
What a b!tch
I think I'm going to start calling the Minnesota Vikings the Brett Favre's, since they have clearly made 1 player bigger than the rest of their whole franchise.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VfHnCwLp14
Just saw this
-
Can Favre even throw the ball to a receiver who is more than 5 yards away with ANY accuracy whatsoever?
-
Can Favre even throw the ball to a receiver who is more than 5 yards away with ANY accuracy whatsoever?
Yes. I'm pretty sure a starting NFL QB can throw it more than 5 yards accurately.
-
Yes. I'm pretty sure a starting NFL QB can throw it more than 5 yards accurately.
Really? Weird, I couldn't tell based on tonight.
-
I hear his vajay-jay is hurting too...
What a b!tch
I think I'm going to start calling the Minnesota Vikings the Brett Favre's, since they have clearly made 1 player bigger than the rest of their whole franchise.
You better hope rugbydrummer doesn't read this post. Dude, give it up -- AD is the man of this team, although there a ton of stars in Minnesota. If Favre plays every game like he did tonight, which is 'OK', we're going to have a great season. Our roster is flat out impressive and improved from last year... a year when we won the division championship and won 4 more games than Erin's club.
We have a lot of if's... but if they turn to the good, for example.. Percy Harvin limits his rookie mistakes... Bernard Berrian gets healthy... look out, NFL. If some things go wrong, we still win the division.
-
Really? Weird, I couldn't tell based on tonight.
That's a good point.
I never thought about it like that, but now that you mention it, that's pretty insightful.
On a related note, Adrian Peterson is going to average 10.6 yards per carry this season because that's what he averaged in 1/2 a game in the pre-season.
-
On a related note, Adrian Peterson is going to average 10.6 yards per carry this season because that's what he averaged in 1/2 a game in the pre-season.
You think so?
-
Farve is no Jay Cutler. NFC North is up for grabs
-
before everyone jumps on me for saying the preseason isn't worth anything, the packers have outscored their opponents by 66 when the first team is in. Their offense seems to be firing on all cylinders, if they can continue this pace of play packers should be able to get 10+ wins. Packers WRs are stacked and if they can get Jackson into the run game a bit more he and grant should be successful 1-2. I've very excited for the defense as well. I hope they can continue to get the turnovers they have been getting. Offensively they have the best pass game in the division, though both Minnesota and Chicago can run the ball better. Defensively Vikings or Packers take the top slot.
Concerning the Vikings I'm still not sure that a 39 year old Brett Favre is better than Tavaris Jackson. (or at least that talent gap is big enough to justify signing Favre. Their defense is gonna be able to keep them in most games though.
With the bears, though Forte is golden, but who is Jay auntler going to throw to besides Greg Olsen? I'm even suprising myself by saying they are the 3rd best defense in the division, but I think that speaks to the quality of the division and my homerism.
I honestly cant really predict a winner of the division. North plays a relatively easy schedule this year. Every team plays the Cardinals and Steelers (and Ravens). Packers play the Cowboys, Vikings have the Giants and the bears play the Falcons (and eagles). These games could be the definitive games for each team
Oh and The lions will win 4 games maybe 5. Anymore and it's a great season. Stafford and Calvin Johnson are the making of some offensive weapons and within a few years if they continue to build they'll change the dynamic of the division.
-
before everyone jumps on me for saying the preseason isn't worth anything, the packers have outscored their opponents by 66 when the first team is in. Their offense seems to be firing on all cylinders, if they can continue this pace of play packers should be able to get 10+ wins.
Concerning the Vikings I'm still not sure that a 39 year old Brett Favre is better than Tavaris Jackson. (or at least that talent gap is big enough to justify signing Favre. Their defense is gonna be able to keep them in most games though.
Look back to last year, chief. The Packers had no problems scoring - they scored by far the most in the NFC North and I think they were about #3 in the conference in TD's scored. Yet, they only won 6 games. 6 fricken games - pathetic. "Ooh, but we were close" doesn't count in the NFL - be a winner, or you're the opposite. 10+ wins if the offense is firing on all cylinders. Get real.
I think* you mean Tarvaris Jackson, but maybe we've added a 5th QB over the past few hours. I am sure Favre is leaps and bounds better (for this season) than Jackson. I also believe Sage is a better option than Tarvaris and would hope we trade Tarvaris (even for a 6th round pick) and keep JDB.
Keep on getting overly excited by preseason results -- it's the only time in 2009 you'll feel like you have a chance (although both GB and MINN are 3-0 thus far).
-
The Packer's problems last year were almost entirely on the defensive side of the ball. The breakdowns in the fourth quarter were terrible. Aaron Rodgers was a very good QB last year and will be better this year.
If Favre plays in control like he did last night, and realizes that Peterson is their main threat, the Vikings will win a lot of football games.
-
I think* you mean Tarvaris Jackson, but maybe we've added a 5th QB over the past few hours.
You would. ::)
-
Jay Bee once again proving he knows nothing about the NFL.
-
before everyone jumps on me for saying the preseason isn't worth anything,
With the bears, though Forte is golden, but who is Jay auntler going to throw to besides Greg Olsen? I'm even suprising myself by saying they are the 3rd best defense in the division, but I think that speaks to the quality of the division and my homerism.
1. Lions went 4-0 last year in the preseason, so yes it means nothing.
2. Cutler will have plenty of options, albeit not big names, in the passing game. Forte is one of the best at catching the ball out of the backfield, and Hester should find a lot more success with a QB that can get the ball to him when he is more than 20 yards away. While the Bears might not have a Greg Jennings type talent, they'll get by. And who knows maybe we get Brandon Marshall for $.20 on the dollar by October 1.
-
You think so?
Nope.
But, I also think Brett Favre can throw more than 5 yards. So we can disagree on 2 things.
-
But, I also think Brett Favre can throw more than 5 yards. So we can disagree on 2 things.
I think he can throw farther than 5 yards, but I honestly do have significant doubts about his ability to make all of the throws anymore. He demonstrated that last year...not sure why this year would be any different.
-
I think he can throw farther than 5 yards, but I honestly do have significant doubts about his ability to make all of the throws anymore. He demonstrated that last year...not sure why this year would be any different.
I agree with that. I certainly don't think he's as good as he was.
However, I do believe he can throw more than 5 yards.
Honestly, he's probably going to have to make about 4-5 good plays per game to be effective. What I mean is, 4 or 5 times per game he's going to have to make a great QB read, or scramble a little and make a strong throw, or make the correct audible and throw over the top when a team packs it in. Those are things that Jackson isn't really capable of doing (yet).
I'm not saying any of those things are easy, but realistically Brett doesn't have to shoulder the load on offense. He just has to make some key plays to keep drives alive and show a couple of deep balls per game to keep defenses from packing it in against Peterson.
IF everybody stays healthy (big if), the Vikes are going to be good. I think the John Elway/Terrel Davis comparison is pretty good. Elway was still a good player in his late years, but he wasn't the key to the offense like in previous years.
Brett might not have as much left in the tank as Elway in 97/98, but it's a similar situation.
-
Brett might not have as much left in the tank as Elway in 97/98, but it's a similar situation.
I think its a terrible comparison. For one, Elway was never the turnover machine that Favre has been his entire career. Add a couple birthdays to the mix, and it gets even worse. In his prime, Favre had the ability to make up for his own turnovers with spectacular plays. Those days are gone. Every INT he throws now equals a couple less carries for AP. That is the nightmare scenario for the Vikings.
-
People keep mentioning the lack of "name" receivers on the Bears. It begs the question, do the receivers make a quarterback great, or does a quarterback make his receivers better?
No question after seeing Cutler up close that his arm strength and mobility in the pocket will make guys like Earl Bennett much better. FWIW, I think Hester is a terrible receiver. Poor hands, runs bad routes. I don't think even Cutler can make Hester a great receiver.
Olsen should make the Pro Bowl this season. Bears will utliize him a lot as an H back and in the slot. Linebackers and defensive ends won't be able to cover him. The new "monster" goal line set with Olsen, Dez Clark, and Kellen Davis on the field all at once is a terrible match up for opposing defenses (see Giants/Broncos preseason games).
Cutler also has one of the best check down options in the league with Forte. As Peter King pointed out yesterday, Forte could catch 90 passes this season.
Bears should have few problems scoring points this season. It's the giving up a ton of points that worries me as a Bears fan.
-
I think its a terrible comparison. For one, Elway was never the turnover machine that Favre has been his entire career. Add a couple birthdays to the mix, and it gets even worse. In his prime, Favre had the ability to make up for his own turnovers with spectacular plays. Those days are gone. Every INT he throws now equals a couple less carries for AP. That is the nightmare scenario for the Vikings.
I respectfully disagree.
While I realize Brett is a "gunslinger" (a lame cliche btw), I do think he can effectively manage a team and game without throwing the ball all over the field. I know he has a big ego and thinks he can do anything, but he also has to be excited that he doesn't have to throw it all over the field to be effective on this team.
You could be right, I might be right.
The beautiful thing is that we are going to find out.
EDIT: Just adding some stats to clarify the comparison. You are certainly right that Brett has a higher interception rate, but his TD/INT ratio is better (higher risk/higher reward scenario).
Also, Brett will be 39 at the start of the year, Elway was 38 in his last season. Brett is higher mileage (more games), but has been extremely durable through the years, so we'll have to see how he holds up. Elway was pretty durable, but did miss some games because of injury.
Games started TD's per game INT's per game TD/INT Ratio
Favre 231 2.01 1.34 1.50/1
Elway 269 1.12 0.84 1.33/1
-
Look back to last year, chief. The Packers had no problems scoring - they scored by far the most in the NFC North and I think they were about #3 in the conference in TD's scored. Yet, they only won 6 games. 6 fricken games - pathetic. "Ooh, but we were close" doesn't count in the NFL - be a winner, or you're the opposite. 10+ wins if the offense is firing on all cylinders. Get real.
I think* you mean Tarvaris Jackson, but maybe we've added a 5th QB over the past few hours. I am sure Favre is leaps and bounds better (for this season) than Jackson. I also believe Sage is a better option than Tarvaris and would hope we trade Tarvaris (even for a 6th round pick) and keep JDB.
Keep on getting overly excited by preseason results -- it's the only time in 2009 you'll feel like you have a chance (although both GB and MINN are 3-0 thus far).
So what happened last year is entirely indicative of what will happen this year? Got it. Let me spell this out for you. Tarvaris Jackson (yes, I'm anal about spelling, so I won't give you the opportunity to be a total b*tch about it) was ridiculously efficient over the last five games last year. There is a chance that he was actually coming to his own. Instead of letting him grow in the offense, your head coach (apparently motivated by his lack of testicles) let an almost-40 year old QB jerk him and the rest of your locker room around, and walk right into a starting job without doing anything to earn it except lead the NFL in turnovers last year.
It smacks of hypocritical if you'll acknowledge that the Packers scored all those points and lost 10 games, but won't acknowledge that your current starting QB pulled an epic collapse over the final five games last year, almost single handedly eliminating a contender from the playoffs.
Now, consider for a moment that the Packers scored ALL those points last year, return an improving second year starter at QB, another weapon at TE coming into his own, and have a healthy starting RB. If Dom Capers even marginally improves the defense over the joke that was last year, the Packers are are going to win a lot of games. If he improves them more than that, they're instant contenders. I honestly don't know what part of "great offense" and "great defense" makes you think that we'll repeat 6-10. But you'll spew some garbage about how Capers has turned around the last six defenses he's coached in the first year means nothing, but the fact that we won six games last year and you won ten does. Hypocritical? Absolutely. Will someone call you out on it? I plan to.
I'll even give a little shout out to my rivals from the south. They won nine games last year, have a second year stud at RB, a veteran defense, one of the better special teams units in the NFL, and a more dynamic QB. If they find any offensive weapons other than Forte and Olsen, they'll be a factor in this division, too. But you'll never admit that.
We know, we know. You won the division last year (and got blown out in the playoffs). We won it the year before. The Bears won it the year before that. The NFC North sure as hell isn't your birthright. And, obviously, neither are world championships. So for the life of me, I can't figure out why you think the way you do, but I'm going to turn it into a very profitable investment for myself.
Scour that post for misspellings to exploit so you don't actually need to talk about football. I doubt you'll find any. I'd appreciate a reply other than "we won ten games last year." Specifically, how a thirty nine year old quarterback with a surgically repaired biceps and a torn rotator cuff who did no offseason work with your team is a better option than a young, growing quarterback. The only direction Favre can go is south. This dink and dunk crap that we saw last night will work just fine against the hapless Texans D and their tackle-missing tendencies, but when he's forced to go over the top and "make a play out there", you're going to see him throw away some games for you, and I'm going to enjoy every minute of it.
-
I do think he can effectively manage a team and game without throwing the ball all over the field.
Besides wanting to believe it, what evidence is there to suggest this? When has he ever demonstrated as much? Perhaps in his prime in the mid-90's with Coach Holmgren. He's not in his prime. Its not the mid-90's, and Childress is not Mike Holmgren.
Again, keep believing it if you want, but doing so, seems to require ignoring history.
-
People keep mentioning the lack of "name" receivers on the Bears. It begs the question, do the receivers make a quarterback great, or does a quarterback make his receivers better?
No question after seeing Cutler up close that his arm strength and mobility in the pocket will make guys like Earl Bennett much better. FWIW, I think Hester is a terrible receiver. Poor hands, runs bad routes. I don't think even Cutler can make Hester a great receiver.
Olsen should make the Pro Bowl this season. Bears will utliize him a lot as an H back and in the slot. Linebackers and defensive ends won't be able to cover him. The new "monster" goal line set with Olsen, Dez Clark, and Kellen Davis on the field all at once is a terrible match up for opposing defenses (see Giants/Broncos preseason games).
Cutler also has one of the best check down options in the league with Forte. As Peter King pointed out yesterday, Forte could catch 90 passes this season.
Bears should have few problems scoring points this season. It's the giving up a ton of points that worries me as a Bears fan.
I think it's a give and take thing. Cutler is clearly more talented than Orton, but he's also prone to making bad decisions. His big mass stats came as a combination of his talent and the fact that the Broncos just chuck all game long. He put the ball up 616 times last year. It's a given the Bears won't let that happen. Forty five hundred yards is impressive, but his yards/attempt (7.4) was less than Rodgers (7.5), he just threw the ball 80 more times.
I don't mean to turn this into a Rodgers vs. Cutler post, I've just heard so many comparisons (in Cutler's favor) that I need to lay out why I feel like Cutler is mildly overrated in that respect. Orton put the ball up 465 times last year. Ironically, in '07, Cutler put the ball up 467 times, for 3500 yards, 20TD/14 INT. Not a bad year by any means. But it doesn't look like last year's numbers for Cutler, and they won't mimic last year unless Lovie/Turner have a major change of philosophy this year. That being said, I don't think any Bears fan would be unhappy with 20TD/14INT and 3500 yards, and they shouldn't be. He's an improvement at quarterback, but it remains to be seen if he's good enough to overcome the loss of a bona fide #1 like Marshall (104 receptions a year ago, 102 in '07). Typically, the TD% and INT% numbers seem to return to the median, and Cutler is 4.4% TD, 3.0% INT, so translate that out to however many attempts they give him in this offense, and it should be close. For comparison's sake, as a Packer homer, Rodgers' one year as a starter gives him a base of 4.9%TD and 2.4%INT to work with. If he continues on that track, that's not only top 10 but top 5 status.
But back to the Bears. Cutler is a fresh face at QB with a much better arm than Orton ever possessed. If he can keep his poor decisions to a minimum, we'll definitely have a three team race in the North. As we know, my money is on the Pack. But this will be fun to watch.
-
Besides wanting to believe it, what evidence is there to suggest this? When has he ever demonstrated as much? Perhaps in his prime in the mid-90's with Coach Holmgren. He's not in his prime. Its not the mid-90's, and Childress is not Mike Holmgren.
Again, keep believing it if you want, but doing so, seems to require ignoring history.
Just ask Jay Bee, he's incredible at ignoring history. Unless the only history you acknowledge is that the Vikings won the division last year. That's the extent of his NFL knowledge.
Unless you include "except for having 40% of our offensive line being new starters, one as a rookie and one replacing a career all-pro center, we're golden on the offensive line."
::)
-
Favre will just illegally (and cheaply) crackback every safety they play so he can start chucking bombs against second stringers...
Then he'll fart in the huddle and laugh and Gruden will talk without the use of his hands for once and we all look on in admiration of a 40 year old "just having fun out there"...
-
Just ask Jay Bee, he's incredible at ignoring history. Unless the only history you acknowledge is that the Vikings won the division last year. That's the extent of his NFL knowledge.
Unless you include "except for having 40% of our offensive line being new starters, one as a rookie and one replacing a career all-pro center, we're golden on the offensive line."
::)
Judging by his extensive use of "we" and "our," I would suspect he has significant inside knowledge of the organization. He could work for them, play for them, heck...he may even be the guy who blows the horn...
-
Besides wanting to believe it, what evidence is there to suggest this? When has he ever demonstrated as much? Perhaps in his prime in the mid-90's with Coach Holmgren. He's not in his prime. Its not the mid-90's, and Childress is not Mike Holmgren.
Again, keep believing it if you want, but doing so, seems to require ignoring history.
You're right. He has a big ego and has always loved to sling it.
However, just 2 years ago Brett was lauded for effectively managing the team and their short passing game. He sliced and diced secondaries with a short, controlled passing game and let the receivers run after the catch (I believe the Packers led the league in YAC that year).
His TD/INT ratio was an impressive 1.8/1 and people were loving him for modifying some of his old ways. Late in the Giants game, he made a poor decision and a bad throw, and it cost the Pack. No doubt.
Now, in 2009, do I think he's going to become Neil O'Donnell? Nope.
Do I think he can be effective? Yes, if healthy (big IF) I think Brett can be effective in 2009.
Also, I've added some stats to my previous post about the Elway comparison. I still think it's a pretty good comparison. I know you disagree. Do you have a better one?
-
Rodgers is better than Cutler...not by a wide margin necessarily, but he's a better QB. There is no comparison between the Packers receivers and the Bears. The Bears get the nod at TE, but like the QB comparison, the margin is much slimmer than many people think.
I like Forte, but he's just a guy - nothing special. He could catch that many passes because their receivers can't. That's a big number, that I agree with, but it is not necessarily a good thing.
The Bears offense will be ok...certainly better than past years. It does look as if their defense probably has gotten worse, not better though.
It is looking as if the Bears are probably the third team in a three team race, but it will probably be close, so an injury or two and a lucky bounce here or there for all three teams could make the difference.
-
You're right. He has a big ego and has always loved to sling it.
However, just 2 years ago Brett was lauded for effectively managing the team and their short passing game. He sliced and diced secondaries with a short, controlled passing game and let the receivers run after the catch (I believe the Packers led the league in YAC that year).
His TD/INT ratio was an impressive 1.8/1 and people were loving him for modifying some of his old ways. Late in the Giants game, he made a poor decision and a bad throw, and it cost the Pack. No doubt.
Now, in 2009, do I think he's going to become Neil O'Donnell? Nope.
Do I think he can be effective? Yes, if healthy (big IF) I think Brett can be effective in 2009.
Also, I've added some stats to my previous post about the Elway comparison. I still think it's a pretty good comparison. I know you disagree. Do you have a better one?
He was also lauded for coming into Green Bay in March, studying film all off season, participating in off season activities, and working out with a personal trainer while he was off. When he retired, he said that he still loved to play on Sundays, but it was the stuff in between that he couldn't make a 100% commitment to. That's fine. Now he found a team that doesn't require him to do that other stuff.
Childress and his crew are being even softer on Brett than Sherman was in his last year in Green Bay (2005). And we all remember how that turned out.
-
Rodgers is better than Cutler...not by a wide margin necessarily, but he's a better QB. There is no comparison between the Packers receivers and the Bears. The Bears get the nod at TE, but like the QB comparison, the margin is much slimmer than many people think.
I like Forte, but he's just a guy - nothing special. He could catch that many passes because their receivers can't. That's a big number, that I agree with, but it is not necessarily a good thing.
The Bears offense will be ok...certainly better than past years. It does look as if their defense probably has gotten worse, not better though.
It is looking as if the Bears are probably the third team in a three team race, but it will probably be close, so an injury or two and a lucky bounce here or there for all three teams could make the difference.
@ Bold text. Really? I disagree. I'd love to have a guy like that. I think last year was only the tip of the ice berg, and if they ever get a true #1 receiver (or a few of them..) to spread the field, he'll become even more of a threat. The only rookie back I would take over him last year was Chris Johnson. I'd put Forte ahead of Steve Slaton.
Edit: And to respond to your last sentence, I agree. Unfortunately, a key injury may determine the fate of this division. Hopefully everyone from all three teams in the race stay healthy all year.
-
He was also lauded for coming into Green Bay in March, studying film all off season, participating in off season activities, and working out with a personal trainer while he was off. When he retired, he said that he still loved to play on Sundays, but it was the stuff in between that he couldn't make a 100% commitment to. That's fine. Now he found a team that doesn't require him to do that other stuff.
Childress and his crew are being even softer on Brett than Sherman was in his last year in Green Bay (2005). And we all remember how that turned out.
All fair points. But, this team isn't the 2005 Packers. They are much, much better.
Brett will not have to shoulder the load. I think Brett Favre at at 39/40 can still be effective. Some of you guys disagree.
We will find out.
-
Bears' weaknesses - pass defense, cutler's growing diva attitude, lack of a top notch WR
Bears' strengths - best combo back in the division (yes I said it), Cutler's arm, good frontline defense
Vikings' weaknesses - possible suspensions, questionable OL (by Jay Bee's count 2 of the 5 are question marks), Old Man Favre's attitude.
Vikings' strengths - AP, lots of returning players on an already good defense, ???
Packers' weaknesses - 3-4 scheme change, running game is questionable, special teams
Packers' strengths - Passing game will be dominant, depth on defense, Dom Capers
-
All fair points. But, this team isn't the 2005 Packers. They are much, much better.
Brett will not have to shoulder the load. I think Brett Favre at at 39/40 can still be effective. Some of you guys disagree.
We will find out.
WHO IS GOING TO CATCH THE BALL BOBBY WADE? BERNARD BERRIAN? PERCY HARVIN?
HAHAHAHA WHAT A CROCK.
-
However, just 2 years ago Brett was lauded for effectively managing the team and their short passing game. He sliced and diced secondaries with a short, controlled passing game and let the receivers run after the catch (I believe the Packers led the league in YAC that year).
1. That was 2 years ago.
2. He was healthy.
3. His off season efforts prior to that season are well documented.
4. He had a stable of receivers that would make most teams in the league jealous.
5. He had the highest YPA of his career that season...that was clearly not all YAC.
6. You've already pointed out how it ended up. Despite all the good, the season ended on another terrible, all too typical decision.
-
Rodgers is better than Cutler...not by a wide margin necessarily, but he's a better QB. There is no comparison between the Packers receivers and the Bears. The Bears get the nod at TE, but like the QB comparison, the margin is much slimmer than many people think.
I like Forte, but he's just a guy - nothing special. He could catch that many passes because their receivers can't. That's a big number, that I agree with, but it is not necessarily a good thing.
The Bears offense will be ok...certainly better than past years. It does look as if their defense probably has gotten worse, not better though.
It is looking as if the Bears are probably the third team in a three team race, but it will probably be close, so an injury or two and a lucky bounce here or there for all three teams could make the difference.
Forte is just a guy? You're going Murf on us with Diener is just a dime a dozen point guard.
Forte is hardly "just a guy". There's nothing wrong with a RB catching a ton of passes (see Craig, Roger or Payton, Walter). Forte is an outstanding receiver for a RB, and an outstanding blocking back. He's a borderline Pro Bowl back going into his second season. You really can't ask for much more for a complete back.
The homer in me would take Cutler over Rodgers, but as a pure football fan, I'd love to have either of them QB my team. I've been impressed with Rodgers. Besides his talent, I give him a lot of credit for going through all that Favre crap and coming out on the other end as a Pro Bowl caliber QB. You have to respect that. I certainly wasn't sold on Rodgers 12 months ago, but consider me sold now.
-
As a Packer fan, I would take Forte over most backs in the league in a cocaine heartbeat.
-
WHO IS GOING TO CATCH THE BALL BOBBY WADE? BERNARD BERRIAN? PERCY HARVIN?
HAHAHAHA WHAT A CROCK.
I'll take the 2009 vikes over the 2005 pack any day of the week. That was the comparison being made.
Yes, I believe Sydney Rice, Berrian, Harvin and Shancoe will be enough.
-
So what happened last year is entirely indicative of what will happen this year? Got it.
Are you just really young, or did you go to UW-Waukesha? Some guy said that if GB’s offense scores a lot of points, 10+ win will happen. It didn’t happen last year – that doesn’t mean that fact is ‘entirely indicative of what will happen this year’, it means his comment was off base – if x happens, then y will happen he claimed. But, x has happened, but y wasn’t even close. Get it?
Let me spell this out for you. Tarvaris Jackson (yes, I'm anal about spelling, so I won't give you the opportunity to be a total b*tch about it) was ridiculously efficient over the last five games last year.
There is a chance that he was actually coming to his own. Instead of letting him grow in the offense, your head coach (apparently motivated by his lack of testicles) let an almost-40 year old QB jerk him and the rest of your locker room around, and walk right into a starting job without doing anything to earn it except lead the NFL in turnovers last year.
You’re anal about a lot of things, I’m sure. Your definition of ‘ridiculously efficient’ is far different from mine. He had two good games in which I think he completed a total of 20 passes. The last three were nothing to write home about. When a game counted most, he was 15/35 for 163 yard, no TDs and a pick. Not to mention a fumble and the guy looked lost and out of place. Maybe you meant ‘ridiculously efficient’ in terms of helping Philly win. BTW, I find it flat out goofy that you talk up the end of T-Jack’s season, yet in the same message talk about how we got murdered in the playoffs.
Favre has earned the starting job – I’ve seen the guy play well in playoff games. I still don’t get why so many folks outside of Minnesota seem to think Tarvaris is the answer. I don’t recall you getting all huffy and puffy when we brought in Sage Rosenfels earlier this year.
It smacks of hypocritical if you'll acknowledge that the Packers scored all those points and lost 10 games, but won't acknowledge that your current starting QB pulled an epic collapse over the final five games last year, almost single handedly eliminating a contender from the playoffs.
First off, I was pointing out the Packers scoring ‘prowess’ because of the off base comment someone else made. I wasn’t trying to provide a review of the NJ Jets 2008 season (which, by the way, they greatly improved from a season ago – by EPIC proportions and having surgery in the offseason indicates there really was an injury [in all candor, the cracked rib crap is annoying at best]).
Now, consider for a moment that the Packers scored ALL those points last year, return an improving second year starter at QB...
It’s a cute little dream, but consider the Consensus Vikings – everyone knows their weakest spot was QB. They brought in a hall of famer and a strong #2 (Sage). Add in an electrifying rookie in Harvin and off we go… repeat NFC North Champions. Ryan Grant? If being overrated were a swimming pool, little boys would pee inside him.
Specifically, how a thirty nine year old quarterback with a surgically repaired biceps and a torn rotator cuff who did no offseason work with your team is a better option than a young, growing quarterback. The only direction Favre can go is south.
Favre can go down south more than a hooker this season and is still a better option than Tarvaris. He’s a proven veteran that led a crappy team to a wonderful start last year before he got hurt. That injury has been addressed and his teammates this year are about 9x’s better than his teammates last year (and 400x’s better than his teammates the 16 years before that). I really don’t get your fascination with T-Jack. But then again, it’s not as strange as your fascination with benwa balls.
-
really, Jay, really?
-
1. That was 2 years ago.
True, but it's JUST 2 years ago. You ask for an example that wasn't with Holmgren in 1995. I just gave you one.
2. He was healthy.
Fair.
3. His off season efforts prior to that season are well documented.
Also fair.
4. He had a stable of receivers that would make most teams in the league jealous.
At the start of the year, nobody was that jealous. It's not like they were the Colts receivers. But, true, they are a good bunch.
5. He had the highest YPA of his career that season...that was clearly not all YAC.
Agree, it wasn't all YAC. But, you are a fan, you watched that season. Clearly it was a much more controlled passing game than previous years. 5 wide and short passes. There was a lot of that.
6. You've already pointed out how it ended up. Despite all the good, the season ended on another terrible, all too typical decision.
True, but he was great that year. He made a lot of great plays an everybody was loving him. I'll take the 2007 Brett Favre even with the pass in the championship game. He was great that year and they never would have made it that far without him.
-
I'll take the 2009 vikes over the 2005 pack any day of the week. That was the comparison being made.
Yes, I believe Sydney Rice, Berrian, Harvin and Shancoe will be enough.
Shiancoe.
Sorry, I had to... ;)
-
Shiancoe.
Sorry, I had to... ;)
Ha. Yea, Jay Bee would have busted me for that.
-
I'll take the 2009 vikes over the 2005 pack any day of the week. That was the comparison being made.
Yes, I believe Sydney Rice, Berrian, Harvin and Shancoe will be enough.
favre won't throw to Shiancoe because he's jealous of the dong he's packing...
-
Perhaps 'just a guy' is touch strong for Forte. He's not AP, he's not LT, etc. Not close. He's fine. I am not much of a Ryan Grant fan, but their rushing numbers last year were identical (Grant's rookie numbers in '07 were actually better than last years...5.7 avg.) I expect Forte to put up better numbers this year, but I very much consider Ryan Grant just a guy.
Forte had much bigger receiving numbers, but lets get real...that was a function of the Bears having nowhere else to throw the ball coupled with their QBs inability to do so. Lets put it this way, if Forte catches 80 passes this year, as was suggested, the Bears will be lucky to be 8-8.
-
I'll take the 2007 Brett Favre even with the pass in the championship game. He was great that year and they never would have made it that far without him.
Unfortunately, you're getting the 2009 version. Good luck.
-
if Forte catches 80 passes this year, as was suggested, the Bears will be lucky to be 8-8.
Since the NFC North Pissing match is also the most accurate thread on the Scoop...
90 receptions was suggested. Were the 49ers bad when Craig caught a lot of balls out of the backfield, did they have crappy receivers, or maybe it was poor QB play...
-
The last three were nothing to write home about? What planet are you from? 64% completion, 4 TD. 61% completion. 2 TD. 61.5% completion. 1 TD (1 INT). The last game against the Giants is the only one that was "nothing to write home about." The other two meet the qualities of "ridiculously efficient".
And you've seen Favre play well in the playoffs. I have, too. But I've also only seen it once in the last six years. You're banking on a quarterback with one quality playoff game in the last six years to become a playoff magician? Best of luck. Honestly.
It's impossible that the Jets' renaissance was a function of them building up their offensive line, adding a quality running back, and getting a difference maker in the middle of their defense, in addition to Favre. No, it was just Lord Favre and his eight multi-turnover games. That's it.
I'll give you that the Vikings' back up situation at QB is better than the Packers, but if you think he can shoulder the load of Favre goes down, think again. He's mediocre in every sense of the word. Heck, he can't even hold a lead if the QB goes down, much less win a game starting with the score at 0-0.
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2008-10-05/rosenfels-texans-collapse-loss-colts
Jay Bee, you can continue to make cracks about UW-Waukesha, one liners about Ryan Grant, and all the other trash you contribute to this thread, but you've already embarrassed yourself. I have enough faith in the fact that I scout every NFL team - starting with the NFC North, then the rest of the conference and beyond - to know that I dwarf what you know about football tenfold. Everyone else in here knows it as well. So be content with your little wise cracks. And be ready to pay up.
-
90 receptions was suggested. Were the 49ers bad when Craig caught a lot of balls out of the backfield, did they have crappy receivers, or maybe it was poor QB play...
Are we really comparing one of the best teams in the history of the NFL, running the most innovative offense in the history of the NFL for the first time, to the 2009 Chicago Bears?
If Devin Hester and Rashied Davis catch passes comparable with what Rice and Taylor did at the same time Craig was catching all of those balls, I will gladly stand corrected. If Forte catches that many balls, it is because their receivers are not, and the Bears offense will be completely ineffective as they are being limited to screens and check downs.
-
Are we really comparing one of the best teams in the history of the NFL, running the most innovative offense in the history of the NFL for the first time, to the 2009 Chicago Bears?
If Devin Hester and Rashied Davis catch passes comparable with what Rice and Taylor did at the same time Craig was catching all of those balls, I will gladly stand corrected. If Forte catches that many balls, it is because their receivers are not, and the Bears offense will be completely ineffective as they are being limited to screens and check downs.
No, not at all. Just comparing Forte to Craig (which was where Peter King posted the 90 catch statement.) I was just stating that there is more than one scenario where a RB catches a lot of balls out of the backfield. I would rather see Forte in the 50-60 range(for balance purposes) and WRs and Olson make up the difference. I agree that a lot of the balls Matt caught were check downs from Orton, and some of those will dissappear. And actually I don't even know if Davis will be the #3, let alone #2 WR.
-
No, not at all. Just comparing Forte to Craig (which was where Peter King posted the 90 catch statement.) I was just stating that there is more than one scenario where a RB catches a lot of balls out of the backfield. I would rather see Forte in the 50-60 range(for balance purposes) and WRs and Olson make up the difference. I agree that a lot of the balls Matt caught were check downs from Orton, and some of those will dissappear. And actually I don't even know if Davis will be the #3, let alone #2 WR.
you lost all credibility when you admitted you go to Peter King for analysis...
If you wanted to know how much corn is in Favre's stool then I would go to PK, or where I can find a really good place to get European style coffee
-
you lost all credibility when you admitted you go to Peter King for analysis...
If you wanted to know how much corn is in Favre's stool then I would go to PK, or where I can find a really good place to get European style coffee
Wait.... I had credibility?! Oh well.
I simply was repeating one line of text.
I also go to him when I want to find out how much of a pain in the ass traveling first class can be.
-
I'll take the 2007 Brett Favre even with the pass in the championship game. He was great that year and they never would have made it that far without him.
Unfortunately, you're getting the 2009 version. Good luck.
Hey, he's better than anything else the Vikes have.
I'm realistic. Don't confuse me with some whacked out Vikes fan.
Do I expect Brett to be 1995 Brett Favre? (like you said before) Nope.
Do I think he can be effective at 39 years old after missing training camp, having surgery and having his name mentioned on ESPN 100,000 times? Yep, I think he can. There have been several QB's who have been effective into their 40's. Brett is not exactly breaking new ground here.
He's in a good situation where I think he can play well.
We can do all of the pissing and moaning we want, but the proof will be on the field this fall.
If Favre sucks, I'll admit I was wrong, but I expect him to play pretty well. (not MVP numbers, but maybe 20tds and 14 picks depending on how the season goes (injuries, defensive issues, etc.))
-
Wait.... I had credibility?! Oh well.
I simply was repeating one line of text.
I also go to him when I want to find out how much of a pain in the ass traveling first class can be.
you got caught in the crossfire of my PK hate and it is apparent you think he's a douche as well...
-
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Brett-Favre-throws-a-dirty-block-at-Eugene-Wilso?urn=nfl,186324
-
So Favre apparently has a cracked rib, yet Chilly decides to split him out in a preseason game and have him throw a block on a reverse?
Yikes
-
Peter King loves the Packers.
PXI, thanks for correcting your ‘league/lead’ error. I can picture you reviewing each of your posts several times, just for my sake. It’s evident we are not going to agree on much, unless I suddenly become a fan of shorty robes and wine coolers. That said, I hope you will at least own up to your loss when you pay me for the bet, and not list out a million excuses.
[PS - SIdney vs. SYdney Rice.]
BTW, I fully expect to say, 'WTF, you dumba$$!' several times this season when Favre throws some sidearmed crap to a linebacker... but the good/great will far outweigh the bad.
Shiancoe was terrible until they broadcast him nekkid. Now, he's a total stud on the field. It did a lot for his confidence (and made PXI his #1 fan).
-
Peter King loves the Packers.
PXI, thanks for correcting your ‘league/lead’ error. I can picture you reviewing each of your posts several times, just for my sake. It’s evident we are not going to agree on much, unless I suddenly become a fan of shorty robes and wine coolers. That said, I hope you will at least own up to your loss when you pay me for the bet, and not list out a million excuses.
[PS - SIdney vs. SYdney Rice.]
BTW, I fully expect to say, 'WTF, you dumba$$!' several times this season when Favre throws some sidearmed crap to a linebacker... but the good/great will far outweigh the bad.
Shiancoe was terrible until they broadcast him nekkid. Now, he's a total stud on the field. It did a lot for his confidence (and made PXI his #1 fan).
Didn't you recently accuse someone of being young or a UW - Wak. grad in regards to a post belittling you? Heaven forbid you respond to a post without making a veiled homosexual slam about another poster. Are you seriously tyring to get everythread you post in locked? See: http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15357.msg146040;topicseen#new
-
Perhaps 'just a guy' is touch strong for Forte. He's not AP, he's not LT, etc. Not close. He's fine. I am not much of a Ryan Grant fan, but their rushing numbers last year were identical (Grant's rookie numbers in '07 were actually better than last years...5.7 avg.) I expect Forte to put up better numbers this year, but I very much consider Ryan Grant just a guy.
Forte had much bigger receiving numbers, but lets get real...that was a function of the Bears having nowhere else to throw the ball coupled with their QBs inability to do so. Lets put it this way, if Forte catches 80 passes this year, as was suggested, the Bears will be lucky to be 8-8.
Just curious, do you play fantasy football? Forte is a consensus top five pick (overall and among RB's). I'm just wondering where you have him ranked. Thousands (millions?) of people have Forte as one of the five statistical best RB's in the NFL as his second year in the league. I can appreciate if you view Forte through green and gold colored glasses, but the guy is the real deal.
-
Just curious, do you play fantasy football? Forte is a consensus top five pick (overall and among RB's). I'm just wondering where you have him ranked. Thousands (millions?) of people have Forte as one of the five statistical best RB's in the NFL as his second year in the league. I can appreciate if you view Forte through green and gold colored glasses, but the guy is the real deal.
I still don't know if he's top 5 overall. Fantasy, for sure. But that's only because he accounted for the highest percentage of a single offense of any team in the NFL. Touches = fantasy value. I'd still take Peterson, LT, Steven Jackson, Turner, Jacobs, DeAngelo Williams, a healthy Westbrook and maybe Clinton Portis over him. Not many more, though. And I expect him to top half of those guys by this year or next.
-
Just curious, do you play fantasy football? Forte is a consensus top five pick (overall and among RB's). I'm just wondering where you have him ranked. Thousands (millions?) of people have Forte as one of the five statistical best RB's in the NFL as his second year in the league. I can appreciate if you view Forte through green and gold colored glasses, but the guy is the real deal.
The use of fantasy statistics to justify your position sounds moronic. Just look at the real stats - third in total yards from scrimmage, third in touches, etc. Now granted these are accumulation statistics that make fantasy people swoon...and his ypc is a paltry 3.9...but he looks like a good, productive NFL back.
-
Peter King loves the Packers.
PXI, thanks for correcting your ‘league/lead’ error. I can picture you reviewing each of your posts several times, just for my sake. It’s evident we are not going to agree on much, unless I suddenly become a fan of shorty robes and wine coolers. That said, I hope you will at least own up to your loss when you pay me for the bet, and not list out a million excuses.
[PS - SIdney vs. SYdney Rice.]
BTW, I fully expect to say, 'WTF, you dumba$$!' several times this season when Favre throws some sidearmed crap to a linebacker... but the good/great will far outweigh the bad.
Shiancoe was terrible until they broadcast him nekkid. Now, he's a total stud on the field. It did a lot for his confidence (and made PXI his #1 fan).
I review my posts several times for the sake of pride and accuracy, but if you want to use it as a means to feed your overly large ego, be my guest.
I'm impervious to your taunts, really, because it's painfully obvious that the further I get under your skin with facts and actual football knowledge, the more vile, disgusting and off-color your slurs become. It's incredibly entertaining. I just love to talk football, and talking football with people who know nothing but think they know a lot is quite a bit of fun.
Here's another fact I'll throw your way. You know absolutely nothing about me, my sexual orientation, or really anything else, period. You do, however, have a strange tendency to look at people's profiles and compare what you see there to the Marquette student directory. You've referred to a number of people on this site by first name, including my roommate, knowing full well that you have no idea who they are and they have no idea who you are. This is very strange behavior, indeed.
Oh, and I'm not sure who your Sidney Rice comment was intended for. That wasn't me.
Anyways, back to football.
What does most of this NFC North-slanted group feel about other contenders in the NFC? By my estimation, the favorite going in should have been the Eagles, but losing Jim Johnson was big, and losing Stewart Bradley for the year puts a big hole at one of those LB spots. McNabb is still solid, Vick shouldn't have too big of an impact but a big play here or there can change the complexion of a game, and they now have talent at receiver to match the prowess of Westbrook in the backfield.
The Giants should be in the mix, as well. Even though I feel Eli is a bit overrated (especially with this latest contract), he's still a quality QB and has performed admirably in the playoffs in recent years. Losing Ward behind Jacobs could be a bigger loss than anyone anticipated, but if Bradshaw picks up the slack and one of Steve Smith, Hixon, Manningham, Nicks or Barden emerges as a threat to go with their pass rush on the other side of the ball, they'll be big time again.
I really like the Saints this year. Brees could very well be the best QB in the league at the moment, and he has plenty of weapons. The emergence of Pierre Thomas as a full time back allows Bush to be used more liberally in different formations. First year coordinator Gregg Williams has a tough job ahead of him, but if he can at least get his pressure 4-3 to generate turnovers and lift that group to average, they'll be quality as well.
Lastly, Atlanta. Matt Ryan is a bona fide franchise QB, and adding Tony Gonzalez as a security blanket opens things up for Turner and Roddy White to do even bigger things. Gonzo will be a big factor on third downs this year. Their defense depends entirely on the performance of John Abraham. He might be the best single defender in the NFC. As he goes, their defense goes, and so will the Falcons in 2009.
I'm not sold on anyone in the NFC West. The 49ers are still without a QB (though I love Singletary as a coach). A healthy Hasselbeck and the addition of Houshmandzadeh could open things up a bit for Seattle, but they have few difference makers on that team. The Rams remain the Rams, and outside of Steven Jackson, Donnie Avery, and Atogwe at safety, they don't have anything approaching blue chip there. The Cardinals got hot at the right time, but no running game and a porous defense could spell trouble and not allow them to run and gun their way deep into the playoffs again. They're still the class of that division, but I don't think they make noise in the playoffs this year.
Thoughts?
-
Please, if you've been on this board long enough, you know I was just making a point. Judging everything by fantasy is "meatball" dumb. I was just proving a point to prove statistically, Forte is a top tier back. I'm not a fantasy stats mean everything in the world type of guy. Value to it is that statistically speaking, Forte is more than "just a guy". Some people only see things through fantasy stats, hence the point I was making.
-
My thoughts: I would STILL like to see Va-Jay-Jay-Bee define the word "consensus."
-
Just curious, do you play fantasy football? Forte is a consensus top five pick (overall and among RB's)...I can appreciate if you view Forte through green and gold colored glasses, but the guy is the real deal.
Fine. Matt Forte is the greatest running back in football. Is that better? Seriously, he is a fine player, and he is a great fantasy player for the reasons I've already stated. His receiving abilities and opportunities are the reasons why. Who cares? As far as trying to win football games, he is simply not a guy that is gonna dominate a game like AP, LT, etc. I am also saying his putting up great fantasy numbers in the air helps his fantasy owners win games, but it is not necessarily gonna do the same for the Bears. More a function of the inability of their receivers than it is a function of needing to get the ball into the hands of Forte.
Ryan Grant: 312 Att., 1203 yds, 3.9 avg.
Matt Forte: 316 Att., 1238 yds, 3.9 avg.
I believe Forte is a better player than Grant...the rushing numbers alone don't necessarily say as much however. If you want him to be your leading receiver, as anything close to 90 catches most assuredly would make him, as a Packer fan, I would sign up for that in a second. I assume all Packer and Viking fans would join me in that.
-
Fine. Matt Forte is the greatest running back in football. Is that better? Seriously, he is a fine player, and he is a great fantasy player for the reasons I've already stated. His receiving abilities and opportunities are the reasons why. Who cares? As far as trying to win football games, he is simply not a guy that is gonna dominate a game like AP, LT, etc. I am also saying his putting up great fantasy numbers in the air helps his fantasy owners win games, but it is not necessarily gonna do the same for the Bears. More a function of the inability of their receivers than it is a function of needing to get the ball into the hands of Forte.
Ryan Grant: 312 Att., 1203 yds, 3.9 avg.
Matt Forte: 316 Att., 1238 yds, 3.9 avg.
I believe Forte is a better player than Grant...the rushing numbers alone don't necessarily say as much however. If you want him to be your leading receiver, as anything close to 90 catches most assuredly would make him, as a Packer fan, I would sign up for that in a second. I assume all Packer and Viking fans would join me in that.
Concur. Although that would make him an absolute fantasy beast, it would mean a whole lot of checking down and not a lot of ball movement for the Bears. That's not something I'm opposed to. I would have thought by now Angelo would have reached out for a high priced free agent at WR. Even I'm getting tired of watching Al Harris beat Devin Hester into the ground within five yards of the line every time there's a Bears possession.
Actually, I'm not. But that guy just isn't cut out to be a receiver until he bulks up a bit, runs crisper routes, has better hands, and learns proper body control. He's a phenomenal athlete and a dynamite punt returner, though.
-
Concur. Although that would make him an absolute fantasy beast, it would mean a whole lot of checking down and not a lot of ball movement for the Bears. That's not something I'm opposed to. I would have thought by now Angelo would have reached out for a high priced free agent at WR. Even I'm getting tired of watching Al Harris beat Devin Hester into the ground within five yards of the line every time there's a Bears possession.
Actually, I'm not. But that guy just isn't cut out to be a receiver until he bulks up a bit, runs crisper routes, has better hands, and learns proper body control. He's a phenomenal athlete and a dynamite punt returner, though.
Your last paragraph is dead on. Sadly none of those things will ever happen. He should just return kicks/punts.
-
Anyways, back to football.
What does most of this NFC North-slanted group feel about other contenders in the NFC?
While anyways is not a word, the rest of your comments were fine (although calling anyone other than the Consensus Vikings a contender is a bit of a stretch). The NFC East, like the North, could go any number of ways, with my money on Philly. I'm interested to see how their fans treat Donovan if things aren't going perfectly when Vick becomes eligible to play. I can see dude (McNabb) in a Vikings uniform in 2010. The West is not good. New Orleans could make noise; I don't believe in Arizona in 2009, despite last year.
But for now what matters most is Gophers vs. Paulus on Saturday.
-
While anyways is not a word, the rest of your comments were fine (although calling anyone other than the Consensus Vikings a contender is a bit of a stretch). The NFC East, like the North, could go any number of ways, with my money on Philly. I'm interested to see how their fans treat Donovan if things aren't going perfectly when Vick becomes eligible to play. I can see dude (McNabb) in a Vikings uniform in 2010. The West is not good. New Orleans could make noise; I don't believe in Arizona in 2009, despite last year.
But for now what matters most is Gophers vs. Paulus on Saturday.
You bring up an interesting point with regards to McNabb and next season. Does everyone here think Favre is one and done, or will he stretch it out to another year in purple?
Oh... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anyways
-
He's a phenomenal athlete and a dynamite punt returner, though.
Well, he was anyway. Not last year though. Gonna be interesting to see what he does this year.
-
Well, he was anyway. Not last year though. Gonna be interesting to see what he does this year.
For as much as I keep up on what goes on with most NFL teams, I never understood or dug deeper to find out why Hester wasn't the all time punt and kick returner. I noticed in a few Bears games I watched that other guys were getting reps there. Can any Bears fans shed light on this? Was he that ineffective or do you think they were trying to keep him out of harm's way since they were grooming him as a full time WR?
-
Well, he was anyway. Not last year though. Gonna be interesting to see what he does this year.
I think last year he just had to many things going through his head. Trying to learn the playbook, how to run routes, etc would be a lot to absorb for a guy that hasn't played on that side of the ball for awhile. (I would say ever, but I don't know what he played in High School). Combine that with the wear and tear of getting hit more often, and it's easy to see why one could have an off year. Hopefully the move to just returning punts will be good for him. Although I think he does more damage to the Bears on punts, with trying to do to much, back pedaling, drops, etc.
-
although calling anyone other than the Consensus Vikings a contender is a bit of a stretch.
The NFC East, like the North, could go any number of ways
Hmmm, if the division can go any number of ways, then the Vikings would certainly not be considered the consensus pick.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus)
-
For as much as I keep up on what goes on with most NFL teams, I never understood or dug deeper to find out why Hester wasn't the all time punt and kick returner. I noticed in a few Bears games I watched that other guys were getting reps there. Can any Bears fans shed light on this? Was he that ineffective or do you think they were trying to keep him out of harm's way since they were grooming him as a full time WR?
I think Manning, who they plugged in last year, led the league in yds per return. (I could be totally wrong on this, but I remember reading that recently.) I think his having success coupled with Hester's "slump" were the reason.
MUdish can correct me if I'm wrong.
Dish - I also wonder what you make of Harris this year... Will we see the old quick Tommy?
-
Your last paragraph is dead on. Sadly none of those things will ever happen. He should just return kicks/punts.
Some of those things just can't be taught, to an extent. Steve Smith is a perfect example. He's 1-2" shorter and 5 pounds lighter than Hester, but he might have the best body control of any WR in the NFL. I saw it first hand, unfortunately, about 200 feet in front of me at Lambeau Field during the Packers-Panthers game. Watching Smith give a small forearm shiver to put Charles Woodson off balance, then position his body in a way that allowed him to come down with the ball was just incredible. Not many WRs do that to Charles Woodson, period, much less ones who are under 6' tall.
Hester just doesn't have that ability with the ball in the air. Where he does is in the open field with the ball in his hands. I almost foresee a similar situation for Percy Harvin. He and Hester are built almost identically, and Harvin wasn't familiarized with typical NFL routes at Florida. They got him into space and let him work, and he rarely if ever took a big hit. I don't know if that will be as effective at the NFL level. Defenses are faster, coordinators (for the most part) are smarter. He might get there eventually, but he's not going to be a sound receiver fundamentally yet this year.
-
I think Manning, who they plugged in last year, led the league in yds per return. (I could be totally wrong on this, but I remember reading that recently.) I think his having success coupled with Hester's "slump" were the reason.
MUdish can correct me if I'm wrong.
Dish - I also wonder what you make of Harris this year... Will we see the old quick Tommy?
That dude scares me. I think Harris is the second best player on your defense to Lance Briggs.
-
Please, if you've been on this board long enough, you know I was just making a point. Judging everything by fantasy is "meatball" dumb. I was just proving a point to prove statistically, Forte is a top tier back. I'm not a fantasy stats mean everything in the world type of guy. Value to it is that statistically speaking, Forte is more than "just a guy". Some people only see things through fantasy stats, hence the point I was making.
Got it. My apologies.
-
That dude scares me. I think Harris is the second best player on your defense to Lance Briggs.
the thing to do with Briggs is to take him out partying and then suggest he give you a ride in his lamborghini
-
Tommy Harris is washed up.
you heard it here first.
-
Tommy Harris is washed up.
you heard it here first.
Man first you tell me 1554 is garbage and now this....
I think, if healthy (and that's a big if), Harris is far from washed up. He has been playing on one leg for the better part of two years and I don't think ever fully recovered from the nasty Hamstring injury. Hopefully he is back, as he is a big key to what Chicago tries to do on defense. If he is washed up as you say, this will need to be a higher scoring season. The Chicago secondary scares me in a bad way, and if a QB has time to sit in the pocket the Bears would get picked apart.
-
Tommy Harris is washed up.
you heard it here first.
I tend to agree. I think the injuries may have taken too big of a toll.
-
MU_B2002 hit it right on the head in regards to Hester. I've never met him, and what I know from people in the organization, they all say the same thing....nicest kid in the world, but dumb as a rock. He honestly just can't comprehend everything. I know it sounds/seems dumb, but he can't focus on returning kicks and learning the offense at the same time. It's just who and how he is. They actually trust Hester more on punts because it's such a reactionary type skill (as opposed to a kick off where you game plan the wedge).
In regards to Harris, I don't think it needs to be heard here first that he's washed up. He doesn't trust his leg at all. Harris' decline started in '07 and has been steady since. In his prime (which should be right now), his explosiveness off the snap was awesome. It's just not there any more, and considering his size, Harris has to rely on his speed/quickness to be effective. I've said it here before too that Tommy is a little "crazy" as well. It would not shock me one bit if he retired in the next two years, that's just Tommy.
-
Man first you tell me 1554 is garbage and now this....
I think, if healthy (and that's a big if), Harris is far from washed up. He has been playing on one leg for the better part of two years and I don't think ever fully recovered from the nasty Hamstring injury. Hopefully he is back, as he is a big key to what Chicago tries to do on defense. If he is washed up as you say, this will need to be a higher scoring season. The Chicago secondary scares me in a bad way, and if a QB has time to sit in the pocket the Bears would get picked apart.
haha I meant no offense on the 1554, I just didn't think the world of it, and haven't bought a 3rd bomber, nor do I plan to. Could be that I just prefer different tastes... or that I am somewhat snobbish about beer that is "microbrewed" but yet, really isn't. ;)
As for Tommy Harris, he used to be a man among boys... during that Super Bowl run the Bears had, I (as a Packer fan) thought he was easily the best DT in the game, and the thought of him being around the North (along with the Williams boys in MN) gave me nightmares. But as MUDish said, his best days are probably behind him.
-
How does anyone even understand what Hester is saying, he brings a whole new level to "talking with a mouthful of gravel"
-
How does anyone even understand what Hester is saying, he brings a whole new level to "talking with a mouthful of gravel"
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe he has been trying to tell them he doesn't want to play receiver this whole time, but they just don't understand him.
-
"Green Bay is clearly the team to beat in the division, and the Packers are about to force us to pay attention."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/09/01/winners.losers/index.html?eref=sihpT1
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/09/01/mail/index.html?eref=sihpT1
Hmm. Vajay-Jay Bee, please define the word "consensus." I'm interested to hear what it is to you.
-
"Green Bay is clearly the team to beat in the division, and the Packers are about to force us to pay attention."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/09/01/winners.losers/index.html?eref=sihpT1
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/09/01/mail/index.html?eref=sihpT1
Hmm. Vajay-Jay Bee, please define the word "consensus." I'm interested to hear what it is to you.
It's when most every reasonable person agrees. An example: when Pathetic Patti has to search low and hard (a favorite past time of his) to find an article that 'praises' GB, while at the same time the article says the following, which includes 'if we're to believe anything about the preseason, it's possible Chicago and Green Bay are on Minnesota's level"
"Now, that's not a knock on the Vikings. It simply an acknowledgement that if we're to believe anything about the preseason (and that is a dubious practice right there, taking anything from practice games), it's possible Chicago and Green Bay are on Minnesota's level, and we've got a new power division in the NFL."
-
It's when most every reasonable person agrees. An example: when Pathetic Patti has to search low and hard (a favorite past time of his) to find an article that 'praises' GB, while at the same time the article says the following, which includes 'if we're to believe anything about the preseason, it's possible Chicago and Green Bay are on Minnesota's level"
"Now, that's not a knock on the Vikings. It simply an acknowledgement that if we're to believe anything about the preseason (and that is a dubious practice right there, taking anything from practice games), it's possible Chicago and Green Bay are on Minnesota's level, and we've got a new power division in the NFL."
Vajay-Jay Bee, I like how you take 1 of the 2 articles and disregard the other one. And search low and hard? It's on the front page of si.com! But you are right, that took me a very long time to find Do you enjoy embarassing yourself, Vajay-Jay?
-
Pathetic Patti, I quoted a part of one article. The first link I clicked on. I'm still at the office, and consider myself 'lucky' each time one of your links doesn't bring up animal porn.
You are really reaching, which I guess makes sense on this message board since you do it every weekend. But, why don't you tell me this:
Is the money on the Minnesota Vikings? Yes or no? NFC North, 2009. Yes or no?
Go into the next room and ask mom and dad what they think. Granted, they only pull out $1 when Power Ball is $300 million or more, but even they'd be able to set you straight. Er, not straight that way - lost cause, but at least on the Vikings having the best odds to win.
-
Pathetic Patti, I quoted a part of one article. The first link I clicked on. I'm still at the office, and consider myself 'lucky' each time one of your links doesn't bring up animal porn.
You are really reaching, which I guess makes sense on this message board since you do it every weekend. But, why don't you tell me this:
Is the money on the Minnesota Vikings? Yes or no? NFC North, 2009. Yes or no?
Go into the next room and ask mom and dad what they think. Granted, they only pull out $1 when Power Ball is $300 million or more, but even they'd be able to set you straight. Er, not straight that way - lost cause, but at least on the Vikings having the best odds to win.
Keep that office job. You don't have a future in comedy. And you still display a disturbing lack of football knowledge despite the number of posts you make in this thread.
Give me something, perhaps a position-by-position run down of the NFC North teams in relation to one another. I'm genuinely curious as to what goes through your head. Or just throw out another personal attack.
-
Keep that office job. You don't have a future in comedy. And you still display a disturbing lack of football knowledge despite the number of posts you make in this thread.
Give me something, perhaps a position-by-position run down of the NFC North teams in relation to one another. I'm genuinely curious as to what goes through your head. Or just throw out another personal attack.
My team is going to win the division, and I have an open offer to those that think otherwise to put their money where their mouth is. I show and prove, sonny. Watch Red Eye on Fox News Channel tonight for a taste of what goes through my head.
Let's talk running back - AD is the man. Chest.T is the best 'backup. Maybe you want to talk D-line. Kevin and Pat. Jared. What more is there? QB? The hall of famer vs. the jagface that Denver hated, or the 'stud' that got you 6 wins? F outta here.
-
My team is going to win the division, and I have an open offer to those that think otherwise to put their money where their mouth is. I show and prove, sonny. Watch Red Eye on Fox News Channel tonight for a taste of what goes through my head.
Let's talk running back - AD is the man. Chest.T is the best 'backup. Maybe you want to talk D-line. Kevin and Pat. Jared. What more is there? QB? The hall of famer vs. the jagface that Denver hated, or the 'stud' that got you 6 wins? F outta here.
Thank you for that earth shattering analysis. Really. I mean that.
Now, could I hear about your improved offensive line (a rookie at RT and a non-all pro at C, is it?) or that solid secondary you have? Or that great receiving corps?
-
Thank you for that earth shattering analysis. Really. I mean that.
Is the money on the Minnesota Vikings? Yes or no? NFC North, 2009. Yes or no?
Simple question. Yes or no. Admit who the money is on. Then try to tell me why the money is wrong. Or better yet, shut the trap until you show and prove, which will not happen.
-
Is the money on the Minnesota Vikings? Yes or no? NFC North, 2009. Yes or no?
Simple question. Yes or no. Admit who the money is on. Then try to tell me why the money is wrong. Or better yet, shut the trap until you show and prove, which will not happen.
Are you getting mad? Wow... Jay Bee is making a run at most pathetic poster of 2009.
-
Is the money on the Minnesota Vikings? Yes or no? NFC North, 2009. Yes or no?
Simple question. Yes or no. Admit who the money is on. Then try to tell me why the money is wrong. Or better yet, shut the trap until you show and prove, which will not happen.
What does the money matter? You clearly have no concept of what +140, +160, and +200 entail in terms of favorites and consensus picks. None at all. Zilch. Zero. Zip. This is the closest division to an even line in the entire NFL. If you want to understand consensus favorite, see the oddsmakers' opinions on San Diego and New England. And even so, if the money were always right, there would be no reason to play the game. It's okay to ask questions. We can help you. It's not necessary that you embarrass yourself.
I've already laid out a number of reasons why the Vikings have taken steps back this year, and at the same time why the Packers are poised to springboard forward. But no, the Vikings won the division last year, so clearly it's inevitable that they'll win it again this year.
I could see where your swagger comes from, though. You guys completely dominated the Packers in head to head match ups last year. Oh wait...
-
Are you getting mad? Wow... Jay Bee is making a run at most pathetic poster of 2009.
He's actually the consensus pick.
-
Are you getting mad? Wow... Jay Bee is making a run at most pathetic poster of 2009.
No, I'm repeating the question for one of the many girls that is scared to answer it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbd0nnW-VMc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbd0nnW-VMc)
-
No, I'm repeating the question for one of the many girls that is scared to answer it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbd0nnW-VMc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbd0nnW-VMc)
Jay, why has the questioned changed from 'Who is the consensus pick?' to 'Who is the money on?'?
At least admit that this division is not a lock for the Vikings and you might sound a lot more knowledgeable.
-
VaJay-Jay, did you really ask if another poster is really young? Please look at your own posts. You look like a 3 year old. I'm wondering who in the world would hire you. Not to mention, my parents are doing very well for themselves, so they'd pull out a bit more than $1, and quite a bit more than you would pull out.
You seem to have some sort of obsession for guys liking other guys, and errotic porn. Nobody other than you really mentions it on here. Kind of makes me wonder...
-
What does the money matter?
In other words, you'd rather not admit, "It's the Minnesota Vikings, sir". I understand. I was once 3 years old.
D-Hester - a freakshow. Yeah, the crab-boy and world's smallest bodybuilder are cute, but like them Hester just isn't very good in the real world aka receiving. If Percy Harvin turns out to be different, JEA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S602W_gmki0
-
In other words, you'd rather not admit, "It's the Minnesota Vikings, sir". I understand. I was once 3 years old.
D-Hester - a freakshow. Yeah, the crab-boy and world's smallest bodybuilder are cute, but like them Hester just isn't very good in the real world aka receiving. If Percy Harvin turns out to be different, JEA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S602W_gmki0
Congratulations. You're the marginal favorite to win the NFC North. Your team, and two others. I hope you feel special. But WHEN this team crumbles, I hope you don't disappear, because I'm going to enjoy every minute of watching you have to pick up the pieces.
-
Jay, why has the questioned changed from 'Who is the consensus pick?' to 'Who is the money on?'?
At least admit that this division is not a lock for the Vikings and you might sound a lot more knowledgeable.
When has the questioned changed, my fruity friend? I have told people who the consensus pick is. Some small minds get caught up in a word subject to different definition - so I am asking a verifiable 'jawn', as they say - the money is on the Vikings. It's simple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZmHG5lzkBQ
-
When has the questioned changed, my fruity friend? I have told people who the consensus pick is. Some small minds get caught up in a word subject to different definition - so I am asking a verifiable 'jawn', as they say - the money is on the Vikings. It's simple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZmHG5lzkBQ
Are the Fox News clips supposed to tell us something in particular, or just that you're a racist homophobe?
/bordering on political discussion
Back to the topic at hand, your claim has changed: First it was the "consensus" Vikings (I'm convinced that word just happened to come up on your word-a-day calendar and you're not quite sure how to properly use it) and now you want to know who the money is on. Two completely different things. But facts have never gotten in your way, have they?
-
Let's talk running back - AD is the man.
Would it be too much to ask that you at least get his initials right? ::)
-
Would it be too much to ask that you at least get his initials right? ::)
In his defense, Peterson's nickname is AD...stands for "All Day," going back to college.
-
In his defense, Peterson's nickname is AD...stands for "All Day," going back to college.
Ahh...my bad.
-
it's possible Chicago and Green Bay are on Minnesota's level, and we've got a new power division in the NFL."
Don't believe that...I remember hearing similar thoughts about the NL Central this year that turned into an absolute suckfest. Should not have been difficult to see coming.
These teams are all decent...nothing more. They will benefit from playing eachother as well. I'd say its a toss up between the Vikings and Packers, with the Bears just a hair below. As I've already said, injuries (or lack thereof), and a lucky bounce or two will probably determine who comes out on top.
If I had to pick one team that I think has the best potential to get to 11-12 wins when looking at talent, depth, coaching, and schedule...the Packers would probably be the team I'd choose. That said, I would probably not predict 11-12 wins for any of them.
-
He's actually the consensus pick.
Bravo, sir.
-
Are the Fox News clips supposed to tell us something in particular, or just that you're a racist homophobe?
Right, because everyone know that anyone who watches Fox News is a racist homophobe. Well...those oh so tolerant liberals know that anyway.
-
C'mon fellas...
Let's focus on the task at hand. Football, and the 8 days we must wait for the season to start!
-
Few things:
#1 Jay Bee can certainly be annoying and isn't a level headed fan. I appreciate his passion for his team, but I think he's a little blind.
However, if his defense:
#2 There are definitely more Packer/Bear fans around here, so a Viking fan is going to stand out more, which is 1 of the reasons he's getting piled on by several people.
#3 (most importantly) Jay Bee has openly stated that he'll bet anybody that the Vikes will win the division. If you other guys think the Vikes are so bad, then challenge him and take the bet.
I think he's had a couple of takers... but there sure seems to be a lot of pissing and moaning about Jay Bee without a lot of people willing to actually challenge him.
-
I believe most of the people doing the "pissing and moaning" are the people that have taken the bet, but I could be wrong. And I really don't think anoyone is saying the Vikes are bad.
-
I believe most of the people doing the "pissing and moaning" are the people that have taken the bet, but I could be wrong. And I really don't think anoyone is saying the Vikes are bad.
Ah ha. Ok, well, I guess if the arguing is between people who made the bet, then piss-on my friends!
I know people aren't saying the Vikes are that bad... but then really what are they blasting JB for?
Most people are saying the division is up for grabs. JB is saying the Vikes are better than everybody else. Is there really that big of a difference? It's not like he's a Lions fan claiming they'll win the division. He's picking one of the 3 toss up teams and saying they are going to win. I don't think it's that bold of a statement.
-
Most people are saying the division is up for grabs. JB is saying the Vikes are better than everybody else. Is there really that big of a difference? It's not like he's a Lions fan claiming they'll win the division. He's picking one of the 3 toss up teams and saying they are going to win. I don't think it's that bold of a statement.
You are aware of the point of this thread aren't you? Its not that bold, but you seem to be suggesting people shouldn't argue the point.
BTW, as far as the whole betting thing goes, I would get them in before the mods get a hold of this thread,, because given the number of posts about it, the whole thing is probably going to disappear.
-
You are aware of the point of this thread aren't you? Its not that bold, but you seem to be suggesting people shouldn't argue the point.
BTW, as far as the whole betting thing goes, I would get them in before the mods get a hold of this thread,, because given the number of posts about it, the whole thing is probably going to disappear.
Fair enough about this being "pissing match". I guess that's what this is, so I need to expect some bitching between fans.
I just checked the thread this morning and saw that it was a "blast Jay Bee for being a moron thread", and I thought I'd defend the guy a little bit.
While I do agree that JB is seeing the world through purple colored glasses, I don't think he's prediction ridiculous. You could make a strong case for the Packers, Bears and Vikes to win the division. He's just making his case for the Vikes.
-
I just checked the thread this morning and saw that it was a "blast Jay Bee for being a moron thread", and I thought I'd defend the guy a little bit.
While I do agree that JB is seeing the world through purple colored glasses, I don't think he's prediction ridiculous. You could make a strong case for the Packers, Bears and Vikes to win the division. He's just making his case for the Vikes.
It is not the content of his prediction that is being blasted by some posters. It is the manner in which that prediction is being presented. I have no problem with someone supporting their team, as it is what fans do. And bitching about the ____ & ____ and their fans is what fans of the ____ do. (GB / CHI / MIN are interchangeable here.) It is going to be a very close division this year, and should make for an interesting thread.
And if you notice, JB seems more than capable of defending himself.
-
Right, because everyone know that anyone who watches Fox News is a racist homophobe. Well...those oh so tolerant liberals know that anyway.
Haha...exactly.
-
Fair enough about this being "pissing match". I guess that's what this is, so I need to expect some bitching between fans.
I just checked the thread this morning and saw that it was a "blast Jay Bee for being a moron thread", and I thought I'd defend the guy a little bit.
While I do agree that JB is seeing the world through purple colored glasses, I don't think he's prediction ridiculous. You could make a strong case for the Packers, Bears and Vikes to win the division. He's just making his case for the Vikes.
I think it's the fact that JB acts like the Vikings are the far and away, consensus favorites (which they are clearly not) that rubs people the wrong way. That, in addition to the fact he resorts to personal attacks at times, irritates people.
-
ding ding ding!
-
I think it's the fact that JB acts like the Vikings are the far and away, consensus favorites (which they are clearly not) that rubs people the wrong way. That, in addition to the fact he resorts to personal attacks at times, irritates people.
Ahhh... good point.
But, it was just pointed out to me in a previous post that this is a "pissing match", so I guess we should expect JB to be irritating and make personal attacks, and in return, I should expect people to attack him.
It's a pissing match.
No real point in trying to be logical, I guess. This isn't the "let's be logical and accurate about our favorite football team" thread.
I was wrong for saying anything. Jay Bee, you are on your own.
Piss on everybody!
Vikes Rule! ;)
-
I think it's the fact that JB acts like the Vikings are the far and away, consensus favorites (which they are clearly not) that rubs people the wrong way. That, in addition to the fact he resorts to personal attacks at times, irritates people.
Correction.
-
I'll throw my predictions for the North out there now.
Bears 10-6
Packers 10-6
Vikings 9-7
Lions 4-12
The homer in me says the Bears win some crazy tiebreaker to take the division. I think both teams split their regular season games against one another.
-
I guess I'll go on record with a prediction as well....
Packers 11-5
Vikings 10-6
Bears 9-7
I suspect the difference maker will largely be a Packers sweep of the Bears...I guess I just see Rodgers and those WRs and TEs, destroying the Bears secondary early and often.
GB vs:
Bears 2-0
Vikings 1-1
Lions 2-0
Chi vs:
Packers 0-2
Vikings 1-1
Lions: 2-0
Minn vs:
Packers 1-1
Bears 1-1
Lions 2-0
-
Don't want to be left out like the Packers in the playoff chase...
Chicago 11-5 (4-2 Div )
Minnesota 11-5 (3-3 Div)
Green Bay 10-6
Detroit 5-11
Damn you Peter King...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/09/01/main/index.html?eref=sihpT1
Summary: 3 NFC north teams make the divisional round, NFC championship is CHI V GB with CHI losing to NE in the superbowl.
-
Damn you Peter King...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/09/01/main/index.html?eref=sihpT1
Summary: 3 NFC north teams make the divisional round, NFC championship is CHI V GB with CHI losing to NE in the superbowl.
Now THAT is ballsy stuff. Though I wouldn't appreciate that result, this would make for quite a season in the NFC North.
-
2 things:
1) Minn officially has the worst fan base in the NFC North and maybe the league:
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/56118827.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiU9PmP:QiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
2) Predictions:
GB 11-5
MIN 9-7
CHI 8-8
DET 4-12
-
Now THAT is ballsy stuff. Though I wouldn't appreciate that result, this would make for quite a season in the NFC North.
Peter King has always loved the Packers though.
and he is a moron.
-
Peter King has always loved the Packers' former quarterback though.
and he is a moron.
Fixed.
-
1) Minn officially has the worst fan base in the NFC North and maybe the league:
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/56118827.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiU9PmP:QiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
NFC North, yes.
League, no. Jacksonville Jaguars take the cake there.
-
2 things:
1) Minn officially has the worst fan base in the NFC North and maybe the league:
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/56118827.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiU9PmP:QiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
But if you ask Jay Bee, they've sold out 115 consecutive games, or whatever. Those are his "facts". I guess the caveat is that there is a distinct difference between selling out games and filling the stadium with fans...
-
But if you ask Jay Bee, they've sold out 115 consecutive games, or whatever. Those are his "facts". I guess the caveat is that there is a distinct difference between selling out games and filling the stadium with fans...
They have. It's factual and verifiable. In addition, Goddell just was spouting off this week about how many teams may find trouble in filling up their stadiums this year: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=8462898
If you had been at any of those 115 consecutive sellouts, you would have seen a packed stadium, simple as that. Sure, there's been a handful of times when corporate sponsors came in to help and gave tickets to disadvantaged youth organizations, etc... you 'Packer Backers' better hope you never have a close call when it comes to selling out the stadium (which is doubtful, what else is there to do in Wisconsin?!?!)... kinda difficult to have a corporate sponsor help out the home team when the biggest corporate sponsor is a convenience store with a few nickel slots in it.
By the way, the Fox News Channel 'borderline political links' (pfffffft) are from a show I write stupid stuff for [Red Eye, M-F with replays on the weekend], including a couple intros in this clip from last night's / this morning's show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3oXxJw5Ceg
The consensus is out and it is the best show on TV, similar to the Vikings being the consensus #1 in the NFC North.
-
They have. It's factual and verifiable. In addition, Goddell just was spouting off this week about how many teams may find trouble in filling up their stadiums this year: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=8462898
If you had been at any of those 115 consecutive sellouts, you would have seen a packed stadium, simple as that. Sure, there's been a handful of times when corporate sponsors came in to help and gave tickets to disadvantaged youth organizations, etc... you 'Packer Backers' better hope you never have a close call when it comes to selling out the stadium (which is doubtful, what else is there to do in Wisconsin?!?!)... kinda difficult to have a corporate sponsor help out the home team when the biggest corporate sponsor is a convenience store with a few nickel slots in it.
By the way, the Fox News Channel 'borderline political links' (pfffffft) are from a show I write stupid stuff for [Red Eye, M-F with replays on the weekend], including a couple intros in this clip from last night's / this morning's show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3oXxJw5Ceg
The consensus is out and it is the best show on TV, similar to the Vikings being the consensus #1 in the NFC North.
So writing stupid stuff isn't just a hobby on this board, you write stupid stuff elsewhere too?
No, the Packers will never have a scare about filling up Lambeau Field, because it's the CONSENSUS pick for best stadium in the National Football League.
Convenience store? How about Miller Brewing Company, Onieda Nation Casino, Verizon Wireless, Associated Bank and Coca-Cola? Those sound like nice little mom-and-pop places.
-
They have. It's factual and verifiable. In addition, Goddell just was spouting off this week about how many teams may find trouble in filling up their stadiums this year: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=8462898
If you had been at any of those 115 consecutive sellouts, you would have seen a packed stadium, simple as that. Sure, there's been a handful of times when corporate sponsors came in to help and gave tickets to disadvantaged youth organizations, etc... you 'Packer Backers' better hope you never have a close call when it comes to selling out the stadium (which is doubtful, what else is there to do in Wisconsin?!?!)... kinda difficult to have a corporate sponsor help out the home team when the biggest corporate sponsor is a convenience store with a few nickel slots in it.
By the way, the Fox News Channel 'borderline political links' (pfffffft) are from a show I write stupid stuff for [Red Eye, M-F with replays on the weekend], including a couple intros in this clip from last night's / this morning's show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3oXxJw5Ceg
The consensus is out and it is the best show on TV, similar to the Vikings being the consensus #1 in the NFC North.
Hahahahahahaha, man you must be slow. 3/4 full is not packed smart guy. The Packers and Bears pull in more for a PRESEASON game than the Vikings can for a PLAYOFF game!!!!
That clip was awwwwfullll, so have all the other ones you've put up from that show. Of course, if you write for it that would make sense.
ESPN and SI came out with their NFL preview magazines this week, guess who neither of them picked to win the NFC Central?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/09/01/main/index.html?eref=sihpT1 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/09/01/main/index.html?eref=sihpT1)
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=4433532 (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=4433532)
If anybody is the consensus pick, I guess it would be the Bears since 3/4 preview magazines I've picked up so far have had them winning (and GB was picked 1st in the other one).
-
Hahahahahahaha, man you must be slow. 3/4 full is not packed smart guy. The Packers and Bears pull in more for a PRESEASON game than the Vikings can for a PLAYOFF game!!!!
That clip was awwwwfullll, so have all the other ones you've put up from that show. Of course, if you write for it that would make sense.
ESPN and SI came out with their NFL preview magazines this week, guess who neither of them picked to win the NFC Central?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/09/01/main/index.html?eref=sihpT1 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/09/01/main/index.html?eref=sihpT1)
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=4433532 (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=4433532)
If anybody is the consensus pick, I guess it would be the Bears since 3/4 preview magazines I've picked up so far have had them winning (and GB was picked 1st in the other one).
You better edit this to say "NFC North" and not "NFC Central" or Jay Bee will harp on that for the entirety of his next post and completely ignore the fact that you've turned his entire argument on its head.
-
Sounds to me like two young boys who think 'SI' and 'ESPN the magazine' have a clue or much relevance. There will always be fringe nutcases that don't agree with the consensus, and there will always be retards that use them in their arguments. I understand. Good luck. Up the ante, PXI, or just make a bet jgayer1. BTW, it's pretty cool you pick up so many NFL preview magazines.
-
Sounds to me like two young boys who think 'SI' and 'ESPN the magazine' have a clue or much relevance. There will always be fringe nutcases that don't agree with the consensus, and there will always be retards that use them in their arguments. I understand. Good luck. Up the ante, PXI, or just make a bet jgayer1. BTW, it's pretty cool you pick up so many NFL preview magazines.
Yes. Relevance. Like Jay Bee's NFL Preview And Circus Act. It could be a new segment on Red Eye. You could start with this.
Let's talk running back - AD is the man. Chest.T is the best 'backup. Maybe you want to talk D-line. Kevin and Pat. Jared. What more is there? QB? The hall of famer vs. the jagface that Denver hated, or the 'stud' that got you 6 wins? F outta here.
There's a fringe nutcase spewing garbage regarding NFL teams, and it's not SI or ESPN.
Maybe if you put a little NFL talk in that show of yours, you could stop being a Hardball with Chris Matthews wannabe and boost your ratings to somewhere between NBC's "Poker After Dark" and the latest Golden Girls reruns. Consider it.
-
Sounds to me like two young boys who think 'SI' and 'ESPN the magazine' have a clue or much relevance. There will always be fringe nutcases that don't agree with the consensus, and there will always be retards that use them in their arguments. I understand. Good luck. Up the ante, PXI, or just make a bet jgayer1. BTW, it's pretty cool you pick up so many NFL preview magazines.
If they don't agree, it's not a consensus. BOOM! Roasted. Again.
-
If they don't agree, it's not a consensus. BOOM! Roasted. Again.
Oh, really? Consensus must mean something different in 'retard', then, because 'consensus' does not require 100% agreement. BOOM! Roast deez.
-
Oh, really? Consensus must mean something different in 'retard', then, because 'consensus' does not require 100% agreement. BOOM! Roast deez.
Can you please send me some of those SICK mix tapes you make, VaJay-Jay? Oops, somebody can play your little game, too ::)
-
Jay Bee,
Your arguments will hold much more weight if you freestyle them.
Or if the agrument is made over MSOE's radio station.
-
PP - ask Big Chris aka Big Daddy... he knows the deal - no mixtapes here, bahdee.
Greg - I agree (well, if you meant argument when you typed agrument...I think that was a typo, vs. IAmMarket who claimed if someone disagreed there could not be a consensus... maybe she just really, really hates the word unanimous... more likely, though, she's just young and stupid).
Anyone know how often there have been teams that carry four QB's into the beginning of the regular season? I'd like to keep JDB, but if we still have Tarvaris, don't know if that'll happen.
-
Hey mods, methinks someone may need a timeout.
-
Everyone is getting to uptight. I think it's time for a little bit of this...
http://www.pacfan.com/gopack.wav (http://www.pacfan.com/gopack.wav)
-
Oh, really? Consensus must mean something different in 'retard', then, because 'consensus' does not require 100% agreement. BOOM! Roast deez.
it still means majority. There may be a group that says the Vikings will win the NFC North but it is not the MAJORITY i.e. over 50%
-
From a highly reputable source:
* Main Entry: con·sen·sus
* Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\
* Function: noun
* Usage: often attributive
* Etymology: Latin, from consentire
* Date: 1843
1 a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus)
Unanimity, you say?
* Main Entry: una·nim·i·ty
* Pronunciation: \ˌyü-nə-ˈni-mə-tē\
* Function: noun
* Date: 15th century
: the quality or state of being unanimous
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unanimity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unanimity)
That doesn't help too much. Let's see what Mr. Webster says about this "unanimous" thing...
* Main Entry: unan·i·mous
* Pronunciation: \yu̇-ˈna-nə-məs\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: Latin unanimus, from unus one + animus mind — more at one, animate
* Date: 1624
1 : being of one mind : agreeing
2 : formed with or indicating unanimity : having the agreement and consent of all
— unan·i·mous·ly adverb
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unanimous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unanimous)
So "consensus" = "unanimity" = "having the agreement and consent of all"
Well, I'll be damned. Who would've thought?
Oh. Right. Everyone. Except JayBee.
-
PP - ask Big Chris aka Big Daddy... he knows the deal - no mixtapes here, bahdee.
Greg - I agree (well, if you meant argument when you typed agrument...I think that was a typo, vs. IAmMarket who claimed if someone disagreed there could not be a consensus... maybe she just really, really hates the word unanimous... more likely, though, she's just young and stupid).
Anyone know how often there have been teams that carry four QB's into the beginning of the regular season? I'd like to keep JDB, but if we still have Tarvaris, don't know if that'll happen.
No mix tapes? Really?
What have we here...
(http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7034/screenshot20090902at112.png)
Woops. Somebody left their e-mail address lying around. Well then. "Here 2 meet high school boys"? Maybe the off-color racist homophobic remarks really do stem from some deeper problem. The location is spot on though, you are certainly "up in our grill like a contact lens."
http://www.dunation.com/showthread.php?t=19546&page=2
What other brilliance? Minnesota Hip-Hop? One of the greatest oxymorons I've ever heard. Perhaps you could drop some of that "fresh sh*t" for us sometime here at MUScoop.
Perhaps "Nut and Graffiti". Sounds like a winner to me.
Here we were questioning your intelligence, but I don't understand how we can any longer, since you have displayed coherent sentence structure and formulated such deep, intellectual ideas such as this gem, regarding hip-hop artist Eminem: "Recognize Lil Wyte, beyotch. I think his jean jacket must be a little too tight. PASS THE METH, MF'ERS!"
http://www.dunation.com/showthread.php?p=230654#post230654
Not to mention that you declared "the best song of 2007" to be something that you heard on, and I quote, Radio Disney.
http://www.dunation.com/showthread.php?t=11328
After watching you snoop around profiles here and begin addressing people on a first name basis, I thought I might return the favor. Little did I know I'd run into a comic gold mine.
Enjoy it, MUScoop.
-
Oops, looks like 3 people are now playing the game, VaJay-Jay Bee. By the way, how is your cute little kitty doing? What's her name?
-
Wow.
In before the lock.
To those of you reading this before the mods edit/delete... enjoy.
This thread definitely lived up to the pissing match hype. yowza.
-
Wow.
In before the lock.
To those of you reading this before the mods edit/delete... enjoy.
This thread definitely lived up to the pissing match hype. yowza.
Once this gets cleaned out, there's always room for another NFC North banter thread. This was just too good to pass up. Check that stuff out.
-
Can't believe everything you read on the internet, boys (and I use that term loosely)... including merriam-webster.com, the 'reputable source'. Reputable if you want to use a 'dictionary' that is criticized as being permissive and uninterested in proper English.
PS - Vikings are actively seeking out a taker for Tarvaris... which they should.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/56794187.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUycaEacyU
-
GREATEST.THREAD.EVER.
Is Atmosphere going to be on the next single?
-
Woops. Somebody left their e-mail address lying around. Well then. "Here 2 meet high school boys"? Maybe the off-color racist homophobic remarks really do stem from some deeper problem. The location is spot on though, you are certainly "up in our grill like a contact lens."
What other brilliance? Minnesota Hip-Hop? One of the greatest oxymorons I've ever heard. Perhaps you could drop some of that "fresh sh*t" for us sometime here at MUScoop.
Perhaps "Nut and Graffiti". Sounds like a winner to me.
Here we were questioning your intelligence, but I don't understand how we can any longer, since you have displayed coherent sentence structure and formulated such deep, intellectual ideas such as this gem, regarding hip-hop artist Eminem: "Recognize Lil Wyte, beyotch. I think his jean jacket must be a little too tight. PASS THE METH, MF'ERS!"
http://www.dunation.com/showthread.php?p=230654#post230654
Not to mention that you declared "the best song of 2007" to be something that you heard on, and I quote, Radio Disney.
http://www.dunation.com/showthread.php?t=11328
After watching you snoop around profiles here and begin addressing people on a first name basis, I thought I might return the favor. Little did I know I'd run into a comic gold mine.
Enjoy it, MUScoop.
While a bit uncomfortable with the whole thing, and a bit disappointed this thread will die a mod induced death before the season even starts (the baseball thread is about to warp up its second season!), this post makes it worth it. Funny stuff.
-
I just made the entire thread a pdf so I can savor it for years to come.
On a football related note... Call me crazy but I would take T Jack in Chicago to compete with Hanie for the #2 spot.
-
On a football related note... Call me crazy but I would take T Jack in Chicago to compete with Hanie for the #2 spot.
I was thinking the same thing about the Packers. They just might have the depth to make such a deal too. Really a dual purpose move too...strengthens the position for the Packers, and limits the Vikings options when Favre stinks on ice come November or so.
-
I was thinking the same thing about the Packers. They just might have the depth to make such a deal too. Really a dual purpose move too...strengthens the position for the Packers, and limits the Vikings options when Favre stinks on ice come November or so.
I cant see the Vikings trading him within the division. But...then again, its the Vikings, so who knows what they will do. Anything is possible.
-
Can't believe everything you read on the internet, boys (and I use that term loosely)... including merriam-webster.com, the 'reputable source'. Reputable if you want to use a 'dictionary' that is criticized as being permissive and uninterested in proper English.
PS - Vikings are actively seeking out a taker for Tarvaris... which they should.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/56794187.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUycaEacyU
Out of everything that's gone on, THIS is the single funniest post in this thread. Proper english?!?!?!
PASS THE METH, MF'ERS!!!!!
As far as Tarvaris goes, I would hope the Packers would be smart enough not to give up anything of value for him, but he's definitely worth a look if the Vikes are forced to release him.
-
As far as Tarvaris goes, I would hope the Packers would be smart enough not to give up anything of value for him, but he's definitely worth a look if the Vikes are forced to release him.
He won't draw anything of value. I'd be shocked if anyone gave up even a 4th round pick. Certainly I could see an exchange of a guy that is about to be released. Price for the Packers or Bears would certainly be a bit higher than an AFC team for instance. Just depends where the areas of need match up.
-
He won't draw anything of value. I'd be shocked if anyone gave up even a 4th round pick. Certainly I could see an exchange of a guy that is about to be released. Price for the Packers or Bears would certainly be a bit higher than an AFC team for instance. Just depends where the areas of need match up.
I would be very happy with a 4th round pick. A 5th or 6th round pick seems reasonable, despite how great some of you think T-Jack is. "Word up".
-
funny how the conversation has completely changed.
hmmm...
-
I would be very happy with a 4th round pick. A 5th or 6th round pick seems reasonable, despite how great some of you think T-Jack is. "Word up".
And I'd certainly give up a 4-6th round pick for a guy with INTIMATE knowledge of the playbook and an axe to grind...
EDIT: His contract is attractive as well, and he's got plenty of starting experience (to make him a solid #2)
-
I would be very happy with a 4th round pick. A 5th or 6th round pick seems reasonable, despite how great some of you think T-Jack is. "Word up".
Nobody has ever said he is great. A better option than Favre for the Vikings this season? Yes. Great? no.
-
funny how the conversation has completely changed.
hmmm...
Just trying to keep the thread from going "behind the bar."
-
Once this gets cleaned out, there's always room for another NFC North banter thread. This was just too good to pass up. Check that stuff out.
Understood.
I don't blame you at all. This is some pretty crazy stuff.
I have to be honest and say that I recognize a lot of the writing as English, but the style and context make it hard to understand. It's probably because I grew up a lame ass suburbanite and I'm not hooked into the underground.
Piss on everybody.
-
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/02/nfl-pro-football-business-sportsmoney-football-values-09-values_slide_32.html
*whistles innocently*
-
What other brilliance? Minnesota Hip-Hop? One of the greatest oxymorons I've ever heard. Perhaps you could drop some of that "fresh sh*t" for us sometime here at MUScoop.
I hate to do this but I need to defend JayBee. Minneapolis has a really good hip hop scene driven heavily by artists on Rhymesayers Entertainment . OK, you can return to Viqueen bashing.
-
Yeah, lots of mainstream rappers coming out of THE MSP! ::)
-
Yeah, lots of mainstream rappers coming out of THE MSP! ::)
Jay Bee...Duh!
-
Yeah, lots of mainstream rappers coming out of THE MSP! ::)
Mainstream doesn't = good.
Good = good.
Especially in music.
-
Yeah, lots of mainstream rappers coming out of THE MSP! ::)
You should check out Atmosphere or Brother Ali - bother tour internationally, and from the beer thread you're in Madison, play there a few times a year.
-
I hate to do this but I need to defend JayBee. Minneapolis has a really good hip hop scene driven heavily by artists on Rhymesayers Entertainment . OK, you can return to Viqueen bashing.
That's fine. I'm not even knocking that it might be a fine brand of hip-hop. It's just entertaining to me that the english nazi manages to butcher the language with his crude and vulgar slang over there. And a white boy from "20 minutes south of Minneapolis" as it said in one post over there likely isn't the top dog for mixtapes on the Minnesota hip-hop scene.
-
And a white boy from "20 minutes south of Minneapolis" as it said in one post over there likely isn't the top dog for mixtapes on the Minnesota hip-hop scene.
Word. Edina is a well known hotbed for up and coming hip-hop acts!
-
Mainstream doesn't = good.
Good = good.
Especially in music.
+1M
-
I won't disagree (as most of the music I listen to is not exactly mainstream), but you are missing the point.
How else would one compare the hip hop scene from one place to another?
-
I won't disagree (as most of the music I listen to is not exactly mainstream), but you are missing the point.
How else would one compare the hip hop scene from one place to another?
Hards - not in that manner. You'd need a certain level of knowledge. I'll explain to you sometime (over a 40oz, son)
-
kiddo, I understand hip hop (some of my friends from college are actually aspiring rappers... the DDE guys... if you've heard of them).
And I have probably drank more 40's in college than you have in your life.
40's at 4 every friday.
-
Word. Edina is a well known hotbed for up and coming hip-hop acts!
cake eater.
-
When did this thread become who's more street?
-
When did this thread become who's more street?
My dad can beat up your dad.
/suburbs'd
-
My dad can beat up your dad.
/suburbs'd
Probably because my dad would never hit his own son.
-
Probably because my dad would never hit his own son.
So... you're LancesOtherNut's uncle? ?-(
-
Not quite.
But on an NFC North issue... I see Hawk's playing time is getting cut back. Is this due to the 3-4(or 4-3 can't remember their new scheme), or is it a skill issue?
-
Not quite.
But on an NFC North issue... I see Hawk's playing time is getting cut back. Is this due to the 3-4(or 4-3 can't remember their new scheme), or is it a skill issue?
Because he's ANOTHER overrated LB from Ohio State.
-
a) I haven't done 'mixtapes'. I spent years on air as a host doing live mixshows (primarily indie/unsigned and oldschool hiphop) in Milwaukee and Minneapolis, and have several releases of my own groups (with me rhyming - the lyrics are as filthy and stupid as you would imagine). As some of you weirdos have probably figured out, old clips from my show and a tons of mp3's are available.
b) I was born and raised in Minneapolis and live in the city today. Never have lived in Edina or anywhere '20 mins south of the city', although I frequent the race track which is roughly 20 mins to the south. But, who cares? Even 22nd and Wells makes the grimiest parts of Minneapolis look like a friendly playground.
c) The first time Rhymesayers came to Milwaukee it was the entire crew - October 1998. I threw the show at a little bar called the Y-Not II off Van Buren. Things have certainly changed (i.e. RSE has built their brand up big time).
I can't wait to have muscoop.com get togethers, guyz! Hards can show me how much he can drink. Rock on, guy!
I wonder if Avenue Liquors is still around? You could write your name and a birthdate on a piece of looseleaf and have it accepted as a valid ID.
AJ Hawk.. a #5 pick? Hahaha... Chad Greenway is the man.
-
Not quite.
But on an NFC North issue... I see Hawk's playing time is getting cut back. Is this due to the 3-4(or 4-3 can't remember their new scheme), or is it a skill issue?
At this point seems to just be a function of Barnett and Matthews (who I believe is going to be a very good LB - not a superstar necessarily, but solid, pro bowl caliber like his old man) returning. Seeing those two on the field is about the only thing to watch tonight. Hawk probably will be on the sideline on passing downs though. He is probably their 4th best LB though.
-
AJ Hawk.. a #5 pick? Hahaha... Chad Greenway is the man.
Really?
Troy Williamson, #7
Aaron Rodgers, #24
Wish you could have that one back, huh?
-
Really?
Troy Williamson, #7
Aaron Rodgers, #24
Wish you could have that one back, huh?
You didn't even include Erasmus James.
Oh, and while Hawk is a certifiable "bust" at number five, he's far from a bad player. The coaches say he grades out in the top 3 linebackers in terms of being assignment sure. He just never developed into a playmaker. Definitely not a bust to a Troy Williamson or Dimitrius Underwood level.
-
Really?
Troy Williamson, #7
Aaron Rodgers, #24
Wish you could have that one back, huh?
Are you implying MIN should have taken Rodgers? Why spend a 1st round pick on a QB when your current QB is still young and coming off an unbelievable season. Yes, Pepper got hurt in 2005, but hindsight is 20-20. Williamson as a speed guy was supposed to be a good compliment to Moss. I would have rather hand the human light switch at 13(ignoring the steriod and major knee injury stuff ;)) if we are redoing the draft.
-
Oh, and while Hawk is a certifiable "bust" at number five, he's far from a bad player. The coaches say he grades out in the top 3 linebackers in terms of being assignment sure. He just never developed into a playmaker.
Not even sure I can call him a bust for number 5. He was the Defensive ROY his first year, second in tackles in his second year on a very solid defense, and spent much of last year out of position on an injury ravaged defense. we'll see what he does this year, but he has been much more good than bad.
-
Not even sure I can call him a bust for number 5. He was the Defensive ROY his first year, second in tackles in his second year on a very solid defense, and spent much of last year out of position on an injury ravaged defense. we'll see what he does this year, but he has been much more good than bad.
That's the nature of the NFL draft, though. I like Hawk as a player and don't really want him going anywhere. Draft value is fickle. At pick #18 or 20, maybe Hawk is considered a success. But at 5? You want a Merriman or Ware level contribution, and Hawk, unfortunately, is not that.
-
Well if we are redrafting with the luxury of hindsight, the pick is DeAngelo Williams or Joseph Adai anyway. First round is a definite crap shoot, whether you are picking 5th or 25th. I believe the Packers will have 5 starters out of that particular year including Jennings and Jolly. Six if you include Will Blackmon who has been an excellent KR/PR.
-
That's the nature of the NFL draft, though. I like Hawk as a player and don't really want him going anywhere. Draft value is fickle. At pick #18 or 20, maybe Hawk is considered a success. But at 5? You want a Merriman or Ware level contribution, and Hawk, unfortunately, is not that.
I want to see how he plays this year as an ILB in the 3-4. He was an MLB in college and playing out of position here so far.
-
First off, Joseph Addai sucks.
Secondly, AJ Hawk IS a bust.
I am totally agreeing with PXI here.
-
First off, Joseph Addai sucks.
Secondly, AJ Hawk IS a bust.
I am totally agreeing with PXI here.
I'll agree with you on Addai, but Hawk gets this year to prove your second statement wrong.
-
I'll agree with you on Addai, but Hawk gets this year to prove your second statement wrong.
he isn't the star of the defense.
just because he starts doesn't mean he isn't a bust.
he is serviceable, but definitely not what you'd hope for out of the 5th overall pick.
-
he isn't the star of the defense.
just because he starts doesn't mean he isn't a bust.
he is serviceable, but definitely not what you'd hope for out of the 5th overall pick.
Key words...hope for. I have no interest in looking it up, but I'd be willing to bet there are more Top 10 picks that fit the description of AJ Hawk, then there are guys that are considered 'stars'. Ryan Leaf, Joey Harrington, David Carr, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Pacman Jones, Tony Mandarich, Jamal Reynolds, Peter Warrik, Curtis Enis, Lawrence Phillips...on and on. Those are busts! AJ Hawk may not be what you hope for with a 5th pick, but from a percentage standpoint, he is probably about what you should expect. Guys like Brain Urlacher and Ladanian Tomlinson are more likely the exception, not the rule.
-
you don't draft someone in the top 5 and expect him to be anything but a star.
he is a bust.
-
General NFL question...
TOP 5 WR in the league based on skill level right now. This was a debate at my office today.
I'll start: L Fitz, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Steve Smith, Randy Moss.
What started this was the question: Brandon Marshall, a top 5 talent?
-
General NFL question...
TOP 5 WR in the league based on skill level right now. This was a debate at my office today.
I'll start: L Fitz, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Steve Smith, Randy Moss.
What started this was the question: Brandon Marshall, a top 5 talent?
Until he stops being top 5 headcase he doesn't belong on it.
-
you don't draft someone in the top 5 and expect him to be anything but a star.
he is a bust.
Here are the last 20 number 5 picks in the draft (plus Sanchez)
Deion Sanders
Junior Seau
Todd Lyght
Terrell Buckley
John Copeland
Trev Alberts
Kerry Collins
Cedric Jones
Bryant Westbrook
Curtis Enis
Rickey Williams
Jamal Lewis
Ladanian Tomlinson
Quentin Jammer
Terence Newman
Sean Taylor
Cadillac Williams
AJ Hawk
Levi Brown
Glenn Dorsey
Mark Sanchez
Count the stars on that list and tell me if you should expect a star, or hope for a star. Not even close.
(Hint: You need to come up with 11 at the bare minimum to say you should expect a star. Good Luck.)
-
I could probably make a case that AJ Hawk would be placed in the upper half of that list (little too early in his career to say either way). If that makes him a bust, we need a new term for guys like Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith.
-
I could probably make a case that AJ Hawk would be placed in the upper half of that list (little too early in his career to say either way). If that makes him a bust, we need a new term for guys like Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith.
Agreed. When drafting at #5 you expect a very solid starter (which Hawk is) and hope for a star. With a draft every year, its a pretty simple numbers game that not every top 5 pick can be a star.
-
Here are the last 20 number 5 picks in the draft (plus Sanchez)
Deion Sanders - Hall of Famer
Junior Seau - Hall of Famer
Todd Lyght - Pro Bowler 1 year
Terrell Buckley - 50 career ints
John Copeland
Trev Alberts
Kerry Collins - Pro Bowler 2 years
Cedric Jones
Bryant Westbrook
Curtis Enis
Ricky Williams - Pro Bowler 1 year
Jamal Lewis - Pro Bowler & NFL Offensive Player of the Year
Ladanian Tomlinson - Hall of Famer
Quentin Jammer
Terence Newman - Pro Bowler 1 year
Sean Taylor - Pro Bowler 2 years (killed)
Cadillac Williams - NFL Rookie of the Year
AJ Hawk
Levi Brown
Glenn Dorsey
Mark Sanchez
Count the stars on that list and tell me if you should expect a star, or hope for a star. Not even close.
(Hint: You need to come up with 11 at the bare minimum to say you should expect a star. Good Luck.)
-
he isn't the star of the defense.
just because he starts doesn't mean he isn't a bust.
he is serviceable, but definitely not what you'd hope for out of the 5th overall pick.
A lot of good discussion here. This is the post I agree with the most. Just because Hawk isn't a pro bowler, doesn't mean I want to get rid of him. But the expectations at pick 5 were higher than the results, and that's a fact. Hawk makes a lot of tackles, is above average in coverage (coverage stats show he was exceptional in '07, and below average in '08, so make of that what you will) but he doesn't force many fumbles, intercept many balls, get many sacks, or make many tackles for loss. Partially the scheme's fault? Sure. But schemes won't hold back great players. Hawk is good. Not great.
-
LOL...Terrell Buckly!
The discussion is not how many have won awards. Even conceeding all of the guys you highlight, that comes to 11.
Is your conclusion that those 11 guys were stars? Do you really consider Terrell Buckly a star? Do you believe Cadillac Williams is a star? Terence Newman? Todd Lyght?
If not, what's your point?
Even if I conceed all 11 (a few of whom Hawk may still end up better than) are stars (which I do not), does that mean you should expect a start with the 5th pick in the draft?
-
But the expectations at pick 5 were higher than the results, and that's a fact.
In your imaginary football world perhaps, but not here in the land of football reality. The expectations established by you and other fans may be higher, but history would seem to indicate that those expectations are completely unfounded. In the list of 20 players drafted at number 5 above, exactly five of them have been to more than 1 Pro Bowl, and more than half of them have never been there. So why is it exactly that the expectations should be higher? You seem to think every player drafted at 5 should be Junior Seau or Deion Sanders, when in fact the overwhelming majority turn out to be more on the level of AJ Hawk, Kerry Collins or Terence Newman.
It frankly doesn't matter what your expectations are, because history says that about 60% of those players aren't likely to live up to them.
-
Hahahaha Chicos, what an awful argument you made. There are definitive 3 stars on that list-Deion, Seau, and LT (maybe Lewis if he can churn out a few more 1,000 yd seasons and who knows what could have been with Taylor). By the time Hawk gets finished he'll have as many accolades as anybody else on that list (it doesn't take much to get named to a pro bowl). If you consider any of those other guys stars then I really have to question your definition of star.
-
I'm sure nobody is watching (Lord knows why I am), but Aaron Rodgers is sportin a killer 'stache again.
http://www.youtube.com/v/zgTEFsNftmQ&hl=en&fs=1&
http://www.youtube.com/v/IGgNhHKx21M&hl=en&fs=1&
Its practically like a wedding ring.
-
LOL...Terrell Buckly!
The discussion is not how many have won awards. Even conceeding all of the guys you highlight, that comes to 11.
Is your conclusion that those 11 guys were stars? Do you really consider Terrell Buckly a star? Do you believe Cadillac Williams is a star? Terence Newman? Todd Lyght?
If not, what's your point?
Even if I conceed all 11 (a few of whom Hawk may still end up better than) are stars (which I do not), does that mean you should expect a start with the 5th pick in the draft?
Was this to me? Actually, I was just highlighting what they did. I most definitely do not think Buckley was a star. I think your original assertion is correct, it's a tough pick. You can get a solid guy, a pro bowler, even a Hall of Famer, but there are plenty of duds in the last number of years as well.
Honestly I was just going to through exercise to see what had become of these players, that's all.
-
Hahahaha Chicos, what an awful argument you made. There are definitive 3 stars on that list-Deion, Seau, and LT (maybe Lewis if he can churn out a few more 1,000 yd seasons and who knows what could have been with Taylor). By the time Hawk gets finished he'll have as many accolades as anybody else on that list (it doesn't take much to get named to a pro bowl). If you consider any of those other guys stars then I really have to question your definition of star.
I didn't make any argument Jmayer, I only listed what they had done. Please show me what argument I made.
Sheesh.
I would, in fact, agree with the original premise that not many stars are there, but I certainly didn't make any argument at all. I thought I was helping to actually show what those guys did or didn't do.
-
I'm sure nobody is watching (Lord knows why I am), but Aaron Rodgers is sportin a killer 'stache again.
Its practically like a wedding ring.
Sounds like my buddy Ron.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCpZV2jCMjc
-
ESPN analysts on the NFC North:
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/57109897.html
quote of the article comes from keyshawn johnson : And Deroit is Detroit.....
-
I didn't make any argument Jmayer, I only listed what they had done. Please show me what argument I made.
Sheesh.
I would, in fact, agree with the original premise that not many stars are there, but I certainly didn't make any argument at all. I thought I was helping to actually show what those guys did or didn't do.
My apologies, I thought you were trying to get the 11 star plateau.
-
so now you set the criteria at 11 players. interesting.
like it or not, AJ Hawk was supposed to be the best LB from that draft, and he wasn't.
-
so now you set the criteria at 11 players. interesting.
Ummmm...no. You actually did when you said that you should expect a star with the 5th pick. 11 is simply more than half, which is the minimum standard I would say is reasonable to say that should in fact be an expectation. If less than half of the 5th picks turn out to be stars (which is clearly the case), on what do you base that conclusion? I would be interested in an answer you can actually substantiate with some facts. What you want to happen doesn't get it done.
Kinda like me saying I expect you to express an opinion on this issue you can support with facts/history, when there is clearly no basis for me to have that expectation.
-
what is a reasonable expectaton for the 5th overall pick in the draft?
a starter?
a star?
I am not the only person bringing up the B-word with AJ Hawk. Others on the board, people in the media... they are saying he is a borderline bust.
everyone is giving Chico crap about TBuck... but he ended up being a decent player when he left GB. 50 career interceptions is actually quite a lot... was he a "bust" 2 years into his career? I don't expect many people would say no. If you actually look at his career numbers, he had a good overall career.
I would say that TBuck and Hawk are VERY comparable. Both had high expectations placed on them their rookie season. Both didn't exactly live up to their billing.
With TBuck as the 5th overall pick, people were EXPECTING him to be the next Deion Sanders.
What I am getting at is that people who have the 5th overall pick EXPECT to have a bonafied STAR. Are they disappointed often? YES. But that doesn't change that they are EXPECTING a star.
Simply because they haven't ALL been stars (which you could say for ANY PICK IN THE TOP 10) doesn't mean that they aren't all EXPECTED to be.
follow?
by your logic, the #1 overall pick isn't an expected star (since only half of them since 1990 have made even ONE probowl!)... really? you don't expect a star from the #1 overall pick? REALLY?
what. the. crap. dude.
you are creating the conclusion from your extremely limited sample set. You are trying to create statistics where they don't apply. Your logic is astonishingly faulty. Please try again.
-
General NFL question...
TOP 5 WR in the league based on skill level right now. This was a debate at my office today.
I'll start: L Fitz, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Steve Smith, Randy Moss.
What started this was the question: Brandon Marshall, a top 5 talent?
I don't think he is better than the five you list above. He's in the next five...but I'd rather have Greg Jennings.
-
I don't think he is better than the five you list above. He's in the next five...but I'd rather have Greg Jennings.
I agree.
And now that all the glorified scrimmages are over, let's get on to the real games.
Actually got offered tickets to last nights GB-TEN game, including the opportunity to hang out on the sidelines pregame, and turned it down in order to play softball. And after watching highlights of TN's practice squad beat GB's practice squad I think I made the right choice.
-
Simply because they haven't ALL been stars (which you could say for ANY PICK IN THE TOP 10) doesn't mean that they aren't all EXPECTED to be.
My point is simple...those expectations are not based on facts or history. I prefer to base my expectations on what has actually happened. You? What you want to happen.
FOLLOW?
With TBuck as the 5th overall pick, people were EXPECTING him to be the next Deion Sanders.
Yeah, stupid people. Any reasonable person could hope he was as good as one of the best DBs ever, but to expect it is ludicrous. Hey, Mark Sanchez was taken with the 5th pick in the draft...do you expect him to be the next Brett Favre? John Elway? Joe Montana? If you do, you're an idiot. Why? More 1st round QB's have bombed out than have actually been successful.
FOLLOW?
everyone is giving Chico crap about TBuck... If you actually look at his career numbers, he had a good overall career.
I would say that TBuck and Hawk are VERY comparable.
Well, if they're VERY comparable, which is it? Buckley had a good career, or he was a bust, as you have unequivocally stated Hawk is.
you are creating the conclusion from your extremely limited sample set. You are trying to create statistics where they don't apply. Your logic is astonishingly faulty.
My logic is faulty? You are the one saying it is reasonable to expect a star player with the 5th pick, simply because he is the 5th pick, even though history clearly demonstrates that stars are the exception, and not the rule. I assure you (were I willing to take the time), I could repeat the exercise with similar results with every position and round in the draft - collectively and individually.
Do you want to end up with a star player with a Top 10 pick? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to expect it to work out that way even half the time? Nope.
Using your 'logic' any player that isn't a star, is a bust (with the exception of T-Buck of course). Therefore, in the last 20 years, 60-70% of of all players taken with the 5th pick have been busts. Yet, in your odd little football world, a star should automatically be expected. makes sense.
-
I agree.
And now that all the glorified scrimmages are over, let's get on to the real games.
Actually got offered tickets to last nights GB-TEN game, including the opportunity to hang out on the sidelines pregame, and turned it down in order to play softball. And after watching highlights of TN's practice squad beat GB's practice squad I think I made the right choice.
Here's how much I hate pre-season football. I watched South Carolina beat NCSU 7-3 instead. Truly awful football game.
-
Here's how much I hate pre-season football. I watched South Carolina beat NCSU 7-3 instead. Truly awful football game.
I watched Ron Artest: Part II.
EDIT: The kid from Boise St. totally instigated it and I'm kinda glad that smirk got wiped off his face. Totally should not have thrown the punch, but it was still better than Carmello's.
-
My point is simple...those expectations are not based on facts or history. I prefer to base my expectations on what has actually happened. You? What you want to happen.
FOLLOW?
Yeah, stupid people. Any reasonable person could hope he was as good as one of the best DBs ever, but to expect it is ludicrous. Hey, Mark Sanchez was taken with the 5th pick in the draft...do you expect him to be the next Brett Favre? John Elway? Joe Montana? If you do, you're an idiot. Why? More 1st round QB's have bombed out than have actually been successful.
FOLLOW?
Well, if they're VERY comparable, which is it? Buckley had a good career, or he was a bust, as you have unequivocally stated Hawk is.
My logic is faulty? You are the one saying it is reasonable to expect a star player with the 5th pick, simply because he is the 5th pick, even though history clearly demonstrates that stars are the exception, and not the rule. I assure you (were I willing to take the time), I could repeat the exercise with similar results with every position and round in the draft - collectively and individually.
Do you want to end up with a star player with a Top 10 pick? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to expect it to work out that way even half the time? Nope.
Using your 'logic' any player that isn't a star, is a bust (with the exception of T-Buck of course). Therefore, in the last 20 years, 60-70% of of all players taken with the 5th pick have been busts. Yet, in your odd little football world, a star should automatically be expected. makes sense.
you missed the point, but I am not surprised.
GMs don't go into the draft thinking you are going to whiff on a pick. If they do, they deserve to fail. On draft day everyone is SURE they have a star... especially if they are a top 5 pick. The players have been scouted and critiqued on every part of their game. GMs don't expect to draft a turd, GMs expect a star. Realistically, are they all stars? NO OF COURSE THEY AREN'T. BUT THE SAME CAN BE SAID OF ANY OF THE TOP 5 PICKS. You really aren't saying anything of substance here! The way you see it, you may as well throw a dart at a dartboard and pick that way and hope for the best no matter who you hit.
If you think you are trying to tell someone that the earth is round to someone who think its flat, rest assured, you aren't. I agree a lot of players don't work out! I never, anywhere in my argument said that players are only either stars or busts! Obviously, there is a lot of middle ground. I would put TBuck and AJ Hawk in the same middle ground, with a serious lean towards the BUST side rather than the STAR side.
TBuck's career through 3 seasons was unimpressive... just like AJ Hawks. Follow? Most people considered TBuck a bust after 3 years... obviously the Packers did. As it looks now AJ Hawk isn't one of the best LBs on the Packers... how can you say he isn't trending toward a bust? Now do you understand my comparison? Could AJ Hawk have a decent career in the long run? Yes!
I'm not sure what sort of facts or history you can use to state that TBuck would never be the next Deion Sanders... Their college numbers were comparable, and they are similar style players. What sort of 'facts and history' could you have used at the time to prove that TBuck was going to be a bust? I'd REALLY like to know. The simple fact is you didn't know, the experts didn't know. If you knew you'd probably be collecting a GM's salary, but you aren't, are you? If they didn't expect TBuck to be a star they would not have drafted him 5th overall. There are "upside" guys and "potential" guys in every draft, but from most everyone's perspective TBuck was a sure thing. REASONABLE EXPECTATION.
-
I watched Ron Artest: Part II.
EDIT: The kid from Boise St. totally instigated it and I'm kinda glad that smirk got wiped off his face. Totally should not have thrown the punch, but it was still better than Carmello's.
It was cute until he tried to take on the entire city of Boise.
-
I'm not going to write a dissertation on perceived value and expectation with regards to the NFL draft. But if anyone thinks Ted Thompson took Hawk at pick #5 and said to himself "gosh, I hope this guy is a somewhat above average starting LB in the NFL someday" they're fooling themselves. If any Packer fan had that same thought when Hawk was drafted, I don't know what to tell you.
-
I'm not going to write a dissertation on perceived value and expectation with regards to the NFL draft. But if anyone thinks Ted Thompson took Hawk at pick #5 and said to himself "gosh, I hope this guy is a somewhat above average starting LB in the NFL someday" they're fooling themselves. If any Packer fan had that same thought when Hawk was drafted, I don't know what to tell you.
I heard a number of fans think that he was the Packer's answer to Urlacher. I heard a lot of references to Butkus v. Nitschkie Part II.
-
I never, anywhere in my argument said that players are only either stars or busts! Obviously, there is a lot of middle ground. I would put TBuck and AJ Hawk in the same middle ground, with a serious lean towards the BUST side rather than the STAR side.
That's funny, because yesterday on two separate occasions you said unequivocally...
"AJ Hawk IS a bust." and "he is a bust."
Seems the story has changed again. Which is it?
Of course a team thinks they are making the right pick, but your position seems to be that if AJ Hawk doesn't turn into Mike Singletary, he's a bust, when history indicates that if you end up with a player that is a starter for a few years and maybe sees a pro bowl or two, you've actually done pretty well. Will Hawk do that? Doesn't necessarily look that way, but ask me again in a few months. For every Deion Sanders there is also a Todd Lyght and a Curtis Enis. On the whole, despite all the homework and preparation, GMs miss more than they hit when it comes to finding 1st round picks that turn into star players. I'm sure you would agree.
I have a hard time slapping the bust tag on a guy that made the all-rookie team and led his team in tackles his first year, was second in his second year, and spent the third year out of position and led a banged up and bad defense in tackles again.
-
To change course a little bit, looks like the Consensus Vikes are falling further and further away (as if they ever were in the first place...)
We asked 11 National Football League television analysts or announcers to pick the NFC North champion this season.
Their comments suggest the title will be won by either the Green Bay Packers or the defending champion Minnesota Vikings:
Jimmy Johnson (Fox studio analyst): "I'm picking Green Bay. Aaron Rodgers, with what he did last year, even though some of it was not at the end of games. But overall, for the season he had, for the preseason he has had, being the head man in that offense, I think they are going to be good, . . . With all the buzz that you have in Minnesota, and the buzz that you have in Chicago, I think the Packers are the team to beat in that division."
Troy Aikman (Fox game analyst): "I am still sticking with Green Bay for a couple of reasons. I like what they did during the off-season. I have played against Dom Capers in a lot of big games. I know what he can do. I think he is really going to help that defensive group. . . . Aaron Rodgers had an excellent year last year and doing it with everyone watching. He held up to the scrutiny. He did that very well."
Chris Berman (ESPN studio host): "Aaron Rodgers was the best player on the team last year. Now they look like they are going to have a better team all the way around him, starting with defense. Certainly if we are to judge them on the preseason, the Packers (look good). I put them ahead of the Bears. . . . I would still rate the Vikings the favorite with the Packers right behind. Suddenly the quarterback play in the division is a hell of a lot more interesting than it was a year ago."
Keyshawn Johnson (ESPN studio analyst): "Minnesota will win that division and Green Bay will finish in second and everybody else will just toss it up in the air. Chicago, they don't have any receivers. That's a big question mark for them. And Detroit is Detroit."
Steve Young (ESPN studio analyst): "When was the last time you had four compelling quarterback stories in the NFC North? It's been a dead zone for quarterbacks for so many years, other than in Green Bay. It's fascinating. Talking about it is fun for once. If you would have asked me this question a year ago, I would have fallen asleep, just because it was so boring. Now it's actually an interesting question and fun to talk about because we have no idea how Chicago and Minnesota will deal with quarterbacks. With Brett, we have no idea what November, December, January will look like for Brett at his age. You just don't know. I'm sure Brett doesn't know. Chicago - Jay (Cutler) is Jay. That's why he's not in Denver. There are a lot of reasons why that didn't work out. You ask me who is going to win the NFC North? The most substantive players, who have been there, who have put work in, are in Green Bay. . . . For the first time since forever I'm actually interested in what's happening in that division."
Cris Carter (ESPN studio analyst): "Brett and the weapons he has are better than any of the other defenses. Minnesota is the favorite. Their schedule Week 4 through 8 is very, very tough. They play the Packers twice, Pittsburgh sandwiched in there. Their season could pretty much be decided by the time they get the bye week in Week 9."
Marshall Faulk (NFL Network studio analyst): "The Packers. Last year, with all that was going on with Brett Favre, the Packers took a step backwards. Aaron Rodgers had a decent year. What I have seen from him this year, he will have even a better year than last year. The running game will be better with Ryan Grant in place. The offensive line is pretty good. And what they have done on defense. . . . They are not going to put their corners out on an island, playing man-to-man all the time."
Michael Irvin (NFL Network studio analyst): "It's going to be sad. A lot of us out here look at Brett Favre and we love him, appreciate all that he has done. But Green Bay is about to beat him again. That's just how it is going to end up. Green Bay is the best team in the North."
Ron Jaworski (ESPN game analyst): "The Minnesota Vikings are the team to beat not only in the NFC North, but in the NFC, period. I think they are a complete football team."
Mike Tirico (ESPN game announcer): "I like Green Bay. . . . I like the way their (defensive) personnel feel about the 3-4. Can they physically do it? We won't know until we see it. But I liked what I saw in their confidence when I was up there. Dom Capers is a heck of a defensive coach. That's an area that let them down. . . . Aaron is a year better. The group that is around him is pretty good."
Jon Gruden (ESPN game analyst): "I think this is going to be a knockdown, drag-out division this year. I'm more excited to follow this division than any other division in football. Three new quarterbacks. You talk about Brett Favre playing for Minnesota, (Matthew) Stafford in Detroit, the guy in Chicago, (Jay) Cutler. And Aaron Rodgers might be better than all of them."
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/57109897.html
Of course, Jay Bee will call the ones who pick Minnesota well educated, top notch analysts, and the ones who pick Green Bay as uninformed hacks.
Speaking of credible analysts, Mike Lombardi from the National Football Post (you know, the guy with 25 years of experience as an NFL executive working with Bill Walsh, Bill Belichick and Marty Shottenheimer, and one of the main architects of the Oakland Raiders Super Bowl team) picks the Packers to not only win the North, but represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. What a worthless hack.
EDIT: Please note that preseason prognostications are generally worthless, and I think as much. This is merely further evidence that Minnesota isn't, and never was, the consensus pick in the NFC North.
-
But if anyone thinks Ted Thompson took Hawk at pick #5 and said to himself "gosh, I hope this guy is a somewhat above average starting LB in the NFL someday" they're fooling themselves.
Of course that's true, but ted Thompson has also been around long enough to realize that more often than not, the guy you pick is gonna end up being the wrong guy. That's true of every GM.
-
I will concede that "bust" is an extremely strong word. I only used the term in relation to where Hawk was taken. I would say disappointment or failure to become an impact player would be a more apt term, where bust can be saved for guys like Leaf, Courtney Brown, Jamal Reynolds, Curtis Enis, and the like.
-
I'd agree with much of what was said.
for the record, in my book, trending towards bust and bust are very close to each other... for convenience sakes, of course.
-
and kevin jones is out for the season. Thank you late hit out of bounds in a meaningless game. :-(
-
This never gets old:
Best...call...ever...
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/wpclxztrvh--Cardinals-Knock-Vikings-OutFootball-Minnesota-Vikings-Arizona-vs-Minnesota-2003-
Watch it all unfold...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnl1YqcBQfg&feature=related
-
This never gets old:
Best...call...ever...
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/wpclxztrvh--Cardinals-Knock-Vikings-OutFootball-Minnesota-Vikings-Arizona-vs-Minnesota-2003-
Watch it all unfold...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnl1YqcBQfg&feature=related
Phenomenal post.
-
This never gets old:
Best...call...ever...
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/wpclxztrvh--Cardinals-Knock-Vikings-OutFootball-Minnesota-Vikings-Arizona-vs-Minnesota-2003-
Watch it all unfold...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnl1YqcBQfg&feature=related
I watched this with a Viking fan friend of mine. He is the honestly one of the nicest people I know. A Lutheran pastor who would never trash talk or anything. I almost felt bad for him.
The only thing that ruins my joy over this play is that 4th and 26 happened two weeks later.
-
I watched this with a Viking fan friend of mine. He is the honestly one of the nicest people I know. A Lutheran pastor who would never trash talk or anything. I almost felt bad for him.
The only thing that ruins my joy over this play is that 4th and 26 happened two weeks later.
Ugh. FredEx. I had effectively repressed that memory. Thanks.
-
Ugh. FredEx. I had effectively repressed that memory. Thanks.
Terrible. There was also an enigmatic, legendary QB, if memory serves, that lobbed up a lame duck on the first pass in overtime...
It should have never come to that point, but the fact remains.
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/09/05/favre-on-his-ability-to-play-16-games-i-just-dont-know/
Peter King of Sports Illustrated, NBC, and Sirius NFL Radio addressed the question of whether Vikings quarterback Brett Favre can make it through a full season in one piece, despite making it through seventeen straight years without missing a start.
Said Favre to King after Monday night's preseason game, "Peter, I just don't know."
The fact that Childress allowed Favre to stay in a meaningless game on Monday night -- and throw a low block on a Wildcat play -- might be a sign that Chilly isn't as worried about keeping his superstar signal-caller safe as Chilly should be.
-
and kevin jones is out for the season. Thank you late hit out of bounds in a meaningless game. :-(
He had 34 carries all of last year, 13 in week 1. Not concerned.
-
He had 34 carries all of last year, 13 in week 1. Not concerned.
Yeah, no Bear fan should be worried about losing Kevin Jones. Nonentity.
-
Yeah, no Bear fan should be worried about losing Kevin Jones. Nonentity.
I realize we aren't talking about a major contributer here but...
Anytime a guy who, is an obvious part of the roster, is lost for the season, I think it's bad. If nothing other than to give Forte a breather.
-
I realize we aren't talking about a major contributer here but...
Anytime a guy who, is an obvious part of the roster, is lost for the season, I think it's bad. If nothing other than to give Forte a breather.
Honestly, put in a back up offensive tackle. He'd be about as effective...and much quicker.
-
Packers 34 - Bears 24
-
Packers 27 - Bears 10
-
Packers 34 - Bears 24
CHI 35 - GB 27
Number of times the Sunday night crew mentions Favre 139.
-
Intriguing game. Future MVP Erin Rodgers and his killer passing game vs. the experienced and proven Bears defense.
The Battle For Second Place in the NFC North starts Sunday! Will the Packers increase their 2008 win total by a whopping 50% and squeak into a Wild Card game? Will Devin Hester run a decent route or continue to be a circus-type player, limited in what he can do? Is this a "Milwaukee game"? Will Lambeau once again show it's most impressive attribute - the ability to hold up despite the immense weight of the Packer fans in the stadium?
I don't have the answers to any of the above - but I know who does: Jaws. The only man in the media that knows exactly how the season will play out.
-
Intriguing game. Future MVP Erin Rodgers and his killer passing game vs. the experienced and proven Bears defense.
The Battle For Second Place in the NFC North starts Sunday! Will the Packers increase their 2008 win total by a whopping 50% and squeak into a Wild Card game? Will Devin Hester run a decent route or continue to be a circus-type player, limited in what he can do? Is this a "Milwaukee game"? Will Lambeau once again show it's most impressive attribute - the ability to hold up despite the immense weight of the Packer fans in the stadium?
I don't have the answers to any of the above - but I know who does: Jaws. The only man in the media that knows exactly how the season will play out.
Not a Milwaukee Game.
I think you should worry about the Vikings actually selling season tickets, and not having any games blacked out, before you run your mouth about Lambeau.
-
Not a Milwaukee Game.
I think you should worry about the Vikings actually selling season tickets, and not having any games blacked out, before you run your mouth about Lambeau.
It's easy to sell out Lambeau when 1/2 of the people's fat rears take up 2 seats.
It's harder to sell-out the dome to the always classy, and skinny Vikes fans.
-
Intriguing game. Future MVP Erin Rodgers and his killer passing game vs. the experienced and proven Bears defense.
The Battle For Second Place in the NFC North starts Sunday! Will the Packers increase their 2008 win total by a whopping 50% and squeak into a Wild Card game? Will Devin Hester run a decent route or continue to be a circus-type player, limited in what he can do? Is this a "Milwaukee game"? Will Lambeau once again show it's most impressive attribute - the ability to hold up despite the immense weight of the Packer fans in the stadium?
I don't have the answers to any of the above - but I know who does: Jaws. The only man in the media that knows exactly how the season will play out.
Sick beatz, brah!
-
It's easy to sell out Lambeau when 1/2 of the people's fat rears take up 2 seats.
It's harder to sell-out the dome to the always classy, and skinny Vikes fans.
Wisconsin fat jokes are a crutch for those that are not funny.
-
Wisconsin fat jokes are a crutch for those that are not funny.
especially those who have thick Minnesota sweaters. ;)
-
Wisconsin fat jokes are a crutch for those that are not funny.
Agree.
But realistically, all "my team is better because (insert some crap here)" jokes are tired and unfunny.
- Viking fans can't sell out the stadium, they don't deserve a franchise. They are born losers, and can never "win the big one". Also, they usually have thugs and punks on that team just like the thugs and punks that live up there.
- Packer fans live where there is nothing else to do, so they just eat cheese and obsess over the packers. They are all fat, and far too smug about their own team. "hey der, go pack go!"
- Bear fans are still obsessed with a team from almost 25 years ago that won the superbowl. They can't appreciate the team they have, because it will never be like "Buddy's old 46 defense". They need to move on and appreciate what they have. Also, they ruined their own stadium.
The list goes on and on and gets repeated every season, by fans of every team.
If you want to critique jokes, feel free to shoot down everybody, because 99% of the jokes are "crutches".
Packer fans are fat
Viking fans are losers
Bear fans are stupid
Covers it all, right?
-
I think it is hilarious that people from Minnesota claim that there is 'nothing to do in Wisconsin'.
Actually, I would bet that WI brings in more tourism dollars that MN and honestly, most of the great lake states.
Additionally, the MN folk should probably take a look around the great state of MN and realize that it is really just WI without as much Great Lake access, and farther North.
sounds SO much better.
-
Packers win by 10
-
Chicos just out of curiosity what NFL team do you follow? 9ers?
-
Chicos just out of curiosity what NFL team do you follow? 9ers?
Vikes.
I'm just saying that all of the arguments and crap are cliche.
-
Actually, I would bet that WI brings in more tourism dollars that MN and honestly, most of the great lake states.
Correct between these 2 states, but...
2008 Wis $13.1 Billion
2008 Minnesota $11.0 Billion
2007 Chicago $18.4 Billion.
Vikes.
I'm just saying that all of the arguments and crap are cliche.
Does Chicos have 2 screen names?
-
I think it is hilarious that people from Minnesota claim that there is 'nothing to do in Wisconsin'.
Actually, I would bet that WI brings in more tourism dollars that MN and honestly, most of the great lake states.
Additionally, the MN folk should probably take a look around the great state of MN and realize that it is really just WI without as much Great Lake access, and farther North.
sounds SO much better.
Both states have far more in common than either group of fans will ever care to admit. I think that's the nature of fans. We "vilify" the fans of another team, when in reality they have a lot in common.
As far as "tourism dollars", it's not even comparable because MN has the Mall, which will greatly skew the numbers.
Mall of America brings in more $ in 1 week than lake Michigan does in 1 year* (* hyperbole)
EDIT: I guess I was way off. I wonder if the Mall #'s are counted as "tourism".
Hmmm...
-
Agree.
But realistically, all "my team is better because (insert some crap here)" jokes are tired and unfunny.
- Viking fans can't sell out the stadium, they don't deserve a franchise. They are born losers, and can never "win the big one". Also, they usually have thugs and punks on that team just like the thugs and punks that live up there.
- Packer fans live where there is nothing else to do, so they just eat cheese and obsess over the packers. They are all fat, and far too smug about their own team. "hey der, go pack go!"
- Bear fans are still obsessed with a team from almost 25 years ago that won the superbowl. They can't appreciate the team they have, because it will never be like "Buddy's old 46 defense". They need to move on and appreciate what they have. Also, they ruined their own stadium.
The list goes on and on and gets repeated every season, by fans of every team.
If you want to critique jokes, feel free to shoot down everybody, because 99% of the jokes are "crutches".
Packer fans are fat
Viking fans are losers
Bear fans are stupid
Covers it all, right?
Fair enough.
-
Fair enough.
For the record, I wasn't trying to be a wet blanket on all of the pissing fun.
Everybody should feel free to use crappy stereotypes and cliches and blast each other. This is the pissing match! It's not the "I'm accurate about my team match".
My only point was that every team/fans have their cliches. We hear them every year.
-
Intriguing game. Future MVP Erin Rodgers and his killer passing game vs. the experienced and proven Bears defense.
The Battle For Second Place in the NFC North starts Sunday! Will the Packers increase their 2008 win total by a whopping 50% and squeak into a Wild Card game? Will Devin Hester run a decent route or continue to be a circus-type player, limited in what he can do? Is this a "Milwaukee game"? Will Lambeau once again show it's most impressive attribute - the ability to hold up despite the immense weight of the Packer fans in the stadium?
I don't have the answers to any of the above - but I know who does: Jaws. The only man in the media that knows exactly how the season will play out.
Perhaps you could pen a rap about the forthcoming season and "throw it down nasty style" for those of us here at MU Scoop. We like it fresh.
It seems that many of the national media outlets are picking sides and hopping on either the Vikes, Packers or Bears bandwagon. This is the most interesting season in quite awhile. I guess we'll see whether the fluke was the 13-3 Packers dropping to 6-10, or the perennially mediocre Vikings "lifting their game" to 10-6 for one season.
-
Wisconsin is a 'drive destination' for many more people than Minnesota is. If someone from a big city (i.e. Chicago) wants to drive somewhere to get away from it all and do absolutely nothing (i.e. visit Wisconsin), they can quickly drive there.. there are only 4 people that live in the Dakotas and I am not sure if people in Iowa even have cars.
The fact of the matter is Minneapolis is a far greater city than any of Wisconsin's lil towns. That's where much of the 'nothing to do' comes from. Don't get me wrong, I love Milwaukee, but Minneapolis metro area is enormous compared to anything in Wisconsin (except for WI women).
115 in a row!!! Way to go Vikings fans and corporate partners! BRING IN THE HORNS!!!
-
"Soldier Cow Pasture"
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/1757438,bears-soldier-field-07.article
Here's the real gem of a quote:
"A tripleheader of prep games was played on the field the weekend before the meeting with the Browns. Still, it was surprising that three games would create obvious patches in the surface, and it was evident the crew that painted the field originally put the "C" at the 50-yard line in the wrong spot. A source said after the game Thursday that the field would be re-sodded well before the Sept. 20 home opener vs. the Pittsburgh Steelers."
They put the logo in the wrong place????
-
Wisconsin is a 'drive destination' for many more people than Minnesota is. If someone from a big city (i.e. Chicago) wants to drive somewhere to get away from it all and do absolutely nothing (i.e. visit Wisconsin), they can quickly drive there.. there are only 4 people that live in the Dakotas and I am not sure if people in Iowa even have cars.
The fact of the matter is Minneapolis is a far greater city than any of Wisconsin's lil towns. That's where much of the 'nothing to do' comes from. Don't get me wrong, I love Milwaukee, but Minneapolis metro area is enormous compared to anything in Wisconsin (except for WI women).
115 in a row!!! Way to go Vikings fans and corporate partners! BRING IN THE HORNS!!!
VaJay-Jay, I'm wondering who your favorite rapper/hip hop artist is? I'd like to know from the pro...
-
For the record, I wasn't trying to be a wet blanket on all of the pissing fun.
Everybody should feel free to use crappy stereotypes and cliches and blast each other. This is the pissing match! It's not the "I'm accurate about my team match".
My only point was that every team/fans have their cliches. We hear them every year.
I agree, it's fun to have some original burns every now and then though.
-
I agree, it's fun to have some original burns every now and then though.
I'm all for it.
Bring on the originality. It's has to better than some of the crap that is usually thrown out there.
How about: Packer fans are such big hicks, that the Parckers are the only team in the league to officially use blaze orange as an alternate logo color.
"We've got Pack tickets this weekend. Time for me and the Mrs. to go get a new set of blaze orange coveralls from and wear my new cheesehead, der hey, buddy."
Not really original, but a little different than "Pack fans are fat and like cheese".
-
der hey, buddy."
Umm isn't that Minnesooooohhhhhhdah where they talk like that? "Hey der, we are goooooohhhhhhin to da game."
-
and I am not sure if people in Iowa even have cars.
Hence... Idiots Out Walking Around
-
I'm all for it.
Bring on the originality. It's has to better than some of the crap that is usually thrown out there.
How about: Packer fans are such big hicks, that the Parckers are the only team in the league to officially use blaze orange as an alternate logo color.
"We've got Pack tickets this weekend. Time for me and the Mrs. to go get a new set of blaze orange coveralls from and wear my new cheesehead, der hey, buddy."
Not really original, but a little different than "Pack fans are fat and like cheese".
I'll give it to you.
Oh man I can't stand all the blaze orange (never was a hunter).
At least we don't have to blow a horn to remind our fans to cheer...
EDIT: And how dare you turn this civil.
-
I'll give it to you.
Oh man I can't stand all the blaze orange (never was a hunter).
At least we don't have to blow a horn to remind our fans to cheer...
EDIT: And how dare you turn this civil.
The horn is so bad that it's good.
The Vikes Unis are just bad.
The old-school unis the Vikes wore last year wear great. I wish they wore them all of the time.
-
The horn is dope. The Williams bros. will not be suspended... this weekend. In reality, no matter what the 8th circuit says, it'll just be appealed again... and again. It's gunna be awhile unless the bros. want to just say, 'eff it, let's get it over and done with... since we have Favre on the team, whether or not we play doesn't mean much.. we'll still win'.
Patti - a great mc was in Milwaukee this past weekend - Akrobatik, at the Highbury. I'll also luv Chuck D and Brother J, but some 'younger' cats I like include JUICE from Chicago and Apathy from CT.
---------------------------------
Kevin and Pat Williams continue to await a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circiut regarding their potential four-game suspensions in the long-running StarCaps case, but one thing has been cleared up.
The Pro Bowl defensive tackles will be able to play Sunday in the Vikings' regular-season opener in Cleveland. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed this to be the case this afternoon in an e-mail that read, "The suspensions will not be enforced for this weekend."
It remains uncertain when a ruling will be issued. A three judge panel from the Eighth Circuit heard from both the NFL and the Williamses' representatives on Aug. 17 and the panel's chairwoman, Judge Diana Murphy, said they would rule in "due time, keeping in mind the start of the season."
That ruling has yet to come, so at some point the players need to know they can play in the upcoming game. Whichever side loses this case would have the chance to appeal it to the full Eighth Circuit panel and after that they could attempt to take it to the Supreme Court.
-
Chicos just out of curiosity what NFL team do you follow? 9ers?
Cowboys. I'm originally from Texas and the Boys training camp was in my hometown of Thousand Oaks for 29 years before Jones yanked it in 1990. I used to work the camp as a kid....great memories.
We suck, 10 years without a playoff win and this will be number 11. I love Jerry Jones as an owner, I hate Jerry Jones as a GM. Therein lies the problem.
-
The Consensus builds...ESPN.com has the pre-season picks of 16 individuals up...
NFC North:
8 pick the Vikings
7 pick the Packers
1 Picks the Bears
6 Believe the Vikings will miss the playoffs
6 believe the Packers will miss the playoffs
13 believe the Bears will miss the playoffs
NFC Champions:
2 Pick the Packers
A grand total of 0 pick the Vikings or Bears.
That kind of consensus would make Al Gore and the Global warming nuts blush.
-
Why are we spending so much energy on caring about who picks who where? The season starts Sunday and what people thought before the season began becomes completely irrelevant.
-
Why are we spending so much energy on caring about who picks who where?
As we know, the consensus pick to win the division is Minnesota.
-- Jay Bee
Just having a little fun with Vanilla Ice
(http://burnblog.burningman.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/vanilla_ice.jpg)
-
The Consensus builds...ESPN.com has the pre-season picks of 16 individuals up...
NFC North:
8 pick the Vikings
7 pick the Packers
1 Picks the Bears
6 Believe the Vikings will miss the playoffs
6 believe the Packers will miss the playoffs
13 believe the Bears will miss the playoffs
NFC Champions:
2 Pick the Packers
A grand total of 0 pick the Vikings or Bears.
That kind of consensus would make Al Gore and the Global warming nuts blush.
drop the politics.
-
As we know, the consensus pick to win the division is Minnesota.
-- Jay Bee
Just having a little fun with Vanilla Ice
(http://burnblog.burningman.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/vanilla_ice.jpg)
Yo Jay Bee! Kick it one time, boyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!
Anyone else pumped up for Packers-Bears this weekend? This is gonna be A LOT of fun.
-
Yo Jay Bee! Kick it one time, boyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!
Anyone else pumped up for Packers-Bears this weekend? This is gonna be A LOT of fun.
Work sure is going to suck on Monday, but I'll be there watching the Pack start 1-0. Is it Thursday yet?
-
Work sure is going to suck on Monday, but I'll be there watching the Pack start 1-0. Is it Thursday yet?
Let's be honest, when doesn't work suck on Monday?
-
Work sure is going to suck on Monday, but I'll be there watching the Pack start 1-0. Is it Thursday yet?
I'm confused. The Pack plays Sunday night. So won't you be celebrating a Packers win at work on Monday?
-
I'm confused. The Pack plays Sunday night. So won't you be celebrating a Packers win at work on Monday?
I'll most likely moving very slowly as I am an excellent tailgater...
-
I'll most likely moving very slowly as I am an excellent tailgater...
OH! You won't be "at work on Monday watching the Pack start 1-0." You'll be "at the game Sunday watching the Pack start 1-0", and consuming large quantities of alcohol which will lead to work sucking on Monday. Now I understand.
-
OH! You won't be "at work on Monday watching the Pack start 1-0." You'll be "at the game Sunday watching the Pack start 1-0", and consuming large quantities of alcohol which will lead to work sucking on Monday. Now I understand.
Nailed it.
-
Too bad labor day wasn't next week, huh? It would have worked out perfectly
-
"Yeah dudes I'm a totally great tailgater! rock on I am totally gunna down 6 big Miller Lites! hell yeah brah, go pack go dude. Forget brent we luv erin! dude I am like really awesome at cornhole and boozin" -LON
I'm t-JACKED for the Vikings opener, but think it's weird and potentially not h***ro that Cleveland hasn't announced their starter. Doesn't matter much who the driver is, though, as their whip is crazy busted.
But, even more so looking forward to the Gophers home opener vs. Air Force in the new stadium. Lance's has made drinking cool in my eyes.. I need to find a decent flask.
What are the lines on the NFC North games this weekend? I know Minnesota is the CONSENSUS for the week (and the season to win the NFC North), but not sure how much WE are favored by.
-
"Yeah dudes I'm a totally great tailgater! rock on I am totally gunna down 6 big Miller Lites! hell yeah brah, go pack go dude. Forget brent we luv erin! dude I am like really awesome at cornhole and boozin" -LON
I'm t-JACKED for the Vikings opener, but think it's weird and potentially not h***ro that Cleveland hasn't announced their starter. Doesn't matter much who the driver is, though, as their whip is crazy busted.
But, even more so looking forward to the Gophers home opener vs. Air Force in the new stadium. Lance's has made drinking cool in my eyes.. I need to find a decent flask.
What are the lines on the NFC North games this weekend? I know Minnesota is the CONSENSUS for the week (and the season to win the NFC North), but not sure how much WE are favored by.
Was wondering where the articulate gangsta was hiding...
Seriously, give yourself a high hard one with your Kid Rock mixtapes.
-
"Yeah dudes I'm a totally great tailgater! rock on I am totally gunna down 6 big Miller Lites! hell yeah brah, go pack go dude. Forget brent we luv erin! dude I am like really awesome at cornhole and boozin" -LON
I'm t-JACKED for the Vikings opener, but think it's weird and potentially not h***ro that Cleveland hasn't announced their starter. Doesn't matter much who the driver is, though, as their whip is crazy busted.
But, even more so looking forward to the Gophers home opener vs. Air Force in the new stadium. Lance's has made drinking cool in my eyes.. I need to find a decent flask.
What are the lines on the NFC North games this weekend? I know Minnesota is the CONSENSUS for the week (and the season to win the NFC North), but not sure how much WE are favored by.
So let me get this straight... we get to our sporting events three to five hours early, enjoy copious amounts of alcohol, delicious, grilled meat, and each other's company, before proceeding into a stadium filled with fans of our team who pay to be there because they actually WANT to come watch their team play, and you view this as a BAD thing?
Meanwhile, somewhere to the west, an early 30s white guy is having a terrible identity crisis and expressing it through his irrational opinions regarding an awfully overrated football team.
Maybe next Monday, you and Aaron Wade can get together for a little Late Night Hype reunion and throw down some sick lyrics about how Aaron Rodgers is far and away the best QB in this division.
-
"Yeah dudes I'm a totally great tailgater! rock on I am totally gunna down 6 big Miller Lites! hell yeah brah, go pack go dude. Forget brent we luv erin! dude I am like really awesome at cornhole and boozin" -LON
I'm t-JACKED for the Vikings opener, but think it's weird and potentially not h***ro that Cleveland hasn't announced their starter. Doesn't matter much who the driver is, though, as their whip is crazy busted.
But, even more so looking forward to the Gophers home opener vs. Air Force in the new stadium. Lance's has made drinking cool in my eyes.. I need to find a decent flask.
What are the lines on the NFC North games this weekend? I know Minnesota is the CONSENSUS for the week (and the season to win the NFC North), but not sure how much WE are favored by.
Seriously, VaJay-Jay, thank you for sending me that sick beat through PM! It was truly the work of a professional, I wish I could hear more of where that came form!
-
Seriously, VaJay-Jay, thank you for sending me that sick beat through PM! It was truly the work of a professional, I wish I could hear more of where that came form!
WadsWorld - came form? Sounds like more naughty talk from lil Patti. Use that in a different sentence for me?
-
Seriously, VaJay-Jay, thank you for sending me that sick beat through PM! It was truly the work of a professional, I wish I could hear more of where that came form!
By professional, do you mean he hit the preset button then twirled his hands around like he knew what he was doing?
-
"Yeah dudes I'm a totally great tailgater! rock on I am totally gunna down 6 big Miller Lites! hell yeah brah, go pack go dude. Forget brent we luv erin! dude I am like really awesome at cornhole and boozin" -LON
I'm t-JACKED for the Vikings opener, but think it's weird and potentially not h***ro that Cleveland hasn't announced their starter. Doesn't matter much who the driver is, though, as their whip is crazy busted.
But, even more so looking forward to the Gophers home opener vs. Air Force in the new stadium. Lance's has made drinking cool in my eyes.. I need to find a decent flask.
What are the lines on the NFC North games this weekend? I know Minnesota is the CONSENSUS for the week (and the season to win the NFC North), but not sure how much WE are favored by.
The harder you try, the less funny you become. Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.
-
don't feed the trolls.
-
Hence... Idiots Out Walking Around
Or another one I picked up....Idiots Out Wandering Aimlessly
-
By professional, do you mean he hit the preset button then twirled his hands around like he knew what he was doing?
No, by professional I mean that he "WORKS HARD!" as the lyrics state, over, and over, and over. I actually really, really hope he doesn't work hard on this stuff, because it's pretty terrible, and if he works hard and this is the best he can come up with then it's quite a shame.
-
VaJay-Jay, even more proof of your CONSENSUS NFC North champion pick, the Vikings...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/09/07/crystal.ball1/index.html
Of the 9 people making predictions, only FOUR pick the Vikings in the playoffs, with NONE picking them as the division winner and NONE picking them to make the NFC Championship game. ALL NINE pick the Packers to make the playoffs, SEVEN of them pick the Packers to win the Division, SIX pick the Packers to make it to the NFC Championship game, and FOUR pick the Packers to make it to the Super Bowl. TWO pick the Bears to win the division, SIX pick the Bears to make the playoffs, TWO pick the Bears to make it to the NFC Championship game, and ONE picks the Bears to make it to the Super Bowl.
Your consensus NFC North Champion/NFC Champion/Super Bowl Champion pick, Minnesota Vikings, everyone!
So, VaJay-Jay, you can correct everyone on their spelling (when they are typing quickly and switch 2 letters...), but you might want to learn the definition of "consensus." And you might want to learn how to properly use the English language (see: your awful music).
Oh, and let me guess your very intelligent response! "Patti had to search deep and hard to find an article that didn't pick the Vikings." Hint, VaJay-Jay, before you go and embarrass yourself with this response, look on si.com and you will find it very quickly, as in, it is the main article on the main page. Gosh, this game is fun!
SICK BEATZ BRAH!
-
As a prelude to this season, I think it is imperative that we all witness this video of Jay Bee with his celebrity crush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCpZV2jCMjc
-
Let the excuse making begin!
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-vikings-favre&prov=ap&type=lgns
Favre says he ‘may not’ be an ironman this season
By DAVE CAMPBELL, AP Sports Writer 37 minutes ago
*
Buzz up! 1307
*
Print
EDEN PRAIRIE, Minn. (AP)—Remember Brett Favre’s(notes) first answer to Vikings coach Brad Childress? My body isn’t up for this, he said. Six weeks later, Minnesota’s new quarterback wants to remind the football world just how old he is.
“I may not finish the year. If you would have asked me my first year if I would finish I’d have said, ‘I may not,”’ Favre said. “No one thought I’d play 18 straight years without missing a game, me included. I have no idea what’s going to happen. None.”
After his initial rejection on July 28, Favre accepted the coach’s offer to join the Vikings on Aug. 18 for this too-good-to-pass-up opportunity to play for a title-contending team. His reasoning? He didn’t want to regret not trying, not even at age 39.
Popular Across Yahoo!
* Bizarre brawl leaves coach with broken jaw
* Mystery death of Mozart could be solved
* Easy tips on how to save $500 a month
ADVERTISEMENT
Unless Favre visited some secret Mississippi version of the Fountain of Youth during that time, however, the health of one of the most durable athletes in history is still in question. Favre acknowledged as much Wednesday, the day a rocking chair appeared in front of his cubicle in the locker room courtesy of an unknown prankster.
“I feel good,” Favre said, elaborating in his familiar wounded-warrior style. “I’m not going to lie to you. I’m not physically or mentally 100 percent. I don’t know at 39 if I’d ever be 100 percent physically.”
The partially torn biceps tendon that bothered his throwing arm last December with the New York Jets has been surgically repaired, but he is playing with a torn rotator cuff. Recently, Favre suggested he might have a cracked rib. When he explained his first decision to stay retired, he hinted he’s not fully confident in his stamina by noting how many times he’s been sacked over the years.
That means this issue will linger for the Vikings until the season is over, though they’ve downplayed concerns. Childress has repeated that signing Favre was a risk worth taking.
“From last year, me getting put back in there kind of showed me that you’ve got to be ready any time,” said backup Tarvaris Jackson(notes), who regained the starting job when Gus Frerotte(notes) hurt his back in the first game in December. “My mindset’s no different.”
If Favre gets knocked out of a game or two or more and Childress must turn to Jackson or Sage Rosenfels(notes), that’s one story. Another noteworthy angle is Favre’s ironman image, his proud streak of 269 straight regular season games started.
When he lines up behind center this Sunday at Cleveland, Favre will match what the NFL believes to be the all-time record held by former Vikings defensive lineman Jim Marshall from 1961-79. Favre is also on track this year to pass Marshall’s record streak of 282 consecutive games played by a non-kicker.
If his health were to become a hindrance to Minnesota’s success this season, would Favre step aside?
“Absolutely. I was receptive to it last year,” he said.
Jets running back Thomas Jones(notes) criticized Favre after last season, claiming he should’ve been benched while the team stumbled down the stretch and missed the playoffs.
Favre said Wednesday he felt like he was harming the team with slight misses on some throws. He said he spoke with the general manager, offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach—he didn’t name head coach Eric Mangini—but the consensus was to finish it out.
“I don’t want to go through that and neither do the Vikings,” Favre said.
Mangini, now the head coach of the Browns, said Favre’s streak didn’t affect his decision to keep him in the lineup last December.
“With that stretch there were things that we could’ve all done better,” Mangini said on a conference call with Minnesota reporters. He added: “All the decisions that I made during that time period followed the same thing I believe, and that’s playing the guys that I think are going to give us the best chance to win that week.”
Favre also revealed he asked Childress to let him address his teammates “from the heart” on a number of subjects, a 10-minute speech he gave in the meeting room on Monday.
“I wanted the guys to know where I stood, and what I was here for,” Favre said. “Sort of the timeline of what happened, and things like that.”
Teammates expressed appreciation of his effort.
“He gave his apologies for all the commotion that was caused, even though it might not have been intentional by him,” tight end Visanthe Shiancoe(notes) said. “The frenzy, he apologized for the frenzy.”
Reactions varied on whether it was necessary. Shiancoe said it was.
“There was questions on everybody’s mind. I’m pretty sure it was different questions. He pretty much answered everybody’s questions. Cleaned up everybody’s wonders,” Shiancoe said.
Favre also referenced his 1996-97 Super Bowl experience with Green Bay and told the Vikings they’ve got as much talent as that Packers team.
“I was impressed,” cornerback Antoine Winfield(notes) said, adding: “Our No. 1 goal is to win a championship. He seems like he’s focused on that. He’s just trying to fit in. He’s only been here a couple weeks. We’ve welcomed him with open arms.”
-
Let the excuse making begin!
The excuse making began before he even signed. Man Viking fans are gonna hate this guy.
-
surgery, cracked ribs, etc.. the excuses have been nonstop.
But, we've known he's a different kind of dude... being stuck in grean bey for so long would make anyone 'off'. I can't wait. Will he be the oldest MVP ever this year? Hopefully they won't front and deny him the MVP just because Minnesota is the preseason consensus pick for NFC North Champions and 'everyone expected him to have a great year'.
Can someone find a betting site that does NOT have Minnesota as the money favorite to win the NFC North?
-
surgery, cracked ribs, etc.. the excuses have been nonstop.
But, we've known he's a different kind of dude... being stuck in grean bey for so long would make anyone 'off'. I can't wait. Will he be the oldest MVP ever this year? Hopefully they won't front and deny him the MVP just because Minnesota is the preseason consensus pick for NFC North Champions and 'everyone expected him to have a great year'.
Can someone find a betting site that does NOT have Minnesota as the money favorite to win the NFC North?
I guess 'Grean Bey' and New York are very similar because Brett was just as off in the Big Apple.
Jay Bee, since you turned down my first bet offer, what are you willing to wage on Favre being the NFC MVP?
-
don't feed the trolls.
Oh, in a pissing match? Bring it on. On a normal forum, in a normal thread, I would agree with you, but this is no normal thread.
I plan on continuing to bait LL Cool-Jay Bee until he owes me money. Which will be sooner rather than later.
-
Stay classy Packer fans.
http://www.burnfavre.com/
You shouldn't be mad at Brett, he's always been a egotistical maniac. Some of you just didn't want to believe it.
Also, make sure you dig out your old Reggie White jerseys and burn those as well. He retired, and then chose to go back to a team and didn't try to sign with the Packers first. That makes him a traitor as well.
-
Stay classy Packer fans.
http://www.burnfavre.com/
You shouldn't be mad at Brett, he's always been a egotistical maniac. Some of you just didn't want to believe it.
Also, make sure you dig out your old Reggie White jerseys and burn those as well. He retired, and then chose to go back to a team and didn't try to sign with the Packers first. That makes him a traitor as well.
HAHA are you REALLY trying to compare Reggie White's retirement to Benedict Brett? Please tell me this is a joke. If it's not, then you are an absolute fool and have absolutely zero clue as to what you are talking about.
And Minnesota fans talking about classy. HAH!
-
HAHA are you REALLY trying to compare Reggie White's retirement to Benedict Brett? Please tell me this is a joke. If it's not, then you are an absolute fool and have absolutely zero clue as to what you are talking about.
And Minnesota fans talking about classy. HAH!
Well, I know people are going to get into the whole "brett has a big ego and is a media whore and Reggie was a great man" thing, and I don't blame anybody for thinking that. However, Brett has ALWAYS been that way, so I do blame Packer fans for being surprised or caught off guard.
If you didn't hate him 5 years ago for being a diva, you can't hate him now for it. I think a lot of people were looking through green and gold glasses, and that's why they are surprised to see "the real Brett".
The dude has cheated/beat on his wife, been addicted to pain killers, has had a drinking problem, etc. etc. He was never perfect, so I think people are naive when they act surprised that Brett has a big ego and doesn't really care what people think about him. When he was throwing touchdowns for the Packers, apparently he didn't have an ego problem. ::)
As far as retiring and coming out of retirement, I realize that Brett and Reggie are not a perfect apples to apples comparison. However, I don't remember hearing a single peep against the great Reggie White about playing again and not trying to first sign with the Pack.
Brett decides to come out of retirement this season and go to a team that is in desperate need of a QB, and the state of WI melts down. I get that Packer fans are passionate, but sometimes that passion works against the fan base and make them look like psychos.
Favre is just a football player. He provided a lot of entertainment and fun for 16 seasons. Just remember all of the fun you had watching him and move on.
No need to create websites, burn jerseys and "tweet away the pain" (website). Ohhhh, the agony. St. Brett left GB. Ohhhhhh.
EDIT: Yes, I do know Reggie was from NC, however, coming back for that 1 year with the Panthers should have "ruined his legacy".
-
As far as retiring and coming out of retirement, I realize that Brett and Reggie are not a perfect apples to apples comparison. However, I don't remember hearing a single peep against the great Reggie White about playing again and not trying to first sign with the Pack.
Brett decides to come out of retirement this season and go to a team that is in desperate need of a QB, and the state of WI melts down. I get that Packer fans are passionate, but sometimes that passion works against the fan base and make them look like psychos.
EDIT: Yes, I do know Reggie was from NC, however, coming back for that 1 year with the Panthers should have "ruined his legacy".
I really can't believe you're trying to even compare the 2 situations. There is NOTHING similar between the two. Did Reggie consider retiring each of his last 3 seasons with the Packers, ultimately crying when he announced his retirement, then come back and complain when he wasn't going to be given the starting job without going through training camp, then demand to be traded to the team's biggest rival, then play a season with another team, then announce his retirement again, then reiterate his retirement during training camp, only to come back to the Packers division rival? I really didn't think so. Was Brett from Minneapolis? I didn't think so.
Reggie retired once, then returned to a non-division rival, and then retired for good. Benedict Brett publicly considered retirement 2 times before retiring from the Packers, came back with a non-division rival, retired, reiterated his retirement, then returned to a division, after having not gone through team workouts up until preseason games started. Had Brett Favre even so much as just considered retirement twice, retired once, came out of retirement and played with the Jets, and then retired for good, he would still be a hero in Green Bay and all of Wisconsin. That is what Reggie did, and that is why Reggie is still a hero (not to mention he was always an all-around good guy).
I am absolutely dumbfounded by the fact that you are actually trying to compare Reggie White's retirement and return to the PANTHERS to Benedict Brett's continued retirements and returns, this time to the VIKINGS. Not too much in common, at all.
-
Wait, hold the phone you are telling me people will tolerate more from a player when he is on the team they love!? Alert the press. Of course GB fans tolerated Brett, their 3 time MVP. HE WAS A PACKER. I am guessing most Vikings fans loved Randy Moss when he was in purple, and maybe some of those same people complained about him later. I dont know why you are always looking for consistent behavior patterns from fans, because you are not going to find it.
-
Brett decides to come out of retirement this season and go to a team that is in desperate need of a QB, and the state of WI melts down.
How has the state of Wisconsin melted down? There are exceptions to be sure, but I would say in general the reaction has truly been somewhere between apathy and pity.
-
Wade, he is just grasping at straws... like he usually does when he knows he is wrong and refuses to admit it. ;)
-
I really can't believe you're trying to even compare the 2 situations. There is NOTHING similar between the two. Did Reggie consider retiring each of his last 3 seasons with the Packers, ultimately crying when he announced his retirement, then come back and complain when he wasn't going to be given the starting job without going through training camp, then demand to be traded to the team's biggest rival, then play a season with another team, then announce his retirement again, then reiterate his retirement during training camp, only to come back to the Packers division rival? I really didn't think so. Was Brett from Minneapolis? I didn't think so.
Reggie retired once, then returned to a non-division rival, and then retired for good. Benedict Brett publicly considered retirement 2 times before retiring from the Packers, came back with a non-division rival, retired, reiterated his retirement, then returned to a division, after having not gone through team workouts up until preseason games started. Had Brett Favre even so much as just considered retirement twice, retired once, came out of retirement and played with the Jets, and then retired for good, he would still be a hero in Green Bay and all of Wisconsin. That is what Reggie did, and that is why Reggie is still a hero (not to mention he was always an all-around good guy).
I am absolutely dumbfounded by the fact that you are actually trying to compare Reggie White's retirement and return to the PANTHERS to Benedict Brett's continued retirements and returns, this time to the VIKINGS. Not too much in common, at all.
This is a good post, and exactly what I'm getting at.
If you are pissed at Brett for being a diva and almost retiring 3 times (and that is why you are not pissed at Reggie, which is fair), you should have been pissed back then too. You can retro-actively hate him for it now that he's a Viking. I'm sorry. It can't work like that.
Truth be told, as long as Brett was throwing touchdowns for the Packers, people treated him like a saint and buried their feelings about the dumb sh*t Brett did.
And yes, I realize that is what a lot of fans do, but I'm calling them out. It's complete hypocrisy, and the excuse is "hey, we're fans, it's short for "fanatical. It's what we do". BS. That was brought up earlier in this thread and it's still stupid.
God forbid somebody look at their own team and their fellow fans objectively. Brett was always a d*ck. I'm not saying you shouldn't have liked him, I'm just saying that the "personal outrage" that some people are displayed is whacked. He didn't just suddenly become a "bad guy". A tiger can't suddenly change his stripes at 38 years old. He's always been this way, and nobody ever cared.
The same people that couldn't get enough copies of Brett's "sportsman of the year" magazine are the ones burning his jersey.
I mean, really? 2 years ago people were building shrines to the guy. Now they are burning his jersey?
Randy Moss is a great example. I loved him as a player, I think he was/is immature as a person (that's putting it nicely). So, I was not surprised that Randy pulled whack stuff, and I was not / will not be surprised with Randy continues to pull whacky stuff. Maybe even... hah... dare I say it... play for the Packers?!!! Oh No. I better burn all of my memories of Randy in purple because he's wearing a green jersey now. Give me a break.
If I saw people out burning their Moss jerseys, I'd call them stupid as well. Or, Fran Tarkenton has been crazy lately as well, maybe I should go burn some of his stuff.
As far as Brett's choice to play for the Vikings, it was a no brainer. If you swapped the Bengals roster and the Vikings roster, Brett would be playing for the Bengals. He wanted a place where he could start and have an opportunity to win. He also wanted to play for a weak willed head coach and owner that will let him come and go as he pleases. We'll see how that works out.
-
How has the state of Wisconsin melted down? There are exceptions to be sure, but I would say in general the reaction has truly been somewhere between apathy and pity.
That's fair. I was exaggerating.
However, the website and youtube videos certainly represent a certain % of the population... and those people are crazy.
-
Guys, things changed after '07. Favre had always flirted with retirement, which I will say I wasn't the biggest fan of. But up to that point, he had always come back, and done so in a fashion where he didn't miss anything really important. Maybe an OTA here or there, but one he probably would have been dismissed from anyways.
Now, he retired. He QUIT our football team. And then wanted back in, AFTER training camp had started. No NFL player should ever hold themselves to that standard. You want to play, you put in the work.
So we traded him to New York, and several times we heard reports, sometimes directly from Brett's mouth, about a "vindictive nature" to his plans and wanting to get back at Ted Thompson. The NFL Network report that "Ted doesn't want to face me (Brett) twice a year because he knows I'll kick his ass." So he pulled the retirement stunt AGAIN. "I'm done, I could never ask for my release and come back, not after all the great things (Jets GM) Mike Tannenbaum has done for me." So what does he do? Of course, he asks for his release, and comes back.
But not right away. Oh no. He manages to strong arm a team long enough to allow him to say that he's "staying retired" merely so he can skip the remaining two-a-days and return to the team when training camp had ended. I'm surprised Childress hasn't gotten to the point where he just lets Brett show up on Sundays on his own terms and take the rest of the week off. That's still coming.
Anyways, Favre is here to "get back" at Ted Thompson, and by association, anyone who supports the Green Bay Packers. He actively positioned himself to attempt to stop my favorite football team from winning. Not just any football team, the football team (and town) that made Brett Favre. And I shouldn't consider this traitorous?
If Brett "just wanted to play football", he had a roster spot available on the New York Jets, who went 9-7 last season and would have made the playoffs if he didn't noodle arm them out of it down the stretch. But this isn't about "the love of the game" or any of that sappy crap anymore. It's about beating the Green Bay Packers. And anyone who thinks otherwise at this point is a fool.
When he finally retires, time will heal most of this. God knows that people that we like and appreciate simply have moments where they behave like a dumbass. He deserves recognition for the great things he did for this organization. It's just a shame that he couldn't receive that recognition with any sort of class.
2002mualum... I don't know exactly what it is you see. Fans are always more forgiving of their own. Favre was a trouble maker early on his career, and fans here watched him clean up his act and grow up over the course of 16 years, and felt that just maybe he had a certain affinity for the city of Green Bay. It turns out we were wrong.
Oh, and I disagree with you on one other thing. If the Bengals and Vikings flipped rosters, Favre would not be playing for the Bengals. You forget that he led an AFC team with one less win than the Vikings, and continued to hold the starting QB job there, at the expense of being told that if he wanted in "he had to go all in and participate in off season activities." That's not what he wants. He wanted a team that a) had two shots at the Packers and b ) wouldn't hold him accountable for anything he did (or didn't do) in the offseason. Luckily for Brett, Childress might be the biggest pushover in the entire NFL.
EDIT: I just re-read your last paragraph again, 2002mualum, and didn't know whether you meant that Childress and the rest of the front office would hypothetically be with the Bengals, as well. Even so, I think two shots at the Packers a year are a very important factor in Favre's decision.
-
2002mualum... I don't know exactly what it is you see. Fans are always more forgiving of their own. Favre was a trouble maker early on his career, and fans here watched him clean up his act and grow up over the course of 16 years, and felt that just maybe he had a certain affinity for the city of Green Bay. It turns out we were wrong.
Oh, and I disagree with you on one other thing. If the Bengals and Vikings flipped rosters, Favre would not be playing for the Bengals. You forget that he led an AFC team with one less win than the Vikings, and continued to hold the starting QB job there, at the expense of being told that if he wanted in "he had to go all in and participate in off season activities." That's not what he wants. He wanted a team that a) had two shots at the Packers and b ) wouldn't hold him accountable for anything he did (or didn't do) in the offseason. Luckily for Brett, Childress might be the biggest pushover in the entire NFL.
EDIT: I just re-read your last paragraph again, 2002mualum, and didn't know whether you meant that Childress and the rest of the front office would hypothetically be with the Bengals, as well. Even so, I think two shots at the Packers a year are a very important factor in Favre's decision.
Good points, and think we will just have to disagree on our basic premise.
I do believe Brett is/was pissed at Ted Thompson about shipping him out of town when he wanted to play for GB. I don't blame Thompson, it looks like a good move.
However, I don't believe all of the hype that Brett is really just trying to destroy TT and the Packers. I mean, I do think Brett has some revenge factor in there, but I don't think that is enough to motivate him to come back. I don't think this is a personal mission to get even with Ted. It's just 1 factor in the list of many (see below).
Let's face it, Brett has ALWAYS been a football player, and he obviously has loved it. I hate to use bad sports cliches, but Brett always seemed to have a ton of fun playing football.
When the weather cools off and the smell of fall is in the air, Brett gets the "football bug" and wants to play. Same thing happened to Reggie White, Michael Jordan (basketball), Gordie Howe (hockey), etc. etc. None of them were out for revenge. They just loved playing ball. Hell, the same thing happens to me, and I dream about playing high school ball again. We all do it.
I think that Brett would play until he is 90 years old if there was a team that would let him show up 1 week before the season and not have to practice all of the time. He LOVES to compete... but the practicing is what is tough for him. I don't blame him (training camp sucks). But, I don't blame any team that doesn't want a QB who needs special rules.
As far as the Bengals/Vikes comparison, I'll say swap EVERYTHING and I think Brett goes there.
#1 he knows the coaches already
#2 He knows he'll have special rules for himself (like you don't have to play the first 1/2 of training camp)
#3 It's indoors
#4 He knows the offense like the back of his hand
#5 The team/fans haven't had a good QB in years
#6 The defense is very good/great, the running game is great, and the receivers are serviceable/decent
Now, let's remove the whole Bengals thing, and you can add a couple more things to the list:
#7 he knows the teams in the division
#8 he gets a shot to prove Ted wrong
EDIT: I forgot to address the Jets thing.
Well, if Mangini was still there and if Bevel became the offensive coordinator and they had a dominant running game, I think he would have stayed. I just think the Vikes are a better fit for him (and his ego). They have a weak head coach that will let him do whatever he wants, and they have all of the things listed above.
-
Just got this forwarded to me...pretty good idea for a shirt, clever, not vulgar and pretty much sums it up:
-
2002mualum... very good points.
There's just certain parts of the entire saga that, if really picked apart, should stick in the craw of a Packers fan.
(There are still many fans in denial about this. They think Brett is tired now, but after time passes, maybe he'll change his mind. It sounds like that won't happen, but can you address that?)
I think last year and the year before I was tired and it took awhile but I came back. Something told me this time not to come back. It took awhile once again. Once again, I wondered if it was the right decision. But I think in my situation, and I had this conversation with Mike and Ted, that it's a unique situation in that at 17 years I had one of the better years in my career, the team had a great year, everything seems to be going great, the team wants me back, I still can play, for the most part everyone would think I would be back, would want me back. That's a unique situation going into an 18th season. There's no guarantees next year, personally and as a team, and I'm well aware of that. It's a tough business and last year and the year before I questioned whether or not I should come back because I didn't play at a high enough level. Other people questioned that. I really didn't question my commitment. I just wondered, 'Could I not play anymore?' I know I can play. But this year, and this is not the first year but it really to me and Deanna was more noticeable, the stress part of it. It's demanding. It always has been, but I think as I've gotten older I'm much more aware of that. I'm much more aware of how hard it is to win in this league and to play at a high level. I'm not up to the challenge anymore. I can play, but I'm not up to the challenge. You can't just show up and play for three hours on Sunday. If you could, there'd be a lot more people doing it and they'd be doing it for a lot longer. I have way too much pride, I expect a lot out of myself, and if I cannot do those things 100 percent, then I can't play.
http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2008/03/06/3/
I don't think you would have heard a complaint in all of Packerland if Favre had decided to come back in 2008, the right way. Heck, even McCarthy said he could take 85-90% of the reps he had the previous year. But I guess he wanted to do less than that.
Looking back, maybe the level of work required of him by his team WAS the deciding factor. I'd be hard pressed to think that a 13-3 team that was one errant Favre pass away from the Super Bowl wasn't good enough for him. That just doesn't make any sense.
I guess I'm also more than a bit biased. I was at the NFC Championship, and I was at the first game the following year, where Favre was supposed to have his jersey retired. It just never went down the way it should have.
But now he's a Viking for whatever reason, and we keep hearing this garbage like "If you're a true Packer fan, you'll understand." Understand what? That you're now just another obstacle in our goal of winning the NFC North and advancing to the playoffs, and that we want you to get your ass kicked? Yeah, I understand that. And as a Packer fan, and Favre supporter up until he sold himself short starting summer of '08, I'm not thrilled to have to cheer against one of my all time favorite players. I don't plan on burning any jerseys or holding any hate rallies. But I'd be remiss if I said it DIDN'T suck.
The thing that would have really put it over the top would be if Aaron Rodgers was a bust, and from all indications (despite what LL Cool-Jay Bee may tell you), he looks pretty damn good.
And, as a silver lining kind of guy, I will say that the drama in the NFC North grew exponentially with that signing. It's gonna be fun.
-
2002mualum... very good points.
But now he's a Viking for whatever reason, and we keep hearing this garbage like "If you're a true Packer fan, you'll understand." Understand what? That you're now just another obstacle in our goal of winning the NFC North and advancing to the playoffs, and that we want you to get your ass kicked? Yeah, I understand that. And as a Packer fan, and Favre supporter up until he sold himself short starting summer of '08, I'm not thrilled to have to cheer against one of my all time favorite players. I don't plan on burning any jerseys or holding any hate rallies. But I'd be remiss if I said it DIDN'T suck.
I agree with you there, and I don't think any Packer fan should "like" what is going on.
I'm really just shinning the light on the psychos who are into burning jerseys and going off of the deep end. Hopefully it's a small portion of the fan base, and hopefully there won't be any "incidents" when Brett plays in GB.
Check out the guy in the top row of videos (3rd one across).
http://www.burnfavre.com/
Part of me feels bad for the old guy, but the other part of me thinks this dude is nuts. The Packers are not religion. Watch them. Enjoy them. Be passionate.
Don't be insane. You weren't married to Brett Favre. He just played QB for your local team.
-
How has the state of Wisconsin melted down? There are exceptions to be sure, but I would say in general the reaction has truly been somewhere between apathy and pity.
No, that has not been the general reaction. It's been crazy and emotional for Packers people. It's been bizarre. The claim that Favre is playing with the Vikings primarily to 'stick it to the Packers and Thompson' is stupid. You treated Favre with class when he himself was not classy. Now that he's matured and bettered himself, you treat him without class.
Go to jsonline and see the millions of user-submitted photoshops, etc. of Favre. Sickening, although some of them are funny.
I flat out wear a Koren Robinson Vikings jersey. I didn't burn it after we kicked him off the team for going on a wild police chase while hammered and Green Bey signed him.
You kids were good at finding some poor 'sports writers' who picked Checago and Green Bey, ... can't you find a few betting opportunities where one of those teams is the favorite in the NFC North? Why not? Consensus.
-
I kind of like Bill Simmons Prediction, although more humorous than fact, it definitely made me giggle.
(Check out #13, Prediction III and Prediction X)
ESPN Page 2
Bill Simmons: The NFL enters the Tyson Zone
First Published on ESPN September 10, 2009
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090910 (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090910)
As to the Favre scenario there are about 3 different camps-probably more, but 3 major ones.
1. Packer fans who now HATE their former idol.
2. Packer fans who remember what Favre did in Green Bay but are apathetic on what he does now as they are excited about the team and Aaron Rodgers.
3. Packer fans who are now more Favre fans and would cheer for the Packers except when playing FAVRE--I say Favre in that they will not cheer for the Vikings, but for a player on their team and hope that he dominates.
I think Wades is right in that most fall into the 2nd category with apathy toward where Favre is now. But you cannot discredit him what he did for the Packers. He resurrected a once dominant team from obscurity. I'm sorry Magic Man but I remember the day you got injured and Favre came in the second half-great stuff.
The extremes I believe are warrented, although absurd.
In the two camps, you have one that believes Favre wronged the franchise in his waffling and one that believes the franchise booted him out of town--both would be somewhat correct (if I am not mistaken).
If after the first retirement Favre came back, joined the team during training camp and fought for the QB position-there would be no hard feelings. He was coming off a 13-3 record. There should have been a little understanding for the man that put his health on the line for the team (i.e. pain killer addiction) and franchise during his previous time for the Packers. Perhaps the man was owed that.
But the team wanted to move forward and were sick of the back and forth-do I retire or don't I-with Favre as a 1st round draft pick was waiting, patiently.
I don't think you can call out a Packer fan that dislikes Favre nor one that worships him still. It all comes down to the specific scenario, and as fans we probably aren't privy to the details so different judgments are made.
The Reggie White point is nowhere close to the Favre Saga.
And at the core of it, Favre still wants to play and that is his number one goal. He wouldn't be a competitor if he didn't want to stick it to the Packers when they play each other. I mean who doesn't want to stick it to the guy or business that said, "nah, you're not good enough. I'll pass." I hope Favre tries to stick it to the Packers and brings the best he gots...
Edit: and fails, miserably
-
No, that has not been the general reaction. It's been crazy and emotional for Packers people. It's been bizarre. The claim that Favre is playing with the Vikings primarily to 'stick it to the Packers and Thompson' is stupid. You treated Favre with class when he himself was not classy. Now that he's matured and bettered himself, you treat him without class.
My sense is that Packer fans cared much more last year about Favre and have basically moved on. Yeah, there are some kooks out there on the extreme, but most Packer fans are Packer fans.
I first thought he would be booed when he comes to Lambeau this year...but I'm actually beginning to think that the reaction will be more mixed.
-
Vikings Struggling to Sell-Out Opener
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S1123184.shtml?cat=206
"The Vikings say at least 1,000 tickets remain for every home game this season, meaning TV viewers could be out of luck.
Despite Brett Favre's arrival and the ticket sales spike that came with it, without a complete sell out for each game, fans won't be able to sit home on the couch and watch their favorite team.
Since the Favre sales spikes, ticket sales have slowed down, and nearly 2,000 tickets remain for the team's regular season home opener against the San Francisco 49ers."
One of the best teams in football...a new quarterback generating some buzz...and they are 2,000 short of a sell-out???
-
One of the best teams in football...a new quarterback generating some buzz...and they are 2,000 short of a sell-out???
Who would want to see some over the hill fruitcake of a QB? "It's the economy, stupid." This is not going to be a unique situation to Minnesota this season.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-08-31-nfl-tickets_N.htm
-
Who would want to see some over the hill fruitcake of a QB? "It's the economy, stupid." This is not going to be a unique situation to Minnesota this season.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-08-31-nfl-tickets_N.htm
The Wisconsin economy must be extremely robust then because this problem doesn't exist in many places.
-
One of the best teams in football...a new quarterback generating some buzz...and they are 2,000 short of a sell-out???
Its because unlike Wisconsin, there is so much to do in Minnesota. They cannot even find 64,000 out of 5.2Million who aren't busy that day.
-
Who would want to see some over the hill fruitcake of a QB? "It's the economy, stupid." This is not going to be a unique situation to Minnesota this season.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-08-31-nfl-tickets_N.htm
Yeah, the economy is at fault if you mean, the corporate sponsors that have been bailing out the Vikings for 115 games can no longer afford it...
-
Vikings Struggling to Sell-Out Opener
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S1123184.shtml?cat=206
"The Vikings say at least 1,000 tickets remain for every home game this season, meaning TV viewers could be out of luck.
Despite Brett Favre's arrival and the ticket sales spike that came with it, without a complete sell out for each game, fans won't be able to sit home on the couch and watch their favorite team.
Since the Favre sales spikes, ticket sales have slowed down, and nearly 2,000 tickets remain for the team's regular season home opener against the San Francisco 49ers."
One of the best teams in football...a new quarterback generating some buzz...and they are 2,000 short of a sell-out???
This does suck, but I bet that game sells out without corporate help.
-
Ladies... our home opener is more than two weeks away - I'm not sweating it. 115 in a row and going STRONG! Green Bey is sold out because their fans are freaking nutty and there is nothing else to do in the province of Wisconsin until MU basketball starts up.
There is zero doubt that the economy is impacting ticket sales. This year there will be more blackouts than usual in the NFL - very likely, Minnesota will have zero, consistent with the past many years.
But, luckily those Packers fans have over half of the Vikings games being broadcast in Green Bey this year to help them deal with their obsession of Favre... no blackouts there. I'm sure DirectTV has gotten increased business this year due to Packers people wanting to see all games Brett plays in this year (16 regular season games).
We dropped Bobby Wade today. I hope Berrian is reasonably healthy.
-
We dropped Bobby Wade today. I hope Berrian is reasonably healthy.
Not a big loss, guy is a fumble machine.
-
Ladies... our there is nothing else to do in the province of Wisconsin until MU basketball starts up.
I'm sorry that just makes me laugh. What would you call Minnesota? Wilderness? no, too honorary. Wait...baren land of deprivation.
There is zero doubt that the economy is impacting ticket sales.
Hmm...I doubt it. If, for some awful reason, I were ever to love an 0-4 team in Superbowls I would never go to that crap heap of a Metrodome and watch a football game. I'd probably end up at the local tavern and raise a $60 bar tab before halftime.
Hurry up new stadium!!!!
Right, another characterless stadium for the characterless Twin Cities.
-
I didn't burn it after we kicked him off the team for going on a wild police chase while hammered and Green Bey signed him.
ladies... our home opener is more than two weeks away - I'm not sweating it.
We dropped Bobby Wade today. I hope Berrian is reasonably healthy.
Are you on the team, or do you work in the front office?
-
Its because unlike Wisconsin, there is so much to do in Minnesota. They cannot even find 64,000 out of 5.2Million who aren't busy that day.
Subtle, well-placed jab. Deserves a second look.
-
I'm sorry that just makes me laugh. What would you call Minnesota? Wilderness? no, too honorary. Wait...baren land of deprivation.
Hmm...I doubt it. If, for some awful reason, I were ever to love an 0-4 team in Superbowls I would never go to that crap heap of a Metrodome and watch a football game. I'd probably end up at the local tavern and raise a $60 bar tab before halftime.
Hurry up new stadium!!!!
Right, another characterless stadium for the characterless Twin Cities.
I'm curious, of the Vikings 4 Super Bowls, were they favored to win any of them? I know the Packers were favored to win all of theirs, but lost to Denver.
-
Ladies... our home opener is more than two weeks away - I'm not sweating it. 115 in a row and going STRONG! Green Bey is sold out because their fans are freaking nutty and there is nothing else to do in the province of Wisconsin until MU basketball starts up.
There is zero doubt that the economy is impacting ticket sales. This year there will be more blackouts than usual in the NFL - very likely, Minnesota will have zero, consistent with the past many years.
But, luckily those Packers fans have over half of the Vikings games being broadcast in Green Bey this year to help them deal with their obsession of Favre... no blackouts there. I'm sure DirectTV has gotten increased business this year due to Packers people wanting to see all games Brett plays in this year (16 regular season games).
We dropped Bobby Wade today. I hope Berrian is reasonably healthy.
Could you send me some more beatz, brah?! Maybe if they have you DJing something at halftime, they will sell out the rest of their tickets! Just announce it now!
-
I'm curious, of the Vikings 4 Super Bowls, were they favored to win any of them? I know the Packers were favored to win all of theirs, but lost to Denver.
what is curious is you are willing to spend hours looking for some things, but not others.
I'm glad that PXI is done explaining a simple situation to 2k2, now we won't have to listen to him try to rationalize everything, and analyze every detail, and change his argument to fit the new evidence presented before him... adios buddy!
as for Jay, get me a bottle of what you are on buddy.
-
I'm curious, of the Vikings 4 Super Bowls, were they favored to win any of them? I know the Packers were favored to win all of theirs, but lost to Denver.
Doesn't matter who's favored.
-
Another one of Jay Bee's dope videos has been discovered...he appears :50 in...
http://www.youtube.com/v/DUyFEWSD0Sk&hl=en&fs=1&
Reresentn' the MPLS y'all!
-
Another one of Jay Bee's dope videos has been discovered...he appears :50 in...
http://www.youtube.com/v/DUyFEWSD0Sk&hl=en&fs=1&
Reresentn' the MPLS y'all!
HAHA! Stuff's better than what I've heard of his...
-
what is curious is you are willing to spend hours looking for some things, but not others.
I'm glad that PXI is done explaining a simple situation to 2k2, now we won't have to listen to him try to rationalize everything, and analyze every detail, and change his argument to fit the new evidence presented before him... adios buddy!
as for Jay, get me a bottle of what you are on buddy.
Me? Or 2002? I'm not going anywhere... haha..
-
what is curious is you are willing to spend hours looking for some things, but not others.
I'm glad that PXI is done explaining a simple situation to 2k2, now we won't have to listen to him try to rationalize everything, and analyze every detail, and change his argument to fit the new evidence presented before him... adios buddy!
as for Jay, get me a bottle of what you are on buddy.
Why the hate, dude?
-
because of the title... and you are defending Jay, and you are a Vikings fan...
need I continue? :)
-
I'm curious, of the Vikings 4 Super Bowls, were they favored to win any of them? I know the Packers were favored to win all of theirs, but lost to Denver.
http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/superbowl/history/
Vikings favored by 12 over Chiefs
Dolphins favored by 6.5 over Vikings
Steelers favored by 3 over Vikings
Raiders favored by 4 over Vikings
The Chiefs victory in Super Bowl IV ranks as a tie for the third greatest upset ever behind the Jets over the Colts and the Patriots over the Rams. It is tied with the Giants over the Patriots. (To be fair, the Broncos victory over the Packers ranks just behind this.)
-
because of the title... and you are defending Jay, and you are a Vikings fan...
need I continue? :)
Nah, that's cool. I like the pissing match stuff, I just want this to turn into personal attacks. I'll leave that to JB. If I'm looking for somebody to bitch at me personally, I won't be using this forum.
-
Doesn't matter who's favored.
Sure it does....if you go to the Super Bowl as a heavy underdog because you're the inferior team, then why should they have been expected to win the game? Whereas if you are supposed to win and choke it, that's a different story. See New England last year. See Green Bay vs Denver.
You do realize that some teams make it to the Super Bowl that shouldn't have, meaning it's a great feat. They finally succumb in the title game but if it's too a vastly superior team I don't see the shame in that.
That's why I asked the question.
If the Vikings were supposed to win all 4 or half of them vs being the underdog in all 4, that does make a difference in my mind in what should have happened and how they should be viewed.
-
http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/superbowl/history/
Vikings favored by 12 over Chiefs
Dolphins favored by 6.5 over Vikings
Steelers favored by 3 over Vikings
Raiders favored by 4 over Vikings
The Chiefs victory in Super Bowl IV ranks as a tie for the third greatest upset ever behind the Jets over the Colts and the Patriots over the Rams. It is tied with the Giants over the Patriots. (To be fair, the Broncos victory over the Packers ranks just behind this.)
Thank you Sultan.
-
See Green Bay vs Denver.
I would say that one is actually counter to your argument...In retrospect, which was also proven out the following season when Denver had essentially the same team, Denver was the better team and probably should have been favored. At the very least they should not have been the heavy dogs they were. Betting lines are a function of evening out the money, and a reflection of perception, not necessarily how good the teams actually are (although most of the time, they are in sync), so they really don't matter. Being an underdog does not always mean you are the inferior team, it simply means you are the underdog in the eyes of the people placing bets.
-
Betting lines are a function of evening out the money, and a reflection of perception, not necessarily how good the teams actually are (although most of the time, they are in sync), so they really don't matter.
BS. Betting lines are a great indicator. For example, most every betting line says the Vikings are most likley to win the NFC North. That's because it's the truth. We are the best team.
Although this Bobby Wade thing is very strange. Always seemed like a great guy. On the field, he led us in receptions in each of the last two seasons, but... that's not saying much. He was well liked by his teammates and I hope this doesn't cause any significant problems on the field (if we lose any games this year, I blame it fully on the Bobby Wade matter).
Rain keeps coming in and out of the forecast for tomorrow night when my Gophers take on Air Force in our new stadium... I may buy a poncho or something, but I need something that I can keep in my pocket if its not raining. What do you guys do when you're at Lambro Field or Soldier Field 3000?
PXI: "Nothing, I use the rain as an opportunity to take a free shower. It's not too often I find time to clean up."
Navin: "A trash bag. It's economic and after spending $7 on a big Miller Lite (yeah dude, I'm flippin ripped!!) it's good to save money."
wad'sworld: "Whatever daddi chris brings. He is so thoughtful. I get real chilly when its cold and snowy out, but my girlfriend keeps me warm. Her 'extra layers' keep her warm n toasty"
-
I would say that one is actually counter to your argument...In retrospect, which was also proven out the following season when Denver had essentially the same team, Denver was the better team and probably should have been favored. At the very least they should not have been the heavy dogs they were. Betting lines are a function of evening out the money, and a reflection of perception, not necessarily how good the teams actually are (although most of the time, they are in sync), so they really don't matter. Being an underdog does not always mean you are the inferior team, it simply means you are the underdog in the eyes of the people placing bets.
I'm a Packer fan, and I will go to my grave thinking that the Packers should have won that game. They were the better team. I don't care what Denver did the next year, the Packers f**ked it up big time on the defensive side of the ball.
I have never seen a replay of the game, and when "highlights" come on the television, it makes me want to puke because the Packers simply f**ked it up.
Can you tell I'm still bitter???
-
Sure it does....if you go to the Super Bowl as a heavy underdog because you're the inferior team, then why should they have been expected to win the game? Whereas if you are supposed to win and choke it, that's a different story. See New England last year. See Green Bay vs Denver.
You do realize that some teams make it to the Super Bowl that shouldn't have, meaning it's a great feat. They finally succumb in the title game but if it's too a vastly superior team I don't see the shame in that.
That's why I asked the question.
If the Vikings were supposed to win all 4 or half of them vs being the underdog in all 4, that does make a difference in my mind in what should have happened and how they should be viewed.
Ok that is your rational.
The point I made is that it doesn't matter if they were favorites or not, because the fact remains they haven't won a Bowl (I in fact did look up the odds before posting, "it doesn't matter," and didn't bother to retort because it really doesn't matter when looking at a franchise as a whole.)
In Super Bowls:
The Pack are 3-1 and favored in each.
The Vikings are 0-4 and favored in one.
But still the only thing that truly counts are wins.
In my post I was knocking the franchise that was 0-4 in Super Bowls. They main part of the critique was the "0."
There is a flaw in the rational that favored/unfavored has anything to do with the franchise and super bowl wins.
I'll begin by argueing that be an underdog is in fact worse than being favored, but at the end you will see why even this argument is unwarrented to your explanation why favored/unfavored matters.
If, in all the time that the Vikings were never really expected to win the Super Bowl (except in '70) then the team has not had a great season (1997-1998 being an exception). In being a fan of that team, which hasn't won a Bowl and which hasn't been a favorite but one time, the outcome is still the same "0" bowls.
You look at it as being a "feat" to win the game if one is an underdog compared to the favorite. And I agree, it is a feat; however, it is also a feat just to win the SB if you are the favored team. The discrepancy of favored/underdog is minuscule in the scheme of the whole--winning a Championship, because of the variables involved in a one and done Championship (injury, poor play by a significant contributer, exception or poor preparation for offensive/defensive schemes, etc. that would not present itself in a Series format like Baseball, Basketball or Hockey).
I was critiquing the franchise base; a franchise, in which you poignantly point out, that has been favored only once in the Bowl--and that was '70. If true, wouldn't that imply a greater ineptitude towards the Viking franchise than improving its quality? For being the underdog says, "well you're here, maybe you shouldn't be here, maybe you should-but you're not good enough to win and we really don't expect a whole lot." If one were to be the favored and win it shows the power and capability to achieve that power at the greatest height throughout the season, if a favored team lost it could be due to anyone of the multiple causes listed above or over-hype, which would still have the same result as a non-favored team--a loss.
In fact when you ask who was favored in the argument of being "0-4" in Super Bowls it would be a deductive fallacy in that it really has nothing to do with not winning a Super Bowl. But if you are hung up on that, I have provided an argument that would say that being the underdog most of the time would only heighten the "puceness"* of the franchise rather than relieve it.
*puceness-stemming from Puce-a purplish brown color.
Puce is awful to look at and can be used to describe many things awful.
-
*puceness-stemming from Puce-a purplish brown color.
Puce is awful to look at and can be used to describe many things awful.
Hey, thanks for the definition! I'll return the favor and help you with some words, my Packer-backer buddy:
rationale - noun
rational - adjective
arguing - to argue
argueing - not a word
unwarranted - an actual word
unwarrented - not a word
...on and on. Maybe you're just using your major of 'creative writing', whatever that is, and such style of writing allows for and is accepting of being incorrect. I'm not sure - more of a numbers guy myself.
Average IQ of fans that attend games in the NFC North? I'd say it goes Chicago - Minnesota - Detroit - Green Bay.
-
Hey, thanks for the definition! I'll return the favor and help you with some words, my Packer-backer buddy:
rationale - noun
rational - adjective
arguing - to argue
argueing - not a word
unwarranted - an actual word
unwarrented - not a word
...on and on. Maybe you're just using your major of 'creative writing', whatever that is, and such style of writing allows for and is accepting of being incorrect. I'm not sure - more of a numbers guy myself.
Average IQ of fans that attend games in the NFC North? I'd say it goes Chicago - Minnesota - Detroit - Green Bay.
Ahh, thank you.
one letter differences, needed that help.
worry about those details, keep on worrying :)
-
I would say that one is actually counter to your argument...In retrospect, which was also proven out the following season when Denver had essentially the same team, Denver was the better team and probably should have been favored. At the very least they should not have been the heavy dogs they were. Betting lines are a function of evening out the money, and a reflection of perception, not necessarily how good the teams actually are (although most of the time, they are in sync), so they really don't matter. Being an underdog does not always mean you are the inferior team, it simply means you are the underdog in the eyes of the people placing bets.
Green Bay should have been favored and they were favored heavily. Favre played poorly, several costly turnovers turned the tide early and the Green Bay defense decided to mail it in. It wasn't like they were a 4 point favorite...if I remember correctly it was a double digit point spread which means heavily favored to win. Something like 12 points.
I don't see how Denver should have been favored, they couldn't even win their own division in their conference.
-
That's fine Pillar, but I look at it from the perspective of expectations.
Minnesota went to 4 Super Bowls...that's a great accomplishment. They lost all 4, that's not great...but they were supposed to lose 3 of them so the only I one I would say they underachieved in is the one they were supposed to win.
You are correct, that doesn't make them any less than 0-4. But it's like the Buffalo Bills of the 1990's. People joke around about their 4 losses, I don't view it that way. Number one, they made it to 4 straight Super Bowls. No one has ever done that and may never again. Great accomplishment. In at least two of those games, they played a vastly superior team in the Dallas Cowboys and lost (they played Dallas very tough in one of them).
Just because a team has a goose egg for Super Bowl wins isn't the whole story in my opinion.
-
http://www.startribune.com/local/59027052.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUs
Minnesota Vikings Kevin and Pat Williams won't be barred from playing this season under a ruling today by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The appeals court affirmed U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson's rulings in the banned-substance case involving the players.
---------------------------
Could be a mess in Minneapolis tomorrow - Twins game at noon, Obama at Target Center at 12:30pm, Gophers game at 6pm (with festivities starting very early).
-
I don't see how Denver should have been favored, they couldn't even win their own division in their conference.
LOL! They were 12-4 and finished second to the Chiefs who went 13-3. The following season they went 14-2. That also started a run of the AFC going 8-3 in Super Bowls and counting.
They should have been favored (at least the line should have been smaller) because more people should have bet on them because they were the better team. The Packers defense played bad...favre made mistakes...duh...maybe they just weren't that good. The line means nothing relative to which team is actually better. People thought the Packers were better (and obviously still do), even though actual on-field results in that game and those that came before and after, tell a decidedly different story.
-
http://www.startribune.com/local/59027052.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUs
Minnesota Vikings Kevin and Pat Williams won't be barred from playing this season under a ruling today by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The appeals court affirmed U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson's rulings in the banned-substance case involving the players.
---------------------------
Could be a mess in Minneapolis tomorrow - Twins game at noon, Obama at Target Center at 12:30pm, Gophers game at 6pm (with festivities starting very early).
Not a surprise in the least.
I would love to see that ruling in district 7 rather than 8.
-
Not a surprise in the least.
I would love to see that ruling in district 7 rather than 8.
All NFL Federal Court cases are ruled upon in District 8.
-
Ok that is your rational.
The point I made is that it doesn't matter if they were favorites or not, because the fact remains they haven't won a Bowl (I in fact did look up the odds before posting, "it doesn't matter," and didn't bother to retort because it really doesn't matter when looking at a franchise as a whole.)
In Super Bowls:
The Pack are 3-1 and favored in each.
The Vikings are 0-4 and favored in one.
But still the only thing that truly counts are wins.
In my post I was knocking the franchise that was 0-4 in Super Bowls. They main part of the critique was the "0."
There is a flaw in the rational that favored/unfavored has anything to do with the franchise and super bowl wins.
I'll begin by argueing that be an underdog is in fact worse than being favored, but at the end you will see why even this argument is unwarrented to your explanation why favored/unfavored matters.
If, in all the time that the Vikings were never really expected to win the Super Bowl (except in '70) then the team has not had a great season (1997-1998 being an exception). In being a fan of that team, which hasn't won a Bowl and which hasn't been a favorite but one time, the outcome is still the same "0" bowls.
You look at it as being a "feat" to win the game if one is an underdog compared to the favorite. And I agree, it is a feat; however, it is also a feat just to win the SB if you are the favored team. The discrepancy of favored/underdog is minuscule in the scheme of the whole--winning a Championship, because of the variables involved in a one and done Championship (injury, poor play by a significant contributer, exception or poor preparation for offensive/defensive schemes, etc. that would not present itself in a Series format like Baseball, Basketball or Hockey).
I was critiquing the franchise base; a franchise, in which you poignantly point out, that has been favored only once in the Bowl--and that was '70. If true, wouldn't that imply a greater ineptitude towards the Viking franchise than improving its quality? For being the underdog says, "well you're here, maybe you shouldn't be here, maybe you should-but you're not good enough to win and we really don't expect a whole lot." If one were to be the favored and win it shows the power and capability to achieve that power at the greatest height throughout the season, if a favored team lost it could be due to anyone of the multiple causes listed above or over-hype, which would still have the same result as a non-favored team--a loss.
In fact when you ask who was favored in the argument of being "0-4" in Super Bowls it would be a deductive fallacy in that it really has nothing to do with not winning a Super Bowl. But if you are hung up on that, I have provided an argument that would say that being the underdog most of the time would only heighten the "puceness"* of the franchise rather than relieve it.
*puceness-stemming from Puce-a purplish brown color.
Puce is awful to look at and can be used to describe many things awful.
Ya know, the whole "you're team has never won a championship" thing is stupid, isn't it?
If you grow up in Chicago, and you know the Cubs haven't won in FOREVER, does it mean you shouldn't be a Cubs fan?
If you grow up in MN, and you know the Vikings went 0-4 in superbowls, should you chose NOT to follow the team?
Let's face it, in most cases our favorite teams are not "chosen", they are cast upon us by geography and family traditions.
OK, so the Vikes have never won a superbowl. Wow. Mind-blowing. I can't believe I wasted all of these years watching them. Thanks for setting me straight.
The Packers were HORRIBLE in the 1970s - 1980's. So what?
-
Not a surprise in the least.
I would love to see that ruling in district 7 rather than 8.
Completely agree.
Those judges were probably wearing purple under their robes.
Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy against the hallowed Green and Gold.
-
VaJay Jay, I'm do glad you've worked up the courage to once again make a fool of yourself after PXI so easily made you the laughing stock of MUScoop. Your posts make about as much sense as your SICK lyrics do. Any time someone says something you have no way to dispute it just goes back to you searching long and deep - to use your own words - to find the 2 mixed up letters in a person's full post and then making 3 year old personal attacks. You are really creative. And you're a numbers guy? Then you must not have a clue as to what the word consensus means. You had me fooled. I thought you were more of a music guy...your stuff is pretty fresh, brah
-
All NFL Federal Court cases are ruled upon in District 8.
Yes.
That still doesn't change my curiosity.
Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy against the hallowed Green and Gold.
You're right.
But it could be landmark, in its way for sports cases. I am just curious if the Appeals would have heard it if the two weren't in the case or if the case was somewhere else.
It's impossible to be completely objective.
Ya know, the whole "you're team has never won a championship" thing is stupid, isn't it?
If you grow up in Chicago, and you know the Cubs haven't won in FOREVER, does it mean you shouldn't be a Cubs fan?
If you grow up in MN, and you know the Vikings went 0-4 in superbowls, should you chose NOT to follow the team?
Let's face it, in most cases our favorite teams are not "chosen", they are cast upon us by geography and family traditions.
OK, so the Vikes have never won a superbowl. Wow. Mind-blowing. I can't believe I wasted all of these years watching them. Thanks for setting me straight.
The Packers were HORRIBLE in the 1970s - 1980's. So what?
Ohh I completely agree that being a fan is relative to birthplace. I have been a Brewer fan all my life-and it's a struggle. (and being born in a small Westrn Wisconsin town I have hated the Vikings since birth)
My initial post was in regards to why the Vikings haven't yet sold the season tickets not being an economic thing. I made the point that if I were a Viking fan with no Super Bowls (although that doesn't really mean anything but I'm going to insert it every chance I get because it is a pissing match) and a crappy stadium I would rather watch the game at a local bar or at my house with friends rather than going to the game-which for me, I would do if the Packers weren't a great team as well-why drop the change on it unless I was going with a group friends?
The part that you quoted was more of an argument against whether or not being an underdog while losing the SB game is different than being favored as to having an affect on the fanbase and the franchise. I wanted to say that being favored would have been a boost to the fans (I say that in regards to buzz about the team, merhandise sales-I will use Yankees vs. Mets as an example with Yankees gear being soldly a great deal more than Mets. You could say it is more of a "brand" thing with people not being Yankee fans purchasing the gear, but would that have happened if they weren't, despite a few dips, perrenial powers and favorites?). I used the Vikings as the example rather than other teams without a SB because, well, this is an NFC North pissing Match at the Vikings are in the NFC without a SB.
If you took offense to it, I do not apologize. I still hold to my claim that if the Vikings had ever done anything significant as a franchise these problems of selling seats would not exist. Hell the Packers sold out all the games, or close to it, because they were at one time great and the rememberence carried over through the rough times. I guess I wouldn't understand in regards to football the fandom of a team that has never had a "glory days" and I do pity you.
But have fun rooting for the Vikings. There is always hope for that first championship, as there is with me for the Crew.
-
LOL! They were 12-4 and finished second to the Chiefs who went 13-3. The following season they went 14-2. That also started a run of the AFC going 8-3 in Super Bowls and counting.
They should have been favored (at least the line should have been smaller) because more people should have bet on them because they were the better team. The Packers defense played bad...favre made mistakes...duh...maybe they just weren't that good. The line means nothing relative to which team is actually better. People thought the Packers were better (and obviously still do), even though actual on-field results in that game and those that came before and after, tell a decidedly different story.
The following season, why do you keep bringing that up? Every year is a different team. Different key players, different injuries, different schedule, different conditions. What they did one year to the next is a non-issue.
They were 12 point favorites, HEAVY favorites and laid a huge egg. There is NO WAY Green Bay should have lost that game. Favre was fast and loose with the ball (as would become the norm in playoff games) that gave Denver life and eventually the lead (confidence). Plus the defense was terrible.
Let's also not forget that Green Bay were the defending champions. You seem to be making a reverse argument here. In one sense you are saying that Denver proved how great they really were because they went to the Super Bowl again the next year and won. Yet, why isn't that same logic applied to Green Bay who was already in that same position of making it to the second straight Super Bowl, they were already a PROVEN great team but they simply played like crap that day.
-
BS. Betting lines are a great indicator. For example, most every betting line says the Vikings are most likley to win the NFC North. That's because it's the truth. We are the best team.
Although this Bobby Wade thing is very strange. Always seemed like a great guy. On the field, he led us in receptions in each of the last two seasons, but... that's not saying much. He was well liked by his teammates and I hope this doesn't cause any significant problems on the field (if we lose any games this year, I blame it fully on the Bobby Wade matter).
Rain keeps coming in and out of the forecast for tomorrow night when my Gophers take on Air Force in our new stadium... I may buy a poncho or something, but I need something that I can keep in my pocket if its not raining. What do you guys do when you're at Lambro Field or Soldier Field 3000?
PXI: "Nothing, I use the rain as an opportunity to take a free shower. It's not too often I find time to clean up."
Navin: "A trash bag. It's economic and after spending $7 on a big Miller Lite (yeah dude, I'm flippin ripped!!) it's good to save money."
wad'sworld: "Whatever daddi chris brings. He is so thoughtful. I get real chilly when its cold and snowy out, but my girlfriend keeps me warm. Her 'extra layers' keep her warm n toasty"
Are these from the upcoming LP? When and where can I find it?
You see, there's a certain level of entertainment in a pissing match when the jabs at a certain person are indicative of what that person actually represents. That's what I'm doing. Understand?
Then there's this bull that you come up with. They seem to be, forgive me, rather meek and feeble attempts at personal insults, all of which are of the "insert person you'd like to insult here" variety. I must say, there was a time in this thread where you at least provided a mediocre challenge. Those days are now over. I expect better, and I'm consistently disappointed. Kind of like you will be with the Vikings on a week to week basis this year.
Furthermore, your choice of topics have become increasingly disturbing. I don't know what it is you want to know about my shower habits, but I'm really not planning on telling you.
At least you've moved up in the world to college-aged kids now.
(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7472/screenshot20090911at124.png)
We're past the high school stage. It's a step in the right direction.
Now that's fresh. Brah.
-
If you took offense to it, I do not apologize. I still hold to my claim that if the Vikings had ever done anything significant as a franchise these problems of selling seats would not exist. Hell the Packers sold out all the games, or close to it, because they were at one time great and the rememberence carried over through the rough times. I guess I wouldn't understand in regards to football the fandom of a team that has never had a "glory days" and I do pity you.
How soon we forget, for a fwe years the Packers struggled to sell out....games were played in Milwaukee to essentially save the team. I went to several Packers games in the 1990's that were not sold out in time and thus blacked out locally (the 72 hour tv rule). I'd have to look it up, but I don't even know if the Cowboys vs Packers game in 1991 at County Stadium sold out in time for the 72 hour rule. That was Aikman, Smith, Irvin, Novacek team that rolled in and if I remember correctly it was close to selling out but didn't. It was fun to be at as a Cowboys fan, there were many of my fellow Pokes fans in the stands as the Boys won 20-17.
-
Yes.
That still doesn't change my curiosity.
You're right.
But it could be landmark, in its way for sports cases. I am just curious if the Appeals would have heard it if the two weren't in the case or if the case was somewhere else.
It's impossible to be completely objective.
Ohh I completely agree that being a fan is relative to birthplace. I have been a Brewer fan all my life-and it's a struggle. (and being born in a small Westrn Wisconsin town I have hated the Vikings since birth)
My initial post was in regards to why the Vikings haven't yet sold the season tickets not being an economic thing. I made the point that if I were a Viking fan with no Super Bowls (although that doesn't really mean anything but I'm going to insert it every chance I get because it is a pissing match) and a crappy stadium I would rather watch the game at a local bar or at my house with friends rather than going to the game-which for me, I would do if the Packers weren't a great team as well-why drop the change on it unless I was going with a group friends?
The part that you quoted was more of an argument against whether or not being an underdog while losing the SB game is different than being favored as to having an affect on the fanbase and the franchise. I wanted to say that being favored would have been a boost to the fans (I say that in regards to buzz about the team, merhandise sales-I will use Yankees vs. Mets as an example with Yankees gear being soldly a great deal more than Mets. You could say it is more of a "brand" thing with people not being Yankee fans purchasing the gear, but would that have happened if they weren't, despite a few dips, perrenial powers and favorites?). I used the Vikings as the example rather than other teams without a SB because, well, this is an NFC North pissing Match at the Vikings are in the NFC without a SB.
If you took offense to it, I do not apologize. I still hold to my claim that if the Vikings had ever done anything significant as a franchise these problems of selling seats would not exist. Hell the Packers sold out all the games, or close to it, because they were at one time great and the rememberence carried over through the rough times. I guess I wouldn't understand in regards to football the fandom of a team that has never had a "glory days" and I do pity you.
But have fun rooting for the Vikings. There is always hope for that first championship, as there is with me for the Crew.
I'm not offended by the favorites vs underdogs thing. I don't really care about that argument.
As far as selling NFL tickets, I think it's a combo of the following things:
#1 Football almost as much fun to watch on TV as it is in person (it's better in a lot of ways). The NFL is becoming a victim of it's own television monster.
#2 Fantasy football and Sunday ticket are huge deals for hardcore NFL fans. I'm not saying it's preventing a lot of tickets getting sold, but it's certainly not encouraging people to go to the game. I know a lot more friends having "NFL parties" than actually go to a game. They talk fantasy smack, check scores, highlights, watch all of the games, etc.
#3 Economy (people are watching their entertainment dollars). Certain teams continue to sell tickets because they have a large fan base, or because the demand outweighs the supply, so when you get a chance for tickets, you take it (regardless of economy)
#4 (MN specific) The Metrodome "game experience" isn't a very good one. Nobody is going to romantically look back on their "first time in the dome". It's not a great place for football (could be remodeled to be decent), and the neighborhood is not really the center of nightlife/entertainment. There are certainly bars and restaurants to go to, but it's not a setting that naturally has a nightlife like Wrigleyville. Going to see the Vikes is like going to an NBA game. If you really like the team, you go. But, it's not a compelling experience that gets the casual fans excited about going.
#5 (MN Specific) You can make fun of this if you want, but people from MN (and WI for that matter) really enjoy their 3-4months of nice weather. It's hard to motivate a casual fan to go sit inside on a nice Sunday afternoon when they could be outside. The Twins have the same problem. The Gophers had that same problem.
I'm not going to pretend that any of these are the silver bullet answer, just all factors in how/why ticket sales can be explained.
Everybody feel free to take shots at me for trying to be rationale again. ;)
-
How soon we forget, for a fwe years the Packers struggled to sell out....games were played in Milwaukee to essentially save the team. I went to several Packers games in the 1990's that were not sold out in time and thus blacked out locally (the 72 hour tv rule). I'd have to look it up, but I don't even know if the Cowboys vs Packers game in 1991 at County Stadium sold out in time for the 72 hour rule. That was Aikman, Smith, Irvin, Novacek team that rolled in and if I remember correctly it was close to selling out but didn't. It was fun to be at as a Cowboys fan, there were many of my fellow Pokes fans in the stands as the Boys won 20-17.
Ohh I'll never forget those days! Milwaukee family reuinions and my first Packer game! Great times. Don't know if they won or lost since I was 3.
while attendance wasn't always sold out, they still had substantial attendance numbers--without corporate help. When they did begin to do well you had to know someone in order to get tickets.
The Vikings now are in a position where they will be up there for a potential playoff birth with the most dynamic running back of his generation, but no one is getting ready to pick up the tickets. Odd, why?
One other thing, remember Green Bay is a very, very small market area. The Twin Cities is no Chicago and a smaller market itself, but much larger than Green Bay--not to mention the wealth of the suburbs. You are probably correct in saying that they began to play games in Milwaukee to keep attendances up and to save the franchise. That makes sense considering it is a greater market and a lot of potential gamegoers would more readily go to a game down the road than making the journey up 43 to GB. This is in opposition to the Dome being in the middle of the largest population density in Minnesota. I wonder how many people would go to Viking games if they played in Duluth (which according to 2000 census have similar Metropolitan sizes)? Probably not a whole lot.
-
I'm not offended by the favorites vs underdogs thing. I don't really care about that argument.
As far as selling NFL tickets, I think it's a combo of the following things:
#1 Football almost as much fun to watch on TV as it is in person (it's better in a lot of ways). The NFL is becoming a victim of it's own television monster.
#2 Fantasy football and Sunday ticket are huge deals for hardcore NFL fans. I'm not saying it's preventing a lot of tickets getting sold, but it's certainly not encouraging people to go to the game. I know a lot more friends having "NFL parties" than actually go to a game. They talk fantasy smack, check scores, highlights, watch all of the games, etc.
#3 Economy (people are watching their entertainment dollars). Certain teams continue to sell tickets because they have a large fan base, or because the demand outweighs the supply, so when you get a chance for tickets, you take it (regardless of economy)
#4 (MN specific) The Metrodome "game experience" isn't a very good one. Nobody is going to romantically look back on their "first time in the dome". It's not a great place for football (could be remodeled to be decent), and the neighborhood is not really the center of nightlife/entertainment. There are certainly bars and restaurants to go to, but it's not a setting that naturally has a nightlife like Wrigleyville. Going to see the Vikes is like going to an NBA game. If you really like the team, you go. But, it's not a compelling experience that gets the casual fans excited about going.
#5 (MN Specific) You can make fun of this if you want, but people from MN (and WI for that matter) really enjoy their 3-4months of nice weather. It's hard to motivate a casual fan to go sit inside on a nice Sunday afternoon when they could be outside. The Twins have the same problem. The Gophers had that same problem.
I'm not going to pretend that any of these are the silver bullet answer, just all factors in how/why ticket sales can be explained.
Everybody feel free to take shots at me for trying to be rationale again. ;)
Some of these do apply to every year, but the reality is this year for the Consensus Vikings, it's all about the economy. 115 sellouts in a row and being the Consensus pick to win everything this year proves it. The economy is also why the NFL has changed how they do some things with regard to blackouts and video replays. The NFL has flat out said the economy is an issue this year.
I think going to a Vikings game is like going to most football games - if you're ready to drink and be around a lot of loud people drinking, great. If not, TV may be a better option.
Just a handful of games left in the Dome for the Twins... and tomorrow the Gophers are finally back outside. Sad, but I think what it will take to finally get the Vikings into a new stadium is a Super Bowl Championship. Fortunately, this year is a near-lock for that to happen.
(PS - soon we will hear b1tching about the rain and cold at Gophers games, and the rainouts and weather conditions that are not ideal at Target Field).
Any stadium or arena can be made enjoyable if the team is great enough (see 87 and 91 World Series Champion Minnesota Twins, or every Marquette team at the Bradley Center).
Did any of you non-Vikings fans pick Cleveland this week?
-
I'm not offended by the favorites vs underdogs thing. I don't really care about that argument.
As far as selling NFL tickets, I think it's a combo of the following things:
#1 Football almost as much fun to watch on TV as it is in person (it's better in a lot of ways). The NFL is becoming a victim of it's own television monster.
#2 Fantasy football and Sunday ticket are huge deals for hardcore NFL fans. I'm not saying it's preventing a lot of tickets getting sold, but it's certainly not encouraging people to go to the game. I know a lot more friends having "NFL parties" than actually go to a game. They talk fantasy smack, check scores, highlights, watch all of the games, etc.
#3 Economy (people are watching their entertainment dollars). Certain teams continue to sell tickets because they have a large fan base, or because the demand outweighs the supply, so when you get a chance for tickets, you take it (regardless of economy)
#4 (MN specific) The Metrodome "game experience" isn't a very good one. Nobody is going to romantically look back on their "first time in the dome". It's not a great place for football (could be remodeled to be decent), and the neighborhood is not really the center of nightlife/entertainment. There are certainly bars and restaurants to go to, but it's not a setting that naturally has a nightlife like Wrigleyville. Going to see the Vikes is like going to an NBA game. If you really like the team, you go. But, it's not a compelling experience that gets the casual fans excited about going.
#5 (MN Specific) You can make fun of this if you want, but people from MN (and WI for that matter) really enjoy their 3-4months of nice weather. It's hard to motivate a casual fan to go sit inside on a nice Sunday afternoon when they could be outside. The Twins have the same problem. The Gophers had that same problem.
I'm not going to pretend that any of these are the silver bullet answer, just all factors in how/why ticket sales can be explained.
Everybody feel free to take shots at me for trying to be rationale again. ;)
I agree with you on all points.
Except for one fact...
#3.
Everyone blames the economy. The only thing the economy does is make us make a choice of what we desire. My argument is (with a combination of the Dome, Fantasy hubbub-which is absurd by the way, why not check after the game?) is that the quality of performance, or past performance affects the fan's benefit factor.
If the Vikings had consistently, or even in stretches, produced quality as a franchise--the Dome decision as a place to play is included in the production of quality--then fans would weigh the benifets greater than the cost. As it is now, it just isn't "worth it" to see the game at the Dome because of all the reasons you defined...
and....
the pathetic perfomance of the Vikings (which will happen once again be this year)
-
One other thing, remember Green Bay is a very, very small market area. The Twin Cities is no Chicago and a smaller market itself, but much larger than Green Bay--not to mention the wealth of the suburbs. You are probably correct in saying that they began to play games in Milwaukee to keep attendances up and to save the franchise. That makes sense considering it is a greater market and a lot of potential gamegoers would more readily go to a game down the road than making the journey up 43 to GB. This is in opposition to the Dome being in the middle of the largest population density in Minnesota. I wonder how many people would go to Viking games if they played in Duluth (which according to 2000 census have similar Metropolitan sizes)? Probably not a whole lot.
Hard to say....the fact that the Packers are in Green Bay makes then a state wide team. The state doesn't embrace the Bucks or the Brewers, but they do embrace the Packers....I think this is because they are NOT in Milwaukee. They are part of a smaller community that resonates to the entire state.
If the Vikings were playing in Duluth and the ONLY team in the state for football, you might be surprised, they might have adopted the same type of state euphoric attitude. I think a lot of this is also tied in with performance and opposition.
The Packers were good from the start....in their first 27 years, the Packers had ONE losing season including multiple championships. Three decades of winning and championships. That will get people excited whether it's big market or small market. People latch on to those memories, will hang on to the struggling years and ride them through, etc. That's in contrast to a team that struggled from the get -go let's say and has some good years, some bad, the fans are much more fickle.
Also, I'd argue the Packers played as really the only team in the state as a football elite. The Badgers sucked for most years, Marquette was good in the 1930's and had a few decent years beyond that, but not a major power. Meanwhile, over in the state of Minnesota, the Gophers were winning national championships...5 of them in the 1930's and 40's and winning Big Ten titles in the 1960's. People latched on to the Gophers...when the Viking came around finally, they were an expansion team and awful. The Vikings, meanwhile only had ONE winning season of their first 7 seasons. They were a bad franchise to start and that tone resonates with many people. They finally got rolling for a decade and then went in the crapper again.
-
I agree with you on all points.
Except for one fact...
#3.
Everyone blames the economy. The only thing the economy does is make us make a choice of what we desire. My argument is (with a combination of the Dome, Fantasy hubbub-which is absurd by the way, why not check after the game?) is that the quality of performance, or past performance affects the fan's benefit factor.
If the Vikings had consistently, or even in stretches, produced quality as a franchise--the Dome decision as a place to play is included in the production of quality--then fans would weigh the benifets greater than the cost. As it is now, it just isn't "worth it" to see the game at the Dome because of all the reasons you defined...
and....
the pathetic perfomance of the Vikings (which will happen once again be this year)
I actually agree with you about the economy, but I think you are missing something.
Football is entertainment, not religion, so there is a lot of competition for those dollars; especially this year when fans have less dollars at their disposal.
People are choosing to do other things with those dollars because the Vikes are not #1 on the list. If the economy was better, people would have more money at their disposal, and entertainment option(s) #2 and #3 might see more $$ dedicated to them.
As far as the fantasy thing, you may think it's lame, but I promise you that it's true. Why do you think they have the Redzone channel on Direct TV?
People could just see highlights after the game, right? Wrong. Hardcore fantasy players and sports bettors LOVE seeing this stuff live. With the new technology and television packages, people are essentially creating their own sportsbooks at home... and they enjoy it more than blowing hundreds/thousands of dollars on going to the games.
I'm not saying this is going to kill NFL attendance... I'm just saying that spending $1600 on season tickets for 2 (plus parking, food, beer, etc.), or spending that money on a home entertainment package isn't a no brainer for people like it was even 10 years ago.
-
Hard to say....the fact that the Packers are in Green Bay makes then a state wide team. The state doesn't embrace the Bucks or the Brewers, but they do embrace the Packers....I think this is because they are NOT in Milwaukee. They are part of a smaller community that resonates to the entire state.
I agree with what you say, to an extent, about the Bucks; however, the Brewers are a bit different, as there are many fans of baseball.
Last summer as I played on an amateur team, a type of home talent team. At every venue in the small towns on the western part of the town whether it was Norwalk, Kendall, Coon Valley, Sparta, Augusta, Rib Lake, Mauston, etc. in between innings the Brewers would be played. You would see hats all over the place, not to mention droves of buses from those town coming to watch them play. The Brewers were their team. I recall almost every kid on my little league team having Brewer gear.
The Packers were good from the start....in their first 27 years, the Packers had ONE losing season including multiple championships. Three decades of winning and championships. That will get people excited whether it's big market or small market. People latch on to those memories, will hang on to the struggling years and ride them through, etc. That's in contrast to a team that struggled from the get -go let's say and has some good years, some bad, the fans are much more fickle.
Also, I'd argue the Packers played as really the only team in the state as a football elite. The Badgers sucked for most years, Marquette was good in the 1930's and had a few decent years beyond that, but not a major power. Meanwhile, over in the state of Minnesota, the Gophers were winning national championships...5 of them in the 1930's and 40's and winning Big Ten titles in the 1960's. People latched on to the Gophers...when the Viking came around finally, they were an expansion team and awful. The Vikings, meanwhile only had ONE winning season of their first 7 seasons. They were a bad franchise to start and that tone resonates with many people. They finally got rolling for a decade and then went in the crapper again.
Now I agree with this and I believe you validated my first point, discussing why the team hasn't sold out this year when I used the "0-4" SB thing, greater than I could have. Because as you have said, the beginning of the franchise determines the feel of the franchise and how it is viewed. The Packers have had a storied franchise; therefore, even during the slumping years there still exists reverence and memories that fuel people to watch and care for that team despite being abysmal. In opposition the Vikings are not a storied franchise--they have not yet won a Championship, they have the "Purple People Eaters" or whatever, but nothing of a consistency to draw upon in length. By using this as a point you validated that the performances of the past affect the perception of the team now in a benefit scenario; there is no recollection of "glory years" for the Vikings as there is for the Pack.
If the Vikings were playing in Duluth and the ONLY team in the state for football, you might be surprised, they might have adopted the same type of state euphoric attitude. I think a lot of this is also tied in with performance and opposition.
You are right about the euphoric attitude, if they were good. The team would have taken off, but since the Vikings are a beleaguered franchise, as you pointed out in great detail, it probably would have fallen apart.
-
LOL! They were 12-4 and finished second to the Chiefs who went 13-3. The following season they went 14-2. That also started a run of the AFC going 8-3 in Super Bowls and counting.
They should have been favored (at least the line should have been smaller) because more people should have bet on them because they were the better team. The Packers defense played bad...favre made mistakes...duh...maybe they just weren't that good.
Don't let em off the hook. The Packers win that game 8 out of 10 times.
-
I agree with what you say, to an extent, about the Bucks; however, the Brewers are a bit different, as there are many fans of baseball.
Last summer as I played on an amateur team, a type of home talent team. At every venue in the small towns on the western part of the town whether it was Norwalk, Kendall, Coon Valley, Sparta, Augusta, Rib Lake, Mauston, etc. in between innings the Brewers would be played. You would see hats all over the place, not to mention droves of buses from those town coming to watch them play. The Brewers were their team. I recall almost every kid on my little league team having Brewer gear.
Now I agree with this and I believe you validated my first point, discussing why the team hasn't sold out this year when I used the "0-4" SB thing, greater than I could have. Because as you have said, the beginning of the franchise determines the feel of the franchise and how it is viewed. The Packers have had a storied franchise; therefore, even during the slumping years there still exists reverence and memories that fuel people to watch and care for that team despite being abysmal. In opposition the Vikings are not a storied franchise--they have not yet won a Championship, they have the "Purple People Eaters" or whatever, but nothing of a consistency to draw upon in length. By using this as a point you validated that the performances of the past affect the perception of the team now in a benefit scenario; there is no recollection of "glory years" for the Vikings as there is for the Pack.
You are right about the euphoric attitude, if they were good. The team would have taken off, but since the Vikings are a beleaguered franchise, as you pointed out in great detail, it probably would have fallen apart.
Maybe now that they're winning, but when I lived there during the 1990's, you couldn't find a Brewers fan outside a 50 mile radius of Milwaukee for the most part. It was brutal. The team drew a bit over 1 million fans, ratings were horrific, etc.
-
I actually agree with you about the economy, but I think you are missing something.
Football is entertainment, not religion, so there is a lot of competition for those dollars; especially this year when fans have less dollars at their disposal.
People are choosing to do other things with those dollars because the Vikes are not #1 on the list. If the economy was better, people would have more money at their disposal, and entertainment option(s) #2 and #3 might see more $$ dedicated to them.
As far as the fantasy thing, you may think it's lame, but I promise you that it's true. Why do you think they have the Redzone channel on Direct TV?
People could just see highlights after the game, right? Wrong. Hardcore fantasy players and sports bettors LOVE seeing this stuff live. With the new technology and television packages, people are essentially creating their own sportsbooks at home... and they enjoy it more than blowing hundreds/thousands of dollars on going to the games.
I'm not saying this is going to kill NFL attendance... I'm just saying that spending $1600 on season tickets for 2 (plus parking, food, beer, etc.), or spending that money on a home entertainment package isn't a no brainer for people like it was even 10 years ago.
I don't think I am missing it.
When you say that football is a form of entertainment rather than religion, you are right.
But it is not just entertainment either. I know I jest with you about the Vikings sucking throughout their franchise history, which is true, but there is another eliment-which Chico's alluded to
The Packers were good from the start....in their first 27 years, the Packers had ONE losing season including multiple championships. Three decades of winning and championships. That will get people excited whether it's big market or small market. People latch on to those memories, will hang on to the struggling years and ride them through, etc. That's in contrast to a team that struggled from the get -go let's say and has some good years, some bad, the fans are much more fickle.
those memories and magestry are the key to the equation. It is something that can connect generations and can be passed from one to the next, an experience rather than entertainment-and their is no cost on experiance and connection.
Yes there are other forms of connection from a generation that doesn't understand the new-fishing, playing catch, etc. But one of those for a young Packer fan and a father/mother is going to the games-a constant in a tumultous equation.
Perhaps that doesn't exist for a Viking at the Dome and I find that tragic. I would say it would be for the best, however, I wouldn't want Rodgers throwing for 350 and 4 TDs when I would take my child to his/her first game.
-
Don't let em off the hook. The Packers win that game 8 out of 10 times.
They key was the first quarter. GB goes down and scores with no problem on the opening drive...only the 3rd team in Super Bowl history to do that. All the momentum. But the GBP defense absolutely no-showed the next series and Denver answered. How does Green Bay respond....Favre throws an interception....in Green Bay territory. HUGE Play. Denver goes down and scores touchdown.
How does Green Bay respond? Favre fumbles.. Denver scores again, 17-7. That was the difference in my mind...totally set the tone, told a double digit underdog they could hang with the World Champs, Packers were dazed. Even though Green Bay came back to tie it (on a stupid play by Denver where they were offsides on a FG attempt giving GB new set of downs and eventually the tying TD) that 1st half gave Denver life and showed what they could do....which is eventually win the game.
GB had no business losing that game.
-
Don't let em off the hook. The Packers win that game 8 out of 10 times.
On what do you base that opinion? The Packers' rushing defense was 20th in the league that season, and they were going up against the number 1 offense in the league. What Terrel Davis did in that game (157 yds (5.2 avg), 3 TDs) should have come as a surprise to nobody.
-
Not to get off topic from a game that occurred 12 years ago...
Williams wall to play entire season. Thanks MN courts.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4464771
-
On what do you base that opinion? The Packers' rushing defense was 20th in the league that season, and they were going up against the number 1 offense in the league. What Terrel Davis did in that game (157 yds (5.2 avg), 3 TDs) should have come as a surprise to nobody.
See Chicos....defense doesn't step up...turnovers...gave Denver confidence.
-
I don't think I am missing it.
When you say that football is a form of entertainment rather than religion, you are right.
But it is not just entertainment either. I know I jest with you about the Vikings sucking throughout their franchise history, which is true, but there is another eliment-which Chico's alluded to
those memories and magestry are the key to the equation. It is something that can connect generations and can be passed from one to the next, an experience rather than entertainment-and their is no cost on experiance and connection.
Yes there are other forms of connection from a generation that doesn't understand the new-fishing, playing catch, etc. But one of those for a young Packer fan and a father/mother is going to the games-a constant in a tumultous equation.
Perhaps that doesn't exist for a Viking at the Dome and I find that tragic. I would say it would be for the best, however, I wouldn't want Rodgers throwing for 350 and 4 TDs when I would take my child to his/her first game.
I understand that americans (specifically in the midwest) have sports traditions that are passed from generation to generation. Packers, Buckeyes, Cubs, Notre Dame, etc. all have strong traditions and fanbases that have grown and been passed down.
However, with ALL fans (including teams listed above), going to the game is a form of entertainment, not necessity (doctor, dentist, food, clothing, etc.)
While I agree that many of us approach sports as a "way of life"; for the average family, going to see a game (versus watching on TV for free) is an entertainment luxury item.
I'm not saying that the poor economy is responsible for people not being fans of the Vikings (or any NFL team). I'm saying it is making it harder for a family to justify spending hundreds/thousands of dollars on tickets when they could watch the game at home for free (hmmm, "I'm unsure about my job situation, I guess I'll just watch the games from home this season")
I assume you weren't in New Orleans at the Packers SuperBowl win. I assume you watched it on television. But, it doesn't mean you still don't enjoy the memories of that game and that season. Being at the games isn't a requirement to becoming a fan and enjoying the team.
Let me re-state this again, the economy is not the only reason that NFL teams are struggling to sell out, but to ignore it as a factor is naive.
-
The following season, why do you keep bringing that up?
Very simple...the following season helped demonstrate just how under appreciated the Broncos were heading into that Super Bowl. They proved to be much better than anyone thought they were, and provided further evidence by going 14-2 and winning the Super Bowl the very next season with virtually an identical roster.
The Packers defense on the other hand saw significant changes from one year to the next, which makes your reverse argument argument stupid.
-
The following season, why do you keep bringing that up? Every year is a different team. Different key players, different injuries, different schedule, different conditions. What they did one year to the next is a non-issue.
totally set the tone, told a double digit underdog they could hang with the World Champs
-- ChicosBailBonds
I guess what they did from one year to the next is a non-non-issue when it suits your argument.
-
Not to get off topic from a game that occurred 12 years ago...
Williams wall to play entire season. Thanks MN courts.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4464771
No matter what NFL team this happend to it would have been ruled upon by the FEDERAL court in MN. The 8th district court handles all cases and appeals dealing with the NFL. One judge is from Minnesota, one is from Missouri and the other is from Arkansas. Has nothing to do with MN courts. I don't like it being a Bears fan but it is far from a homer ruling.
-
Let me re-state this again, the economy is not the only reason that NFL teams are struggling to sell out, but to ignore it as a factor is naive.
You know what...if I wasn't so broke--I'd go to the GB and Viking game in Minneapolis to prove you wrong. Instead I'm going over to my buddies house and watch the game.
It was fun arguing anyway.
-
No matter what NFL team this happend to it would have been ruled upon by the FEDERAL court in MN. The 8th district court handles all cases and appeals dealing with the NFL. One judge is from Minnesota, one is from Missouri and the other is from Arkansas. Has nothing to do with MN courts. I don't like it being a Bears fan but it is far from a homer ruling.
Really? I don't believe you.
Homer ruling.
The season is tarnished.
Asteriks, where the f*** are the asteriks?
-
No matter what NFL team this happend to it would have been ruled upon by the FEDERAL court in MN. The 8th district court handles all cases and appeals dealing with the NFL. One judge is from Minnesota, one is from Missouri and the other is from Arkansas. Has nothing to do with MN courts. I don't like it being a Bears fan but it is far from a homer ruling.
Actually it has nothing to do with me being a Bears fan....
"a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld earlier decisions from a federal district court -- including one that says the remaining legal issues must be resolved in state court." Just stating the facts. referring to the article.
Edit my word choice, as I don't know if the article is fact.
-
The only thing this thread has taught me is that people are REALLY jealous of the Vikings, REALLY are sadden by Favre coming here, and that MU Creative Writing degrees are extraordinarily easy to obtain.
Do some of you honestly believe that the fact that NFL tickets sales in numerous markets are down this year has little to nothing to do with the economy? You're freaking NUTS. "Uhh, no dude. It's because the Vikings lost four super bowls and don't have a storied history of championships.. therefore generations can't pass down the love of the franchise... duhhh..".
Wow.
Anyone play Madden online? I did for the first time in years the other night.. it was aiiight... I'll school anyone tonight.
PS - if anyone is in the Twin Cities and wants two nice lowers for the Twins game TONIGHT, they are your's for free - I flat out need to work.
-
including one that says the remaining legal issues must be resolved in state court."
We all know how the state court will rule....it is a good thing that Olin Kreutz kicks their as***s every year.
-
If Kreutz was only as good at football as he is at punching his teammates...
-
If Kreutz was only as good at football as he is at punching his teammates...
6 Pro Bowls and we all know that his Washington teammate deserved to be punched.
-
The only thing this thread has taught me is that people are REALLY jealous of the Vikings, REALLY are sadden by Favre coming here, and that MU Creative Writing degrees are extraordinarily easy to obtain.
Anyone play Madden online? I did for the first time in years the other night.. it was aiiight... I'll school anyone tonight.
PS - if anyone is in the Twin Cities and wants two nice lowers for the Twins game TONIGHT, they are your's for free - I flat out need to work.
HAHA! We're jealous of the VIQUEENS?! That's one of the funniest jokes I've ever heard! What in the WORLD is there to be jealous about?! Their SWEET dome?! HAH! Their HUGELY successful franchise?! HAH! Again, VaJay Jay, I will ask you: Have you ever even seen your beloved Vikes in a Super Bowl in your entire life?! I KNOW you have never seen them WIN one, since they NEVER have, so I don't even need to ask that question. Have you seen them in any NFC Championship game that they did NOT lose 41-0 in?! Are we supposed to be jealous of your SWEET team colors?! HAH! Your fantastic fans?! How long is your waiting line for season tickets, VaJay Jay?! Oh, you don't have one?! HAH! Gosh DANG, I am SOOOOOO jealous of the Vikings!
Oh, and you are challenging anyone to a game of Madden online TONIGHT, but you state that you just flat out need to work TONIGHT? Nice. Making some sick beatz? Is 50 Cent on his way over? Give him my best...
-
So the vikings have terrible fans that aren't dedicated enough to sell out the games.
But, they have such diehard fans in the legal community that the local judges/lawyers are going to let the players get off so they can keep playing for the vikings.
Makes perfect sense... errr....
-
HAHA! We're jealous of the VIQUEENS?! That's one of the funniest jokes I've ever heard! What in the WORLD is there to be jealous about?! Their SWEET dome?! HAH! Their HUGELY successful franchise?! HAH! Again, VaJay Jay, I will ask you: Have you ever even seen your beloved Vikes in a Super Bowl in your entire life?! I KNOW you have never seen them WIN one, since they NEVER have, so I don't even need to ask that question. Have you seen them in any NFC Championship game that they did NOT lose 41-0 in?! Are we supposed to be jealous of your SWEET team colors?! HAH! Your fantastic fans?! How long is your waiting line for season tickets, VaJay Jay?! Oh, you don't have one?! HAH! Gosh DANG, I am SOOOOOO jealous of the Vikings!
Oh, and you are challenging anyone to a game of Madden online TONIGHT, but you state that you just flat out need to work TONIGHT? Nice. Making some sick beatz? Is 50 Cent on his way over? Give him my best...
Wad's did you have a little Favre poster in your room growing up? I find it strange that an individual such as yourself, who is comfortable with a ball gag in his mouth three nights a week at Le Cage, is inferring that purple is a bad color.
Yes, I am ready to play Madden TONIGHT and I need to work TONIGHT. Maybe I work for Madden or Microsoft. Maybe I need to get some stuff done and therefore don't want to go to the Twins game for 3 hours. Maybe my TONIGHT doesn't end at your bedtime of 8pm, and therefore I could get work done and play Madden. Maybe Erin Rodgers winning percentage of less than 40 is horrible.
-
So the vikings have terrible fans that aren't dedicated enough to sell out the games.
But, they have such diehard fans in the legal community that the local judges/lawyers are going to let the players get off so they can keep playing for the vikings.
Makes perfect sense... errr....
Because I was the one who made both of those claims? Makes perfect sense...errr...
-
Wad's did you have a little Favre poster in your room growing up? I find it strange that an individual such as yourself, who is comfortable with a ball gag in his mouth three nights a week at Le Cage, is inferring that purple is a bad color.
Yes, I am ready to play Madden TONIGHT and I need to work TONIGHT. Maybe I work for Madden or Microsoft. Maybe I need to get some stuff done and therefore don't want to go to the Twins game for 3 hours. Maybe my TONIGHT doesn't end at your bedtime of 8pm, and therefore I could get work done and play Madden. Maybe Erin Rodgers winning percentage of less than 40 is horrible.
Haha I knew you'd ignore my questions for you, VaJay Jay, it never fails! I'll make it pretty simple and leave out all other things. Please answer me these two questions.
1. Have you personally ever seen the Vikings play in a Super Bowl?
2. Have you personally ever seen the Vikings play in an NFC Championship game in which you did not lose 41-0?
Pretty simple. Give it your best shot. I know you have trouble with it, so I'll even give you permission to answer these questions in some form of lyrics and make some of your fly beatz with it.
-
Very simple...the following season helped demonstrate just how under appreciated the Broncos were heading into that Super Bowl. They proved to be much better than anyone thought they were, and provided further evidence by going 14-2 and winning the Super Bowl the very next season with virtually an identical roster.
The Packers defense on the other hand saw significant changes from one year to the next, which makes your reverse argument argument stupid.
Of course let's also not forget the Green Bay offense was BETTER in 2007 than in 2006 if you want to use statistics. Green Bay's defense in 2007, was worse than 2006, but it was still 7th overall....hardly a slouch defense. They were also #5 in scoring defense in 2007....again, no slouch.
Each team is different from each year, comparing the two gives some visibility but it is impossible to compare completely as schedules are different, players, coaches, injuries, etc.
It remains that Green Bay was a double digit favorite and lost in the Super Bowl. They should have won that game but were sloppy with the ball early on (no surprise) and couldn't stop a running back that couldn't even seen due to migraine headaches.
-
Because I was the one who made both of those claims? Makes perfect sense...errr...
Nope. It was directly at the other 20 people posting in this thread.
Don't take it so personally, dude. I apologize that my post came after yours and confused you.
pillardean just got done trying to tell me that MN doesn't sell out because the organization sucks and the fans aren't diehard. Then, he (and several others) imply that the court ruling would be different if it wasn't in MN.
I know some of this stuff is tongue and cheek, but I still wanted to point out the failed logic.
On one hand, you claim they can't get people to go to games.
On the other hand, you claim they are getting off easy with the legal system because they are Vikings players.
-
Wad's did you have a little Favre poster in your room growing up? I find it strange that an individual such as yourself, who is comfortable with a ball gag in his mouth three nights a week at Le Cage, is inferring that purple is a bad color.
Yes, I am ready to play Madden TONIGHT and I need to work TONIGHT. Maybe I work for Madden or Microsoft. Maybe I need to get some stuff done and therefore don't want to go to the Twins game for 3 hours. Maybe my TONIGHT doesn't end at your bedtime of 8pm, and therefore I could get work done and play Madden. Maybe Erin Rodgers winning percentage of less than 40 is horrible.
....
You see, there's a certain level of entertainment in a pissing match when the jabs at a certain person are indicative of what that person actually represents. That's what I'm doing. Understand?
Then there's this bull that you come up with. They seem to be, forgive me, rather meek and feeble attempts at personal insults, all of which are of the "insert person you'd like to insult here" variety. I must say, there was a time in this thread where you at least provided a mediocre challenge. Those days are now over. I expect better, and I'm consistently disappointed. Kind of like you will be with the Vikings on a week to week basis this year.
It's incredibly convenient that you stop replying to my posts when you get your sh*t rocked, and try to go pick on other people.
-
It remains that Green Bay was a double digit favorite and lost in the Super Bowl. They should have won that game but were sloppy with the ball early on (no surprise) and couldn't stop a running back that couldn't even seen due to migraine headaches.
So the moral of the story is that we should forget about all of the Packers Super Bowl victories, because they were the favorites, but the one they lost counts because they were 12 point favorites and lost. So really, the Packers are 0-1 in Super Bowls, which is the exact same record the Vikings have in Super Bowls, since they are 0-4 in Super Bowls, but they were underdogs in 3 of those 4, so only the one where they were favored and still lost counts towards anything.
The fact of the matter is is that Super Bowl champions are nothing easy to come by. If favorites always won, then why even play the season? Let's just hand the Patriots the Super Bowl right now. They seem to be the most popular pick at this point.
I don't care who the favorites were. The Packers have 3 Super Bowls, the Vikings have 0.
-
Nope. It was directly at the other 20 people posting in this thread.
Don't take it so personally, dude. I apologize that my post came after yours and confused you.
pillardean just got done trying to tell me that MN doesn't sell out because the organization sucks and the fans aren't diehard. Then, he (and several others) imply that the court ruling would be different if it wasn't in MN.
I know some of this stuff is tongue and cheek, but I still wanted to point out the failed logic.
On one hand, you claim they can't get people to go to games.
On the other hand, you claim they are getting off easy with the legal system because they are Vikings players.
Fair enough, I thought you were making a point that I said that their fans were terrible for not being able to sell out games but that I also said that the courts made a home ruling. I think it's pretty dumb that some people think the ruling was a homer ruling. I do agree that they DEFINITELY should be suspended, but I think the process would be the exact same thing if they were on the Packers instead of the Vikings.
-
So the moral of the story is that we should forget about all of the Packers Super Bowl victories, because they were the favorites, but the one they lost counts because they were 12 point favorites and lost. So really, the Packers are 0-1 in Super Bowls, which is the exact same record the Vikings have in Super Bowls, since they are 0-4 in Super Bowls, but they were underdogs in 3 of those 4, so only the one where they were favored and still lost counts towards anything.
The fact of the matter is is that Super Bowl champions are nothing easy to come by. If favorites always won, then why even play the season? Let's just hand the Patriots the Super Bowl right now. They seem to be the most popular pick at this point.
I don't care who the favorites were. The Packers have 3 Super Bowls, the Vikings have 0.
That's the moral of the story? I don't think so. The conversation morphed into that particular game. Yes, the Packers have 3 Super Bowl wins and are a GREAT organization. Don't think I ever said they weren't nor would I ever. They are one of the best ever.
-
Fair enough, I thought you were making a point that I said that their fans were terrible for not being able to sell out games but that I also said that the courts made a home ruling. I think it's pretty dumb that some people think the ruling was a homer ruling. I do agree that they DEFINITELY should be suspended, but I think the process would be the exact same thing if they were on the Packers instead of the Vikings.
Truthfully, I hope nobody believes this is a "homer ruling".
This isn't Mayberry guys. It's federal circuit court and the state court.
I'm not saying the lawyers and judges are perfect, but I don't think the Williams' are getting a free ride because they are Vikings players.
Way too many eyes on this case for that to be happening.
-
It's totally a homer ruling. Alan Page, former Minnesota Viking, was on the Minnesota Supreme Court. It's absolutely a homer ruling.
-
Haha I knew you'd ignore my questions for you, VaJay Jay, it never fails! I'll make it pretty simple and leave out all other things. Please answer me these two questions.
1. Have you personally ever seen the Vikings play in a Super Bowl?
2. Have you personally ever seen the Vikings play in an NFC Championship game in which you did not lose 41-0?
Pretty simple. Give it your best shot. I know you have trouble with it, so I'll even give you permission to answer these questions in some form of lyrics and make some of your fly beatz with it.
What do you mean personally? Not in person, simply watched the game as it occurred? 1) I believe so, but have no recollection. 2) Of course.
-
Haha I knew you'd ignore my questions for you, VaJay Jay, it never fails! I'll make it pretty simple and leave out all other things. Please answer me these two questions.
1. Have you personally ever seen the Vikings play in a Super Bowl?
2. Have you personally ever seen the Vikings play in an NFC Championship game in which you did not lose 41-0?
Pretty simple. Give it your best shot. I know you have trouble with it, so I'll even give you permission to answer these questions in some form of lyrics and make some of your fly beatz with it.
C'mon Wade, gotta do some fact checking!
They also lost in the 1998 Championship Game to the Atlanta Falcons, in Minnesota. Remember? The Vikings had one of the best offenses in the history of football, only to have Gary Anderson miss his only FG of the season...one that would've wrapped up the NFC title, and sent the Vikings to the Super Bowl.
Instead...Chris f'n Chandler led the Falcons to victory in OT, sending the Vikings and their worthless fans home.
It was in 2001 when the Vikings got embarrassed by the New York Giants in the NFC Championship Game. Just another example, of how absolutely useless the Minnesota Vikings franchise is.
-
C'mon Wade, gotta do some fact checking!
They also lost in the 1998 Championship Game to the Atlanta Falcons, in Minnesota. Remember? The Vikings had one of the best offenses in the history of football, only to have Gary Anderson miss his only FG of the season...one that would've wrapped up the NFC title, and sent the Vikings to the Super Bowl.
Instead...Chris f'n Chandler led the Falcons to victory in OT, sending the Vikings and their worthless fans home.
It was in 2001 when the Vikings got embarrassed by the New York Giants in the NFC Championship Game. Just another example, of how absolutely useless the Minnesota Vikings franchise is.
Yeah my fault, didn't realize they played in the NFC Championship in 1998.
Fair enough, you answered my questions for me. The answers to those questions, and the fact that Green Bay has 3 Super Bowls as opposed to Minnesota's 0 Super Bowls, should tell you that there is not a single Packers fan that is jealous of the Vikings.
By the way, VaJay Jay, what system do you play Madden online for? If it's PS3, PM me your username.
-
Yeah my fault, didn't realize they played in the NFC Championship in 1998.
Fair enough, you answered my questions for me. The answers to those questions, and the fact that Green Bay has 3 Super Bowls as opposed to Minnesota's 0 Super Bowls, should tell you that there is not a single Packers fan that is jealous of the Vikings.
By the way, VaJay Jay, what system do you play Madden online for? If it's PS3, PM me your username.
We play online via PS3 as well.....I think my 10 year old son would kick your ass. ;)
-
We play online via PS3 as well.....I think my 10 year old son would kick your ass. ;)
Probably. I'm not great at Madden. Don't play it very often. The Show is more of my game. I love playing it. And nobody could touch me in Tiger Woods. The game became boring for me.
-
Yeah my fault, didn't realize they played in the NFC Championship in 1998.
Not only did they play in the NFC Championship Game, but they were 15-1 during the regular season. Enormous choke job.
-
Probably. I'm not great at Madden. Don't play it very often. The Show is more of my game. I love playing it. And nobody could touch me in Tiger Woods. The game became boring for me.
He's good at the Show as well. I'm ok at Tiger Woods, but not great
-
Yeah my fault, didn't realize they played in the NFC Championship in 1998.
By the way, VaJay Jay, what system do you play Madden online for? If it's PS3, PM me your username.
I think in 88 we also were in the NFC Championship. I recall watching the game on a lakefront property. We did lose. I proceeded to play tecmo bowl for 18 hours straight after the game. Oh, there was 78 also as well as the couple of division championships proceeding the Super Bowl appearances. But, why let facts get into the way of your tardism?!
I play xbox 360. I have thought about getting a ps3 only because of The Show... but have not yet. I just played my best friend and it is amazing how it works, even to a genius mind such as mine. When I was in college, I do recall some fierce battles, especially Sega's hockey game where you could be the tiny fast guys or the fat rough guys... by the time I graduated, PS had come out and NBA live was around... but, not comparable to what's there today.
Kind of like the Packers... great back then.. but, disappointing today. 6-10? Really? You're excited about that?
-
The only thing this thread has taught me is that people are REALLY jealous of the Vikings, REALLY are sadden by Favre coming here, and that MU Creative Writing degrees are extraordinarily easy to obtain.
1. AP great player, wish we had him on the team.
2. Don't really care about Favre anymore other than when A.J. Hawk breaks his rib...wait it's already broken.
3. Creative Writing may be easy. But so is an accounting degree. Was in accounting for 3.5 years and flirted with Deans list for cumulitive (one semester I was above it, the next semester I'd get a 3.3 and be just below then get a 3.7 and be above-you know that type of thing); then I woke up one day and realized accounting sucks and I'd rather watch this all day...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTyKhLPf62U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTyKhLPf62U)
then be a numbers guy.
So I switched over to creative writing where free lance and subbing is the paycheck and I've been to...
1. Stockholm
2. A sh*** place in Amsterdam
3. Austria
4. Riding a night train through Northern Norway (the sun barely sets before it rises)
5. Seen the Mona Lisa in person
6. Flexed under the Arch de Triumph
7. Made friends with an irishman and two frenchies at the bar in Dublin, who I still e-mail, during Euro 2008
8. Got drunk with a 46 year old German in Berlin-ended up staying with him and his wife for a few weeks while I finished up work (a daughter Jay Bee would... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4))
9. Spent a week in San Diego
10. Lived in Philadelphia for awhile
etc.
before I turned 25.
Jay Bee keep on crunchin those numbers. They'll turn into fun someday.
-
1. AP great player, wish we had him on the team.
2. Don't really care about Favre anymore other than when A.J. Hawk breaks his rib...wait it's already broken.
3. Creative Writing may be easy. But so is an accounting degree. Was in accounting for 3.5 years and flirted with Deans list for cumulitive (one semester I was above it, the next semester I'd get a 3.3 and be just below then get a 3.7 and be above-you know that type of thing); then I woke up one day and realized accounting sucks and I'd rather watch this all day...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTyKhLPf62U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTyKhLPf62U)
then be a numbers guy.
So I switched over to creative writing where free lance and subbing is the paycheck and I've been to...
1. Stockholm
2. A sh*** place in Amsterdam
3. Austria
4. Riding a night train through Northern Norway (the sun barely sets before it rises)
5. Seen the Mona Lisa in person
6. Flexed under the Arch de Triumph
7. Made friends with an irishman and two frenchies at the bar in Dublin, who I still e-mail, during Euro 2008
8. Got drunk with a 46 year old German in Berlin-ended up staying with him and his wife for a few weeks while I finished up work (a daughter Jay Bee would... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4))
9. Spent a week in San Diego
10. Lived in Philadelphia for awhile
etc.
before I turned 25.
Jay Bee keep on crunchin those numbers. They'll turn into fun someday.
Hey lil buddy, you don't need to prove yourself to me (not that you did with that list... wow). Granted, I realize you're young and therefore would be under the 150-hour rule, but I graduated in 3.5 years -- and you accomplished figuring out that you wanted to change your major in that time period? I'm not surprised you're the type to change her mind late in the game, but 3.5 years is really pushing it... it gives me hope you'll be a Vikings fan by the time February rolls around.
Have you run into problems getting a paycheck? I wonder what your "cumulitive" (creative spelling?) earnings in calendar 2009 have been.. do you currently live with the parents?
At the end of the day, the best fit career-wise can be a matter of preference, so if you're enjoying what you do then there's no much to argue. As some youngsters have realized, I did a bit more than crunch numbers back when I was your age... like wad'sworld's favorite song says - work hard, play hard.
-
Truthfully, I hope nobody believes this is a "homer ruling".
This isn't Mayberry guys. It's federal circuit court and the state court.
I'm not saying the lawyers and judges are perfect, but I don't think the Williams' are getting a free ride because they are Vikings players.
Way too many eyes on this case for that to be happening.
Charles Grant and Will Smith serving suspension and Vikings not?
That's a friendly state law "explain your positive."
JayBee must be lovin that little nugget.
In fact I'm thinking of moving to 'Sota and accidentally take HGH and get Tommy Johns and I'll be in the Majors in two summers (But then again I'd have to live in 'Sota for a couple of years, not willing to do that).
-
I think in 88 we also were in the NFC Championship. I recall watching the game on a lakefront property. We did lose. I proceeded to play tecmo bowl for 18 hours straight after the game. Oh, there was 78 also as well as the couple of division championships proceeding the Super Bowl appearances. But, why let facts get into the way of your tardism?!
I play xbox 360. I have thought about getting a ps3 only because of The Show... but have not yet. I just played my best friend and it is amazing how it works, even to a genius mind such as mine. When I was in college, I do recall some fierce battles, especially Sega's hockey game where you could be the tiny fast guys or the fat rough guys... by the time I graduated, PS had come out and NBA live was around... but, not comparable to what's there today.
Kind of like the Packers... great back then.. but, disappointing today. 6-10? Really? You're excited about that?
I was asking if you were alive to see those NFC Championship games yourself when they were being played live. So you were alive in 1978 and watching those games, and the ones before the Super Bowls that they lost in? You act like you were born in about 1998, not 1978.
As for The Show, the game is ridiculous.
WE WORK HARD!
-
HAHA CHILDRESS IS AN ABSOLUTE JOKE! He tries to kick it short and recover it on the first kickoff of the year? Giving the Browns the ball at the 50 yard line to start the game? Really smart.
-
After watching the first half of the Vikings game, I finally figured it out. Brett Favre loves the Packers so much, he conned team jagbag (Childress and Z. Wolf) to sign him, give him a bunch of money, then Brett would just implode the team.
Thanks Brett! You are the best!
-
One of his assistants might also want to remind him ay half time that Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor are still on the team.
-
One of his assistants might also want to remind him ay half time that Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor are still on the team.
To me, that was the biggest problem with the Vikings and this move. Will they continue to use their primary offensive weapon enough.
-
Steroids were in the AP I.V.
-
To me, that was the biggest problem with the Vikings and this move. Will they continue to use their primary offensive weapon enough.
Well, I guess the answer is "yes."
-
AD, baby. I'm shocked Favre threw zero picks.
25 carries, 180 yards, 3 TDs, 1 rec 18 yards. Favre simply doesn't have to do much with AD playing behind him.
Percy Harvin - fantastic draft pick, we got a steal (as we did with Peterson a few years ago).
The O-line needs to improve in some areas and wow.. Joe Thomas didn't seem to have much of a problem with Jared. Overall, though, this game just indicates the consensus is correct. Vikings = NFC North Champions.
-
AD, baby. I'm shocked Favre threw zero picks.
25 carries, 180 yards, 3 TDs, 1 rec 18 yards. Favre simply doesn't have to do much with AD playing behind him.
Percy Harvin - fantastic draft pick, we got a steal (as we did with Peterson a few years ago).
The O-line needs to improve in some areas and wow.. Joe Thomas didn't seem to have much of a problem with Jared. Overall, though, this game just indicates the consensus is correct. Vikings = NFC North Champions.
Dont shoot your load just yet. CLE is one of the worst teams in the league.
You still have a moron head coach, and a 40 year old QB who has admitted he doesn't know if his body is going to hold up.
-
AD, baby. I'm shocked Favre threw zero picks.
25 carries, 180 yards, 3 TDs, 1 rec 18 yards. Favre simply doesn't have to do much with AD playing behind him.
Percy Harvin - fantastic draft pick, we got a steal (as we did with Peterson a few years ago).
The O-line needs to improve in some areas and wow.. Joe Thomas didn't seem to have much of a problem with Jared. Overall, though, this game just indicates the consensus is correct. Vikings = NFC North Champions.
So when Marquette basketball wins their first game by 25 we'll probably be considered the best team in the nation, right?
Fresh beatz!
-
Wait, I haven't been reading this thread consistently .. Jay Bee are you still claiming the Vikings are the NFC North consensus winners?
Um, as fellow Minnesotan can I ask you to please stop making us look like idiots?
I've looked at 15-20 different season predictions. Maybe half of them pick the Vikings to win the North. That's not a consensus by a long shot.
-
It looks like the Jets improved their QB situation this year. ;D
-
Dont shoot your load just yet. CLE is one of the worst teams in the league.
You still have a moron head coach, and a 40 year old QB who has admitted he doesn't know if his body is going to hold up.
Agreed that one win doesn't mean that much... but had they lost, every packer backer would be blasting favre and the vikings.
I'll take the win and the relative silence.
-
Agreed that one win doesn't mean that much... but had they lost, every packer backer would be blasting favre and the vikings.
I'll take the win and the relative silence.
Thats because they would've lost to one of the worst teams in the league, and they would've deserved the bashing. Your comparison doesnt fit here...
-
Interesting first half up in Green Bay. Who knew the under would be a decent play in this one?
Cutler has been terrible, it'll be interesting to see how he responds in the second half. Little to no running game by pretty much both teams. Barbre might get Rodgers killed before this one is over, you can't play much worse at the tackle spot than what he's done tonight.
I'll say Green Bay comes out ahead 17-13.
-
Thats because they would've lost to one of the worst teams in the league, and they would've deserved the bashing. Your comparison doesnt fit here...
My point is, if (more likely when) the Vikes lose, Packer fans will be celebrating... especially if Brett doesn't play well.
It doesn't matter who they play.
If the Vikes had lost, your post would have been, "See, favre sucks and childress is stupid". When the Vikes win, it's "The Browns are very good."
-
If the Vikes had lost, your post would have been, "See, favre sucks and childress is stupid". When the Vikes win, it's "The Browns are very good."
That is right, because it would've fit. The Browns are a very bad team, and the "consensus" pick to win the NFCN shouldn't lose to such a bad team. You've got nothing going for you here...
-
Cutler looked good.
4 picks...doesnt even give his team a chance.
Couldn't have happened to a better guy!
What a b*tch.
-
Did Cutler kick your dog or something?
He was bad, his receivers were bad, throws four picks, and still almost pulled out a win.
Ugly game all around on both sides tonight.
-
Collinsworth calling out Erin Rodgers for diving in the 4th quarter was humorous, as were Forte and Grant 'running' the ball. I look forward to hearing Chicago fans get all over Cutler this week - the last one looked like a crap play by the young receiver, but man... dude looked horrendous in the first half.
Erin's winning percentage has jumped to 41%, but he'll need to do much better to stay with the Consensus. I doubt the competition will toss his defense four gimme's every day.
-
Cutler had a bad game, big deal. First of Sixteen, he and his receivers clearly weren't on the same page, and he made some bad decisions. If Cutler plays like this three games in a row, then fans can "get all over him". Packers defense played well, little to no running game from the Bears, oh well.
Neither team was great, and the Packers were six points better. On to week 2.
-
Collinsworth calling out Erin Rodgers for diving in the 4th quarter was humorous, as were Forte and Grant 'running' the ball. I look forward to hearing Chicago fans get all over Cutler this week - the last one looked like a crap play by the young receiver, but man... dude looked horrendous in the first half.
Erin's winning percentage has jumped to 41%, but he'll need to do much better to stay with the Consensus. I doubt the competition will toss his defense four gimme's every day.
Hey VaJay-Jay, AD looked dominant in the 2nd half. Other than that, the Queens looked awful today. Down 13-10 after a half against the worst team in the NFL is anything but impressive.
SKOL VIKINGS! Make me a song about it, brah.
-
Cutler had a bad game, big deal. First of Sixteen, he and his receivers clearly weren't on the same page, and he made some bad decisions. If Cutler plays like this three games in a row, then fans can "get all over him". Packers defense played well, little to no running game from the Bears, oh well.
Neither team was great, and the Packers were six points better. On to week 2.
I would be more worried about the receivers than with Cutler.
Clark's missed touchdown
Bad routes leading to picks
Not being on same page equals awful looking passes.
Yeah, he made a few bad choices on throwing the ball, but the only other option would have been to throw it away. Save a few times the receivers didn't have much of a clue what they were doing down field.
As for the Pack, they got their kinks out with DD droppin' a few first down catches he won't do again and Rodgers overthrowing a few deep balls which he won't do again.
A win is a win (1-0)
-
If the Vikes had lost, your post would have been, "See, favre sucks and childress is stupid". When the Vikes win, it's "The Browns are very good."
Just because the Vikings won, doesn't mean Childress isn't stupid. He removed any remaining doubt about that a long time ago.
-
My point is, if (more likely when) the Vikes lose, Packer fans will be celebrating... especially if Brett doesn't play well.
It doesn't matter who they play.
I think that the Bear fans will also celebrate.
Ohh...and Childress still is stupid and Favre is still withered.
-
I've looked at 15-20 different season predictions. Maybe half of them pick the Vikings to win the North. That's not a consensus by a long shot.
Wait Jay Bee, I will save you the time.
"Hey if you Erin Rogers fans can find me a gambling website that shows someone other than the Vikes are the odds on favorite for the division, I will admit it. But until then nothing playaz.."
Back to my post.
I am more concerned about: Urlacher, Pisa, Clark, McBride, and Oyimale(sp) injury issues than a couple ints...
-
Cutler had a bad game, big deal. First of Sixteen, he and his receivers clearly weren't on the same page, and he made some bad decisions. If Cutler plays like this three games in a row, then fans can "get all over him". Packers defense played well, little to no running game from the Bears, oh well.
Neither team was great, and the Packers were six points better. On to week 2.
Cutler played much better in the second half when he calmed down. The last INT was All Harris schooling a rookie wide receiver.
-
Hey VaJay-Jay, AD looked dominant in the 2nd half. Other than that, the Queens looked awful today. Down 13-10 after a half against the worst team in the NFL is anything but impressive.
SKOL VIKINGS! Make me a song about it, brah.
As a vikes fan, I'll agree that a win over the browns isn't a huge deal.
However, a road blowout win is nice no matter who you are playing.
Defense looked good. Offense looked good (running game = great, passing = sufficient and efficient).
I'm not picking them for the superbowl, but nevertheless this was an encouraging game, not a discouraging game as you are implying.
-
As a vikes fan, I'll agree that a win over the browns isn't a huge deal.
However, a road blowout win is nice no matter who you are playing.
Defense looked good. Offense looked good (running game = great, passing = sufficient and efficient).
I'm not picking them for the superbowl, but nevertheless this was an encouraging game, not a discouraging game as you are implying.
You have to admit that that first half was very ugly, just like the entire Bears vs. Packers game was very ugly. The 2nd half was great. It was stop their offense and give the ball to AD all day. That's what works for the Vikings. AD is AD.
On a related not to the Packers vs. Bears game being ugly, Urlacher says he is out for the season. That is a big blow to the Bears.
-
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=4472175
If true, this would prove to be a rough 12 hours for bears fans.
-
Confirmed, Urlacher is done for the year.
Appears to be ligament damage in his wrist, in addition to the dislocation.
Bears will be putting out feelers to Derrick Brooks and Napoleon Harris.
-
(Question .. why do people refer to Adrian Peterson as AD? Wouldn't AP be more appropriate? What am I missing...)
-
(Question .. why do people refer to Adrian Peterson as AD? Wouldn't AP be more appropriate? What am I missing...)
Stands for "All Day" I believe...
"AP AD" is what they called him in college?
-
I am going to point out that unless the Packers O-line plays substantially better, they aren't going to do much this year. Where is Mark Tauscher??? I don't think he ever had a performance as bad as Barbre's yesterday.
-
Yeah.. All Day - cause he goes all day. I think his parents actually started calling him that when he was a toddler because dude wouldn't sleep or stop moving. But, it's certainly true on the football field as well...
Urlacher - I think Erin is a witch and put a spell on him after that post-throw hit. I hate Old Spice deodorant - terrible. Lances hates all deodorant. Urlacher gets an owie and quits for the year... rough - it must be really bad though, I will admit that guy is a tough SOB. Wad's, you do everything in life with a limp wrist, do you think you could help Urlacher with advice so he could play this year?
AD gets an owwie, spills about a gallon of ragu, and it possesses him to take over. I've gotten IVs before and never had that happened.. but then again I haven't been tackled by a bunch of 300 pound guys right after. That was bizarre though...
-
Yeah.. All Day - cause he goes all day. I think his parents actually started calling him that when he was a toddler because dude wouldn't sleep or stop moving. But, it's certainly true on the football field as well...
Urlacher - I think Erin is a witch and put a spell on him after that post-throw hit. I hate Old Spice deodorant - terrible. Lances hates all deodorant. Urlacher gets an owie and quits for the year... rough - it must be really bad though, I will admit that guy is a tough SOB. Wad's, you do everything in life with a limp wrist, do you think you could help Urlacher with advice so he could play this year?
AD gets an owwie, spills about a gallon of ragu, and it possesses him to take over. I've gotten IVs before and never had that happened.. but then again I haven't been tackled by a bunch of 300 pound guys right after. That was bizarre though...
2 things. 1. Do you even think about what you're saying when you make your "ribs" (as I am sure they call them in the "hip-hop" world of yours) at people? They make absolutely 0 sense.
2. I agree about the AD bleeding being very weird. Don't they usually put in an IV in the lower part of the forearm, not in the elbow? Also, aren't they done with just a little needle, so there's just a tiny cut? I understand it goes right into the vein, but shouldn't have that thing been closed up by that point?
-
Yeah.. All Day - cause he goes all day. I think his parents actually started calling him that when he was a toddler because dude wouldn't sleep or stop moving. But, it's certainly true on the football field as well...
Urlacher - I think Erin is a witch and put a spell on him after that post-throw hit. I hate Old Spice deodorant - terrible. Lances hates all deodorant. Urlacher gets an owie and quits for the year... rough - it must be really bad though, I will admit that guy is a tough SOB. Wad's, you do everything in life with a limp wrist, do you think you could help Urlacher with advice so he could play this year?
AD gets an owwie, spills about a gallon of ragu, and it possesses him to take over. I've gotten IVs before and never had that happened.. but then again I haven't been tackled by a bunch of 300 pound guys right after. That was bizarre though...
The only thing better would be if you just put a huge "YOU GOT SERVED" at the end of that post...do you have any inner dialogue at all or do you just suffer from verbal diarrhea 24 hours a day?
-
AD mystery solved - guess it wasn't from the IV... Adrian said he thinks a chinstrap or button from one cut him.. it was a separate gash.. not the IV dealy. This makes more sense, although if that was a chinstrap that cut him I'm not sure I'd want one wrapped under my chin... Cleveland guys were probably packing knives.
-
I think the Vikings are missing a prime opportunity to save several million dollars and at the same time hit a PR homerun.
Every Saturday, the Minnesota high school QB who had the best game the night before is selected to be the Vikings QB for Sunday. By QB, I mean he gets to be the person to take the snap from the center and turn around and hand the ball to Peterson. Even with this game plan, I think they would still finish at least .500. They would be able to complete their sellouts with all the people from the hometown of that week's QB buying tickets.
Plus, they could cut Favre and save his salary. Might take some work on the eligibility front, but exceptions could be made since the QB would not be paid.
Seriously, Peterson is a freak of nature.
-
I beleive the correct spelling is Aaron Rodgers not Erin Rodgers...are you sure you're an MU student/alumus? Because I swear you spell like someone who went to or goes to a state school.
-
I beleive the correct spelling is Aaron Rodgers not Erin Rodgers...are you sure you're an MU student/alumus? Because I swear you spell like someone who went to or goes to a state school.
No he's actually pretty quick to point out the spelling errors of others, you know, since his firefox browser does it for him.
Calling him Erin is just one of his "oh-so-clever" insults in which he specializes...
-
I beleive the correct spelling is Aaron Rodgers not Erin Rodgers...are you sure you're an MU student/alumus? Because I swear you spell like someone who went to or goes to a state school.
Are you attempting to 'correct' my intentional spelling of Erin's name with non-words such as "beleieve"? Are you sure you didn't miss the second grade when they taught i before e, except after c (with certain exceptions)?
I've never said I went to MU - is that a requirement? (although I did - I graduated awhile back, at a time when being correct mattered and people were ashamed of being idiots).
-
Are you attempting to 'correct' my intentional spelling of Erin's name with non-words such as "beleieve"? Are you sure you didn't miss the second grade when they taught i before e, except after c (with certain exceptions)?
I've never said I went to MU - is that a requirement? (although I did - I graduated awhile back, at a time when being correct mattered and people were ashamed of being idiots).
You must have missed the boat on that one...
-
Confirmed, Urlacher is done for the year.
Appears to be ligament damage in his wrist, in addition to the dislocation.
Bears will be putting out feelers to Derrick Brooks and Napoleon Harris.
What about a feeler to Marvin Harrison? I know that we they have some young talent at WR, but I feel like a veteran prescence in that group would go a long way.
I am just worried I am going to wake up tomorrow and find out that veteran prescence is a resigned Bobby Wade....
-
Marvin Harrison seems like a nice guy.
he would fit in really well in Minnesota.
just don't get on his bad side....
-
Marvin Harrison seems like a nice guy.
he would fit in really well in Minnesota.
just don't get on his bad side....
Actually, he would be better as a Packer, just like Koren Robinson or Nick Barnett.
-
Actually, he would be better as a Packer, just like Koren Robinson or Nick Barnett.
He managed to stay out of trouble in Green Bay...and was serviceable.
which is admirable seeing as how he was a big-time drinker and GB is 98% white and 2% Packers players...
-
Apparently, drunk driving = killing a guy outside of a car wash.
Thanks guys for the clarification.
-
Apparently, drunk driving = killing a guy outside of a car wash.
Thanks guys for the clarification.
Allegedly....
-
Apparently, drunk driving = killing a guy outside of a car wash.
Thanks guys for the clarification.
Allegedly killing a guy. ;)
Just teasing Packer backers. All NFL teams have some questionable characters.
-
Are you attempting to 'correct' my intentional spelling of Erin's name with non-words such as "beleieve"? Are you sure you didn't miss the second grade when they taught i before e, except after c (with certain exceptions)?
I've never said I went to MU - is that a requirement? (although I did - I graduated awhile back, at a time when being correct mattered and people were ashamed of being idiots).
You've officially reached douchebag status.....IGNORE!
-
Actually, he would be better as a Packer, just like Koren Robinson or Nick Barnett.
I doubt you want to compare rap sheets as a Viking fan.
-
I doubt you want to compare rap sheets as a Viking fan.
the Vikes have had their fair share of questionable guys.
So have the Pack.
All NFL teams have taken flyers on troubled guys who have a lot of talent, not just the Vikes.
Example: Ray Lewis, Mike Vick, Tank Johnson, Randy Moss, etc.
-
I doubt you want to compare rap sheets as a Viking fan.
When several players from one team take part in one incident, does that only count as one bad mark against the team? ;)
-
the Vikes have had their fair share of questionable guys.
So have the Pack.
All NFL teams have taken flyers on troubled guys who have a lot of talent, not just the Vikes.
Example: Ray Lewis, Mike Vick, Tank Johnson, Randy Moss, etc.
I don't disagree, but lets be real here... The Vikes are way ahead in shady players.
-
I don't disagree, but lets be real here... The Vikes are way ahead in shady players.
Yep, you got me.
The Vikes have way more shady players and the Packers are the perfect organization that every team should model itself after.
Brett Favre was addicted to painkillers and a notorious womanizer when he was winning all of those games in the 90's
Now, it doesn't outrage me that the team turned a blind eye (most/all teams do), but to pretend like the Packers are somehow more moral than other teams is naive and hypocritical. They had less "shady players", so they are better? It can't work like that.
Let's just be honest and say that every team has some character issues. Sometimes we hear about them, sometimes not.
-
I don't disagree, but lets be real here... The Vikes are way ahead in shady players.
That was back in the Tice era. Now we have Zygi and Chilly who would never take a player of questionable character. I hope Percy celebrated his touchdown with a phat a$$ blunt.
-
Yep, you got me.
The Vikes have way more shady players and the Packers are the perfect organization that every team should model itself after.
Brett Favre was addicted to painkillers and a notorious womanizer when he was winning all of those games in the 90's
Now, it doesn't outrage me that the team turned a blind eye (most/all teams do), but to pretend like the Packers are somehow more moral than other teams is naive and hypocritical. They had less "shady players", so they are better? It can't work like that.
Let's just be honest and say that every team has some character issues. Sometimes we hear about them, sometimes not.
I'm not trying to 'get you' I just think you are trying to weasel out of admitting what is the truth, which is that the Vikings have historically had more shady players than the Packers.
-
Yep, you got me.
The Vikes have way more shady players and the Packers are the perfect organization that every team should model itself after.
Brett Favre was addicted to painkillers and a notorious womanizer when he was winning all of those games in the 90's
Now, it doesn't outrage me that the team turned a blind eye (most/all teams do), but to pretend like the Packers are somehow more moral than other teams is naive and hypocritical. They had less "shady players", so they are better? It can't work like that.
Let's just be honest and say that every team has some character issues. Sometimes we hear about them, sometimes not.
You're right to a large extent. I can tell you they are just like every other team in that there are some guys on there that are bad eggs. The difference is that the Packers are protected by the local and state wide media, especially when they are winning. People will probably get pissed off at me at about that statement, but it's very true and plenty of people will confirm that from the NFL (off the record of course). That's not the case for a large market team where someone is hanging their hat in the newsroom on their ability to bring down the organization and they're gunning for you all the time.
A lot of blinders in the Wisconsin media when it comes to the Packers which is why it's rare when anything bad hits the news. I could tell you some real doozies that rival anything that the players on the Cowboys, Raiders, Giants or Bears ever did. People don't become less criminal or less stupid because they live in a smaller town, but those that enforce the laws or report on them are much more willing to folks a pass. No different than what happens at many college towns around this country where the only game in town is the local college athletic department and any local news media that dares to tell the whole story will soon find no access at all. The way it works in Mayberry.
-
I'm not trying to 'get you' I just think you are trying to weasel out of admitting what is the truth, which is that the Vikings have historically had more shady players than the Packers.
This is like arguing who is the top turd on the dungpile. I remember the mid 80s when the Packers had the likes of Mossy Cade.
Let me put it this way...many NFL players are shady...many are never in the headlines....all NFL teams have them.
-
This is like arguing who is the top turd on the dungpile. I remember the mid 80s when the Packers had the likes of Mossy Cade.
Let me put it this way...many NFL players are shady...many are never in the headlines....all NFL teams have them.
Agree 100%.
Every team has some shady players. I'm not sure that the average fan is in a position to judge the degree and volume of shadiness of each team.
Hards Alumni, the Packers are a very good organization. I would never say they weren't. But, let's not pretend that the Packers are holier than the Vikes (or any other team).
The Vikings RELEASED Koren Robinson because of his high speed chase. The Packers signed him shortly after. I think it's a nice story that Koren didn't appear to get into trouble in GB... but let's not pretend the Packers were on some sort of charity mission. Ted thought Koren could still play football, so he overlooked his legal issues and brought him in.
Tony Mandarich was an alcoholic and addicted to painkillers. But, he was cut for his performance, not for the drug use. Again, I don't blame the Packers one bit, as this is common for a lot of teams. But, let's not pretend that the Packers don't look the other way on some other their players "shadiness".
Oh, and just for balance, I certainly admit that the Vikes have had their share of idiots. Including Keith Millard, who crashed his Corvette into a Hardees at 1am and then fled the scene.
-
This is like arguing who is the top turd on the dungpile. I remember the mid 80s when the Packers had the likes of Mossy Cade.
Let me put it this way...many NFL players are shady...many are never in the headlines....all NFL teams have them.
Is the staircase still there? (or was that the other guy who had sex with one of his female relatives?)
-
Charles Grant and Will Smith serving suspension and Vikings not?
That's a friendly state law "explain your positive."
JayBee must be lovin that little nugget.
In fact I'm thinking of moving to 'Sota and accidentally take HGH and get Tommy Johns and I'll be in the Majors in two summers (But then again I'd have to live in 'Sota for a couple of years, not willing to do that).
Just to circle back on this nonsense of 'Charles Grant and Will Smith serving suspension and Vikings not' b.s.... and by the way, I am fine with 'play by the rules or suffer the consequences', but geez.. the freaking label excluded the banned ingredient... I believe the Williams bros -- they did not knowingly take a banned substance.. but, I do wish it would get resolved one way or the other... and not when the playoffs are here. We already know our quarterback will be out by that time in the season, would be unfortunate to be missing our DTs as well:
The NFL has yet to make an announcement regarding the ability of Saints ends Will Smith and Charles Grant to play next week, but for now the team is proceeding as if they can, according to sources. The league could make a ruling Tuesday regarding their status, which has come into question.
Grant and Smith, as well as Vikings defensive tackles Kevin Williams and Pat Williams, were issued four-game suspensions for using a banned diuretic, but a Minnesota state court ruling has allowed the Vikings players to play to this point, and a final ruling from that state court is not expected until the end of the season.
Last week, the NFL ruled Grant and Smith could still play while a federal court ruling regarding the Vikings’ players was still pending, and that decision ultimately came down in favor of players.
The Saints have heard nothing new from the league this week, as of Monday night, according to sources.
The coaches and scouts were told at a staff meeting Monday that there have been no updates from the league and they should assume both are playing until told otherwise. However, word could come as soon as Tuesday
-
This is like arguing who is the top turd on the dungpile. I remember the mid 80s when the Packers had the likes of Mossy Cade.
Let me put it this way...many NFL players are shady...many are never in the headlines....all NFL teams have them.
Speaking of the top Packer on the dung pile.....What ever happened to Najeh Davenport?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/news/2002/07/08/davenport_ap/
-
Dumps?
He played for the Steelers after the Packers.
-
Hah... Dookie. He played in a couple games for the Colts last year... last I heard about him was I think just a few months ago ... he left his car running and unlocked... some guy jumped in and started driving it down the street, running into several cars.
Not surprising that Najeh was drafted by the Packers -- another criminal that has been charged with a felony.
Green Bey was undoubtedly impressed by Mr. Davenport's breaking into a chick's dorm room and taking a dump in a laundry basket, which is a favorite pasttime of people born in Wisconsin.
The Jets and Eric ManginA were fined $125k by the NFL today for not reporting Favre's injury last year, which was clearly the only reason the current QB for the Consensus had a rough end to the 2008 season.
The lovefest between Favre and Peterson is strong: "I mean no disrespect to any running back, whether I played with him or didn't," Favre said during a conference call with Detroit area reporters. "He's in the early stages of his career and barring any injuries or anything, this guy can be as good as any running back that's every played. I've seen it first hand, either playing against him but more so playing with him here the last few weeks. It's just unbelievable what he can do."
Exciting times. Vikings and the Pakers are two of the most heavily favorite teams for this coming weekend.. there are a ton of 3-point spreads this Sunday. I'd enjoy a meeting of two 3-0 teams on October 5. We should be able to hold up our end of the bargain.
-
The Consensus stands alone atop the NFC North, with 8 home games still remaining.
Cincinnati struggles to score 7 points at home a week ago. This week they travel to Wesconsin and have to deal with an incredible new defense. No wonder they were only able to explode for 31 points en route to a victory.
Pretty good o-line you got there in Green Bey. Definitely 'offensive'. I'd enjoy replays of Ochocinco's Lambeau leap, but the classy fans of the UP couldn't pass on throwing up their middle finger.
Luckily the Consensus Vikings won. That old guy was only able to complete 85% of his passes, but somehow we managed to win easily.
-
The Consensus stands alone atop the NFC North, with 8 home games still remaining.
Cincinnati struggles to score 7 points at home a week ago. This week they travel to Wesconsin and have to deal with an incredible new defense. No wonder they were only able to explode for 31 points en route to a victory.
Pretty good o-line you got there in Green Bey. Definitely 'offensive'. I'd enjoy replays of Ochocinco's Lambeau leap, but the classy fans of the UP couldn't pass on throwing up their middle finger.
Luckily the Consensus Vikings won. That old guy was only able to complete 85% of his passes, but somehow we managed to win easily.
So the guy who called out the creator of the AL Central Pissing match for doing it while they were on top pulls the same stuff here? Awesome.
If you guys were able to play the Browns and Lions every week, you might be the best team in NFL history. Playing two teams with a combined 4 wins last year in the first 2 games will make a lot of teams look good. I wonder why you didn't post at half, when you were losing to the worst team of all time? Didn't want to get all that armpit sweat all over the keyboard, I'd imagine.
This happens, tough loss for GB, but take care of business next week and we can take over the division by controlling our own destiny week 4.
Oh, and as for old #4.... looks like I'd typically expect for this time of year. Legs are fresh, arm looks good. Congrats on surpassing Marshall's record. Now give him 6 or 7 more weeks of wear and tear on the body, and force him to win a game or two, and we'll see how much bounce Jay-Beezy has left in his step.
-
The Consensus stands alone atop the NFC North, with 8 home games still remaining.
Cincinnati struggles to score 7 points at home a week ago. This week they travel to Wesconsin and have to deal with an incredible new defense. No wonder they were only able to explode for 31 points en route to a victory.
Pretty good o-line you got there in Green Bey. Definitely 'offensive'. I'd enjoy replays of Ochocinco's Lambeau leap, but the classy fans of the UP couldn't pass on throwing up their middle finger.
Luckily the Consensus Vikings won. That old guy was only able to complete 85% of his passes, but somehow we managed to win easily.
Sh!t, the Vikings are atop the division after 2 weeks of football in which they've played the Lions and the Browns and were trailing at halftime of both games. You guys REALLY look dominant. VaJay Jay, could you write a song about it for me please?!
-
So the guy who called out the creator of the AL Central Pissing match for doing it while they were on top pulls the same stuff here? Awesome.
Youngster, completely different. I have been saying the Vikings are the best all along - nothing new here. Get a clue.
So what is it? All Favre has to do is handoff to AD? Or Favre is our savior and he'll get worn out as the season goes on and then we have absolutely no chance? Hah.. you're nuts, not only for your thoughts on the Vikings, but also your major(s) in school.
Wad's world - we just won two road games. The a$$ Packers lost at home to a pitiful Cincinnati squad; Chicago looks lost; Detroit is Detroit. Both games we have given time to Tarvaris Jackson - so whimper about halftime scores all you want, but it's meaningless.
-
The Packers were awful today, and certainly weren't impressive in beating the Bears last week. If they can't get the pass blocking and run defense figured out, it could be a long season.
As for the division, not much to say right now. At this point, everybody's looking up at the Vikings.
-
Vikes have looked pretty good the first 2 games.
Road wins are always valuable, regardless of who they are against.
Brett has been exactly what they wanted (confident, efficient, and providing some offensive balance). The"schism" in the locker room is gone because they are winning. As long as they win, everybody will love each other.
We'll see if Brett can stay healthy and this conservative for the whole year. I'll say yes, but I realize that it's not a sure thing.
Pack didn't look good in either game, but they should be able to adjust the game plan to cover up some holes in the offensive line. I still think they are a good team.
Bears didn't look good in either game, but going 1-1 is a good start considering who they played. We'll see how the loss of urlacher effects the team long term.
-
As many have talked about before the season started...it didn't take long for injuries to become a factor. Bears have lost Urlacher...Packers are down both safeties, a Left tackle. Urlacher's injury is likely to be devastating to the Bears. The Packers' injuries don't appear quite as serious/long-term, but if they are at all significant, they're probably done too.
-
As many have talked about before the season started...it didn't take long for injuries to become a factor. Bears have lost Urlacher...Packers are down both safeties, a Left tackle. Urlacher's injury is likely to be devastating to the Bears. The Packers' injuries don't appear quite as serious/long-term, but if they are at all significant, they're probably done too.
Brian Urlacher is the most overrated LB in NFL History.
-
The Packers were awful today, and certainly weren't impressive in beating the Bears last week. If they can't get the pass blocking and run defense figured out, it could be a long season.
As for the division, not much to say right now. At this point, everybody's looking up at the Vikings.
I was listening to LeRoy Butler today, who IMO is one of the smartest football players I have seen, and he went on and on about how poorly the defense was schemed for that game. It was about a 15 minute rant. He then said, "I don't think we need to talk about the offensive line, because we all know they sucked."
-
Brian Urlacher is the most overrated LB in NFL History.
Perhaps, but that doesn't make him bad, nor does it mean its not a huge blow to the Bears' defense.
-
McCarthy was just flat-out schooled by Marvin Lewis yesterday, and if Jennings puts up a goose egg again this year I'll eat my pants.
-
The loss of Urlacher hurts, but is far from devastating. As mentioned before, and pointed out by others, Urlacher is on the downside of his career. If anything, it hurts most in defensive play calls and audibles. Urlacher's strength these days is pass coverage due to his speed, but I don't think his loss is as big as people are making it out to be.
We haven't learned too much about the North yet. Vikings should beat the Lions and Browns, I expected the Bears to be 1-1 at this point, and the Bengals beating the Pack surprised me, but didn't shock me. Lots of football left to be played.
-
V-I-K-I-N-G-S, SKOL VIKINGS, LET'S GO!!!
-
Hats off to the old man. Heck of a catch by Lewis on the other end. Still hate the Vikings. Monday should be fun.
-
V-I-K-I-N-G-S, SKOL VIKINGS, LET'S GO!!!
Nice win delivered by Brett. Perfectly positioned ball.
-
THE STREAK IS OVER!!!!!! Ya'll better watch out for the Lions now. ;D OK, not really, but it sure was nice to get one.
-
Hats off to the old man. Heck of a catch by Lewis on the other end. Still hate the Vikings. Monday should be fun.
Ditto. I didn't expect much less from Favre over the course of the first half of the season. Pretty ballsy throw. Let's see if he can keep up the performance down the stretch after getting roughed up a few times.
-
Amazing play on both ends, both QB and WR.
However, as I said when he signed...Ziggy/Chilly are going to look like geniuses when Minnesota starts off 3-0, with their weak schedule. Then the fun will begin...
vs. GB
vs. BAL
@ STL
@ PIT
@ GB
MIN struggled to get to 3-0 against 2 very bad and 1 mediocre team. It will be interesting to see where they stand at their Bye in Week 9.
-
Amazing play on both ends, both QB and WR.
However, as I said when he signed...Ziggy/Chilly are going to look like geniuses when Minnesota starts off 3-0, with their weak schedule. Then the fun will begin...
vs. GB
vs. BAL
@ STL
@ PIT
@ GB
MIN struggled to get to 3-0 against 2 very bad and 1 mediocre team. It will be interesting to see where they stand at their Bye in Week 9.
I agree with you, they haven't been terribly impressive yet.
But, I also have a strong feeling that some Packer fans taking a "wait and see" approach, and just waiting for a chance to blast Brett.
- "Well, Brett may be 3-0 now, but wait until they play somebody tough."
- "Well, they might be 9-1 now, but wait until the playoffs, Brett has never been that good in the playoffs."
- "Well, they're in the NFC championship now, but Brett lost his last one for the Packers."
- "Well, they made the superbowl, but not because of Brett."
I'm not calling you out GOMU, because I think you bring up some valid points about the early season schedule. I'm just saying that I think there are people out there just waiting for a chance to blast Favre, regardless of how he actually performs.
I guarantee this thread and Milwaukee sports radio will be much more active after a MN loss than a MN win.
-
I'm not calling you out GOMU, because I think you bring up some valid points about the early season schedule. I'm just saying that I think there are people out there just waiting for a chance to blast Favre, regardless of how he actually performs.
I don't necessarily agree with that. Are there a few, yes, maybe, but who cares about them? They're idiots. I think if you look back at this thread, they typical sentiment was that Favre would start out playing pretty well, but probably fall off as the season wears on, much as he did last year. Nothing that has happened thus far should be considered surprising or unexpected by anyone.
-
I don't necessarily agree with that. Are there a few, yes, maybe, but who cares about them? They're idiots. I think if you look back at this thread, they typical sentiment was that Favre would start out playing pretty well, but probably fall off as the season wears on, much as he did last year. Nothing that has happened thus far should be considered surprising or unexpected by anyone.
I agree with you so far. However, in the future I can envision something like:
"Well, we knew he could be good in the regular season, but we all know that "gunslinger Brett" would blow it again in the playoffs"
I have a feeling that people will keep moving up the bar so that there is no way that Brett can be considered a successful QB for the Vikes.
It seems like people are waiting for the other shoe to drop so they can say, "See, I told you so", and that might even come after a superbowl loss. (although I doubt they make it that far)
-
But, if 'gunslinger Brett' is the reason the lose a playoff game, Superbowl, whatever, won't those people pretty much be correct? It is that mentality coupled with his diminishing physical ability that has led people to think this was a bad move for the Vikings.
If they have been saying it all along, its being consistent, not raising the bar. He's been fine so far, but anyone who didn't have them at 3-0 thus far was kidding themselves and their opinions don't mater. Personally, I maintain my position that come Dec/January time frame he will be more liability than asset.
-
2k2 - you're right in that Favre can't win the world of many Green Bey fans. Even if we win the Super Bowl, you'll hear "oh it was all Peterson... anyone could have done that".
I don't think Zigi and Chilly look like masterminds for bringing in an MVP Hall of Fame QB to a team that was lacking in the QB department at this point - we won three games, all of which we were favored to win (much like we were/are favored to win the NFC North [Consensus pick!!]). Granted, some teams that bl0w have already lost games at home in which they were 10 point favorites, whereas we have one and gotten to play our second string QB in the fourth quarter for two road games... at this point, the Giants and Eagles worry me the most...
The Vikings need improvement on the O-line (i.e. the two positions that I said would be key - C and RT with Sullivan and Loadholt... although those two look like All Pros compared to GB's line)... if things get better there and Berrian figures out how to stop playing like a Bear, we've got this.
Anyone else going to Monday's game?
-
How are the Jets doing without Favre?
-
But, if 'gunslinger Brett' is the reason the lose a playoff game, Superbowl, whatever, won't those people pretty much be correct? It is that mentality coupled with his diminishing physical ability that has led people to think this was a bad move for the Vikings.
If they have been saying it all along, its being consistent, not raising the bar. He's been fine so far, but anyone who didn't have them at 3-0 thus far was kidding themselves and their opinions don't mater. Personally, I maintain my position that come Dec/January time frame he will be more liability than asset.
Well, the fundamental problem with this is that he could lead them to a 16-0 season, and throw 1 game changing pick in the superbowl, and you'll come on here and say "See! See! I KNEW he'd end up messing it up! He's just too old." HAHAHA.
I just can't agree with that, no matter when you started your predictions. Honestly, the Vikings are probably NOT going to win the superbowl, and that's not Favre's fault.
He'll only be A reason the Vikes win or lose, not THE reason. I won't give 1 player all of the credit, nor will I give 1 player all of the blame.
-
How are the Jets doing without Favre?
It's clear that Rex Ryan is the key ingredient there, not Mark Sanchez... although Sanchez looks like a nice player.
Mangini is not off to a good start in Cleveland either.
-
It's clear that Rex Ryan is the key ingredient there, not Mark Sanchez... although Sanchez looks like a nice player.
Mangini is not off to a good start in Cleveland either.
It seems to me the locker room is a much happier place as well, and that can't be understated enough.
-
If they have been saying it all along, its being consistent, not raising the bar. He's been fine so far, but anyone who didn't have them at 3-0 thus far was kidding themselves and their opinions don't mater. Personally, I maintain my position that come Dec/January time frame he will be more liability than asset.
Personally I had them at 2-1 losing to the 49ers, and I still think my opinion matters, but I was referring to their record against the spread.
-
It seems to me the locker room is a much happier place as well, and that can't be understated enough.
Yea, but is that because of Rex or because of that lack of Brett?
I'm not Brett apologist, but I think the jets turnaround on the field and in their culture has much more to do with the loss of mangini and addition of Rex Ryan than it does with the loss of Favre and the addition of Sanchez.
Also, a winning locker room is a happy locker room. Ask the Vikings.
-
Yea, but is that because of Rex or because of that lack of Brett?
I'm not Brett apologist, but I think the jets turnaround on the field and in their culture has much more to do with the loss of mangini and addition of Rex Ryan than it does with the loss of Favre and the addition of Sanchez.
Also, a winning locker room is a happy locker room. Ask the Vikings.
Based on the comments from the players last year about Brett....well I'll say it's both, but I don't think they are sad to see him go.
You could tell the players felt he was aloof, not willing to do the team building things others were, etc. That wears on a team. I'm sure Rex has had a major influence as well, perhaps more so.
-
Well, the fundamental problem with this is that he could lead them to a 16-0 season, and throw 1 game changing pick in the superbowl, and you'll come on here and say "See! See! I KNEW he'd end up messing it up! He's just too old." HAHAHA.
I will? Ok, thanks for telling me.
-
Well, the fundamental problem with this is that he could lead them to a 16-0 season, and throw 1 game changing pick in the superbowl, and you'll come on here and say "See! See! I KNEW he'd end up messing it up! He's just too old." HAHAHA.
I just can't agree with that, no matter when you started your predictions. Honestly, the Vikings are probably NOT going to win the superbowl, and that's not Favre's fault.
He'll only be A reason the Vikes win or lose, not THE reason. I won't give 1 player all of the credit, nor will I give 1 player all of the blame.
Why do you still expect fans of an opposing team, that happens to be the same team said QB used to play for, to compliment the play of Brett Favre. Did he win the game yesterday? Yes. Do GB fans care? No. Are they waiting for him to fail, so they can laugh and point fingers? Yes. Accept it, and move on.
-
Based on the comments from the players last year about Brett....well I'll say it's both, but I don't think they are sad to see him go.
You could tell the players felt he was aloof, not willing to do the team building things others were, etc.
What are some of these comments you're referring to? What players said these things? A bunch of gutless punks with anonymous paraphrased quotes?
The biggest issue the Jets had last year is that they had an injured QB playing and an otherwise horrid team. Their coach and management illegally kept the QB's injury a secret. CHEATERS!
MU_B2002 - you think Green Bey fans don't care about Favre yesterday? You're flippin crazy. Even JSonline has pictures dedicated to him. Facebook was lit up with Packers fans crying, "damn it 49ers!". This isn't a typical situation of 'guy played with a team for a long time, now is elsewhere, so people have moved on'. That's just not factual. Many Packer fans care very much about how Favre does this season.
-
Why do you still expect fans of an opposing team, that happens to be the same team said QB used to play for, to compliment the play of Brett Favre. Did he win the game yesterday? Yes. Do GB fans care? No. Are they waiting for him to fail, so they can laugh and point fingers? Yes. Accept it, and move on.
That's fine, I can accept it... but it gets old when it's framed up like somebody is trying to be objective.
-
What are some of these comments you're referring to? What players said these things? A bunch of gutless punks with anonymous paraphrased quotes?
The biggest issue the Jets had last year is that they had an injured QB playing and an otherwise horrid team. Their coach and management illegally kept the QB's injury a secret. CHEATERS!
MU_B2002 - you think Green Bey fans don't care about Favre yesterday? You're flippin crazy. Even JSonline has pictures dedicated to him. Facebook was lit up with Packers fans crying, "damn it 49ers!". This isn't a typical situation of 'guy played with a team for a long time, now is elsewhere, so people have moved on'. That's just not factual. Many Packer fans care very much about how Favre does this season.
I meant to say "do they care to compliment him?" My error. They do care, and I am assuming most want him to do badly, especially next monday.
-
I will? Ok, thanks for telling me.
Did I misread your last post?
"But, if 'gunslinger Brett' is the reason the lose a playoff game, Superbowl, whatever, won't those people pretty much be correct? It is that mentality coupled with his diminishing physical ability that has led people to think this was a bad move for the Vikings."
Aren't you talking about yourself? This seems similar to the opinion you have expressed in the past.
-
Aren't you talking about yourself? This seems similar to the opinion you have expressed in the past.
Sure I am.. that's not exactly...he could lead them to a 16-0 season, and throw 1 game changing pick in the superbowl
I am talking about ability...if they go 18-0, obviously the ability is there and I will be wrong. What I have said consistently is that his level of play is likely to get worse as the season goes along. When that happens, I will be happy to say I told you so. If they have a perfect season and lose the Super Bowl, game changing pick or not, my assessment of the situation clearly will have been wrong, even if Brett does make poor decisions, or throws that game changing pick or whatever...which would surprise nobody. In that scenario it won't be because he's old or can't play, it will be because that is what he has always done.
-
Sure I am.. that's not exactly...he could lead them to a 16-0 season, and throw 1 game changing pick in the superbowl
I am talking about ability...if they go 18-0, obviously the ability is there and I will be wrong. What I have said consistently is that his level of play is likely to get worse as the season goes along. When that happens, I will be happy to say I told you so. If they have a perfect season and lose the Super Bowl, game changing pick or not, my assessment of the situation clearly will have been wrong, even if Brett does make poor decisions, or throws that game changing pick or whatever...which would surprise nobody. In that scenario it won't be because he's old or can't play, it will be because that is what he has always done.
hmm... this is exactly what I was getting at before, and maybe I just need to get over it.
Inevitably, the Vikings are going to lose a game late in the regular season, and probably at some point in the playoffs.
Competition is tougher at the end of the year, and certainly in the playoffs, so the chances that the Vikings lose are increased (as compared with the first 3 or 4 games of the Vikes schedule, where the wins have been pretty easy.)
Now, when the Vikes lose in the playoffs, you will come on here and say "see!" and pretend that you are some sort of great prognosticator and knew that Brett was too old and would breakdown.
The reality is that, the competition is better in the playoffs and the Vikes just might not be that good. It might not be "diminished skills" of #4. It might be that the team just isn't that good, or maybe the defense blows the game, or maybe the gameplan sucks, or maybe it is Favre's fault! (I can admit that).
It just appears to me like you are trying to set yourself up for some sort of big "I told you so" Brett Favre post (which you may have already typed), when in reality 31 of 32 teams will go home losers.
-
Now, when the Vikes lose in the playoffs, you will come on here and say "see!" and pretend that you are some sort of great prognosticator and knew that Brett was too old and would breakdown.
It just appears to me like you are trying to set yourself up for some sort of big "I told you so" Brett Favre post (which you may have already typed), when in reality 31 of 32 teams will go home losers.
Sigh! Getting over it might be a good idea. I'm not trying to set myself up for anything. I suggested before he even signed that it was a bad idea. That they would ultimately be better off without him. That his age, health, conditioning and style of play would lead to poor performances and bad decisions that will cost the Vikings games. Bad decisions not only on the part of Favre, but Childress as well.
Time will of course tell the tale...but if the defense blows a game in the playoffs and I come here to say I told you so, well then that would make me a bit of an idiot wouldn't it? I am not talking about the Vikings losing in the playoffs which is all you seem to want to focus on. I am talking about Childress and Favre working together to put up games with QB Ratings in the 40's or 50's, when they have the best player in football lining up at RB, and those days are coming. They did their best to do it yesterday...46 pass attempts to 27 rushing attempts. If Lewis' foot comes down 1 inch to the left, that is the discussion today, and it would be legitimate.
-
Sigh! Getting over it might be a good idea. I'm not trying to set myself up for anything. I suggested before he even signed that it was a bad idea. That they would ultimately be better off without him.
I am talking about Childress and Favre working together to put up games with QB Ratings in the 40's or 50's, when they have the best player in football lining up at RB, and those days are coming. They did their best to do it yesterday...46 pass attempts to 27 rushing attempts. If Lewis' foot comes down 1 inch to the left, that is the discussion today, and it would be legitimate.
For the current season, the fact is the we are better with Favre at QB than Tarvaris or Sage. You continue to believe that Favre makes us worse and his signing was a bad idea - that is just idiotic. We needed to throw the ball yesterday. Peterson did much better this time compared to the first time he played the 49ers (14 carries, 3 yards), but they were on him again yesterday. Favre needed to make plays and he made them. You will not find many, if any, Vikings fans that will tell you they believe Tarvaris takes us on that final drive and we get a victory.
Handle your own business when you're at home and a 10 point favorite, then come talk to me.
-
What are some of these comments you're referring to? What players said these things? A bunch of gutless punks with anonymous paraphrased quotes?
The biggest issue the Jets had last year is that they had an injured QB playing and an otherwise horrid team. Their coach and management illegally kept the QB's injury a secret. CHEATERS!
MU_B2002 - you think Green Bey fans don't care about Favre yesterday? You're flippin crazy. Even JSonline has pictures dedicated to him. Facebook was lit up with Packers fans crying, "damn it 49ers!". This isn't a typical situation of 'guy played with a team for a long time, now is elsewhere, so people have moved on'. That's just not factual. Many Packer fans care very much about how Favre does this season.
???
Because they are anonymous the feelings of the players don't count? Or are less credible? I don't think so. Players move from team to team and don't want that following them, so I would totally expect them to be anonymous comments.
"There was a lot of resentment in the room about him," one Jets player told Newsday on Wednesday. The player requested anonymity because he did not want to jeopardize his own employment with the Jets, whose owner, Woody Johnson, has already publicly stated that Favre is welcome to return next season if the 39-year-old quarterback wants to keep playing.
"He never socialized with us, never went to dinner with anyone," the player said. Asked to describe Favre in a word, the player said: "Distant."
"If he's dedicated and he wants to come back and do this, and do it the right way . . . and be here when we're here in training camp and the minicamps and working out with us.... then I'm fine with it," Kerry Rhodes said on Monday. "But don't come back if it's going to be halfhearted or he doesn't want to put the time in with us."
"If he was hurt by that stuff, I'd be shocked because Eric barely said anything to him," the player said of Favre. "Guys would be getting called out for missed assignments or blown coverages, and Brett would have three picks and no one would say a word."
According to the player - and backed by very supportive comments about Mangini from other Jets - very few in the room felt that Mangini deserved to be fired, and that the acquisition of Favre and Favre's subsequent me-first attitude hurt the Jets more than anything.
"Eric wasn't the reason we didn't make the playoffs," he said.
-
Why do you still expect fans of an opposing team, that happens to be the same team said QB used to play for, to compliment the play of Brett Favre. Did he win the game yesterday? Yes. Do GB fans care? No. Are they waiting for him to fail, so they can laugh and point fingers? Yes. Accept it, and move on.
This seems in line with what you are talking about
http://deadspin.com/5369251/truth-in-labeling
-
Because they are anonymous the feelings of the players don't count? Or are less credible? I don't think so. Players move from team to team and don't want that following them, so I would totally expect them to be anonymous comments.
You decided the Jets are doing better in large part due to Brett not being there, "based on the comments from players", yet the comments you're 'kind of citing' have no player attached to them - YES, I am absolutely saying the comments from 'scared player 1, pansy player 2, girly player 3' are less credible because we don't know who (alledgedly) said them and no one has taken ownership of them. The 'story' is less credible.
I'd be more perturbed by some young jag posing in GQ than I would be by an older guy not going out to dinner with me. But, I guess it's working out for everyone.. Navin is happy Favre is with Minnesota because she believes it makes us worse and Navin is ga ga over Erin Rodgers... Chicas is happy Favre is not in NY because he finds Mark Sanchise to be hot and Favre to have been an awful cancer that blew their potentially great season a year ago... and I'm happy with having Favre on our roster this season.
-
You decided the Jets are doing better in large part due to Brett not being there, "based on the comments from players", yet the comments you're 'kind of citing' have no player attached to them - YES, I am absolutely saying the comments from 'scared player 1, pansy player 2, girly player 3' are less credible because we don't know who (alledgedly) said them and no one has taken ownership of them. The 'story' is less credible.
I'd be more perturbed by some young jag posing in GQ than I would be by an older guy not going out to dinner with me. But, I guess it's working out for everyone.. Navin is happy Favre is with Minnesota because she believes it makes us worse and Navin is ga ga over Erin Rodgers... Chicas is happy Favre is not in NY because he finds Mark Sanchise to be hot and Favre to have been an awful cancer that blew their potentially great season a year ago... and I'm happy with having Favre on our roster this season.
VaJay-Jay you act like a 3 year old. Trying to be like Halie, your boy Em's daughter? Sick beatz son!
By the way, want to throw down some 40s (also interesting little fact...your quarterback is that many years old!) before the game next Monday night over some mix tapes?! I can bring some of my male college friends, as you have stated to be looking for them!
-
Sigh! Getting over it might be a good idea. I'm not trying to set myself up for anything. I suggested before he even signed that it was a bad idea. That they would ultimately be better off without him. That his age, health, conditioning and style of play would lead to poor performances and bad decisions that will cost the Vikings games. Bad decisions not only on the part of Favre, but Childress as well.
I still think Favre is better than anything else they had, so we'll just have to agree to disagree, which is no big deal.
Time will of course tell the tale...but if the defense blows a game in the playoffs and I come here to say I told you so, well then that would make me a bit of an idiot wouldn't it? Yes, you would. I'm just envisioning the joy that some packer fans will take in watching the Vikes eventually go down, and I know I'll hear a lot of "I guess Brett's not so great, huh?", and I'll still have the same answer: "Better than anything else they had".
I am not talking about the Vikings losing in the playoffs which is all you seem to want to focus on. I am talking about Childress and Favre working together to put up games with QB Ratings in the 40's or 50's, when they have the best player in football lining up at RB, and those days are coming. They did their best to do it yesterday...46 pass attempts to 27 rushing attempts. If Lewis' foot comes down 1 inch to the left, that is the discussion today, and it would be legitimate.
I agree with you, this is a concern. However, this is a different debate than the one about Brett's skills diminishing. This is a question of if Childress is an idiot. Brett certainly has some input on the offense, but he's not calling all of the plays.
If you think the pass/run ratio is a mistake, I think that's a "childress is a bad coach issue", not a "Brett Favre is too old and is a bad signing issue".
I have never claimed that Childress is a great coach, but I do think Brett still has enough game to be successful with the personnel on this team, which is where you and I disagree.
-
Handle your own business when you're at home and a 10 point favorite, then come talk to me.
I wasn't talking to you, but thanks for chiming in anyway.
-
VaJay-Jay you act like a 3 year old. Trying to be like Halie, your boy Em's daughter? Sick beatz son!
By the way, want to throw down some 40s (also interesting little fact...your quarterback is that many years old!) before the game next Monday night over some mix tapes?! I can bring some of my male college friends, as you have stated to be looking for them!
"VaJay-Jay you act like a 3 year old" -- hilarious. That's like when people type, "your stupid".
Favre isn't 40. Your dad probably isn't either. I was wondering where you had run off to.. you must be busy taking those 12 credits this semester. Hmmmph, and I had you pegged as someone who loved a big load.
-
You decided the Jets are doing better in large part due to Brett not being there, "based on the comments from players", yet the comments you're 'kind of citing' have no player attached to them - YES, I am absolutely saying the comments from 'scared player 1, pansy player 2, girly player 3' are less credible because we don't know who (alledgedly) said them and no one has taken ownership of them. The 'story' is less credible.
I'd be more perturbed by some young jag posing in GQ than I would be by an older guy not going out to dinner with me. But, I guess it's working out for everyone.. Navin is happy Favre is with Minnesota because she believes it makes us worse and Navin is ga ga over Erin Rodgers... Chicas is happy Favre is not in NY because he finds Mark Sanchise to be hot and Favre to have been an awful cancer that blew their potentially great season a year ago... and I'm happy with having Favre on our roster this season.
Aye Caramba. Yes, I find Mark Sanchez hot. ;) The Jets are doing better this year because so far, at least, their QB isn't turning the ball over. Also, they have a new coach.
The Vikings, I'm not sold yet. We'll see. They've played 2 awful teams and a good sans Frank Gore and it took a miracle (at home) to win. As the season progresses, I think more and more teams will make Favre beat them (thus 40+ pass attempts). How that plays out will be interesting to follow.
-
"If you think the pass/run ratio is a mistake, I think that's a "childress is a bad coach issue", not a "Brett Favre is too old and is a bad signing issue".
But that is exactly why it is a bad signing issue, and has been my point all along. He is going to ask/allow Favre to do things that he may no longer be capable of, and Favre will be all too willing to go along with it. Every ill advised pass attempt is a carry that AP s not getting. Every INT takes a possession away and takes the ball out of AP's hands, and leads to points that potentially make the Vikings play from behind, meaning more passing and even less AP, etc.
-
"If you think the pass/run ratio is a mistake, I think that's a "childress is a bad coach issue", not a "Brett Favre is too old and is a bad signing issue".
But that is exactly why it is a bad signing issue, and has been my point all along. He is going to ask/allow Favre to do things that he may no longer be capable of, and Favre will be all too willing to go along with it. Every ill advised pass attempt is a carry that AP s not getting. Every INT takes a possession away and takes the ball out of AP's hands, and leads to points that potentially make the Vikings play from behind, meaning more passing and even less AP, etc.
Yea, but that's an coaching issue, not a "Brett Favre can't play anymore" issue.
If Childress is a crappy coach and calls a crappy game, that's not Brett Favre's fault. Just like it's not AP's fault if he only gets 15 carries/game.
If the Packers signed Adrian Peterson, and then threw the football 65 times per game (while losing), that doesn't mean AP is a bad player and was a bad signing. It means the coaching staff doesn't call the right plays to take advantage of their personnel.
You might be right about Childress + Favre, but let's not blend the 2 arguments because they are very different.
STATEMENTS:
1. Brett Favre is too old and has diminishing skills. He still thinks he can be a hero, but in reality he can't make all of those plays anymore, and therefore, Brett Favre was a bad signing.
2. Brad Childress is foolish and thinks the metrodome is a time machine that will let Brett Favre return to his 1996 form, so he wants to throw the ball often instead of running it and therefore, Brett Favre is a bad signing.
Statement #1 is about the player's performance
Statement #2 is about the coach's performance
-
I will blend whatever arguments I want, because that has been my position all along. A has been player + a never will be coach = a bad combination. You may feel the need to separate the two, but I don't.
-
I will blend whatever arguments I want, because that has been my position all along. A has been player + a never will be coach = a bad combination. You may feel the need to separate the two, but I don't.
You don't feel the need for simple logic. Typical Packers talk. What can't Favre do anymore? Toss a beautiful pass 30+ yards with 2 seconds on the block to win a big game?
What it seems like some people don't get is that Tarvaris Jackson is not good. I'd rather have AD run the ball 18 times a game with Favre under center than AD run the ball 22 times a game with Tarvaris under center. Believe it or not, the run game can be complemented by a good passing game... crazy, huh?
-
"VaJay-Jay you act like a 3 year old" -- hilarious. That's like when people type, "your stupid".
Favre isn't 40. Your dad probably isn't either. I was wondering where you had run off to.. you must be busy taking those 12 credits this semester. Hmmmph, and I had you pegged as someone who loved a big load.
If what I'm doing to you is like typing "you're (notice how you use that word...coming from the grammar/spelling police you'd think you could at least get that right, it's taught OVER AND OVER in 2nd grade) stupid" (not to mention the . goes inside the ") then what is it that you do in every single post of yours?
I also apologize, I didn't know you missed me that much, I guess you are DESPERATELY looking for those college males. See, here's the thing, some people don't sit on their computers all day mixing fresh beatz together like you, VaJay-Jay. I'll try to make my posts more often so you can get your nut to male college students 300 miles away.
-
I will blend whatever arguments I want, because that has been my position all along. A has been player + a never will be coach = a bad combination. You may feel the need to separate the two, but I don't.
Sounds great. You are welcome to use that logic, and I'll keep responding and re-organizing your argument so it makes sense.
Piss on!
-
What can't Favre do anymore?
Watch the next 13 games...you'll find out.
He completed a miraculous play and deserves credit for that. But, as I said earlier, if Lewis comes down one inch to the left, the discussion today is the ridiculous number of pass attempts, and what amounted to a pretty lousy game by Favre. His QB rating prior to that play was a very pedestrian 67.8. He completed 51% of his passes, and the previous 10 offensive possessions resulted in 6 points for the Vikings and 3 points for the 49ers.
-
If what I'm doing to you is like typing "you're (notice how you use that word...coming from the grammar/spelling police you'd think you could at least get that right, it's taught OVER AND OVER in 2nd grade) stupid" (not to mention the . goes inside the ") then what is it that you do in every single post of yours?
WOW. What did you say you're trying to major in again? Something easy I hope. I intentionally typed "YOUR stupid", wad's. Geez you're slow. Someone calling another person stupid, while using YOUR instead of YOU'RE... is similar to you calling me Va-Jay Jay while telling me I act like a 3 year old.
The . goes inside the "? Sounds very similar to something your naughty uncle Johnny told you before he got locked up. Except it wasn't . and ".
-
WOW. What did you say you're trying to major in again? Something easy I hope. I intentionally typed "YOUR stupid", wad's. Geez you're slow. Someone calling another person stupid, while using YOUR instead of YOU'RE... is similar to you calling me Va-Jay Jay while telling me I act like a 3 year old.
The . goes inside the "? Sounds very similar to something your naughty uncle Johnny told you before he got locked up. Except it wasn't . and ".
HAHA and you claim to bse a 35 year old?!
By the way, have you had any success with finding those college age males you have been searching for lately?
-
It's nice to see Jay Beezy is giving us his view of the NFL from the streetz. Nice little toss by Favre yesterday. Nothing too unexpected through week 3. Force him to win games with his arm and it will catch up to the Vikes by week 9 or 10, at which point they will tank. They better hope Peterson starts to shy away from contact, or he won't last much longer either. He's gonna Bo Jackson his ass real soon.
-
Awfly quiet, considering it is Wednesday...
Jayboy must be locked up in the studio, spittin hot fire.
-
To be honest, I thought there would be more Packer smack this week.
There are far more Pack fans on this board than Viking fans.
Are any of you guys participating in the burn Favre's jersey stuff? I've read a couple different articles about bars that are doing that promotion.
-
To be honest, I thought there would be more Packer smack this week.
There are far more Pack fans on this board than Viking fans.
Are any of you guys participating in the burn Favre's jersey stuff? I've read a couple different articles about bars that are doing that promotion.
I figured I'd be a gentleman and allow the ladies the first move. ;)
Should be an entertaining matchup. Divisional games are often closer than they should be. I've been watching Brett Favre for long enough to know that he comes out really wound up in high profile games in recent years (see: Dallas in '07), and I'd imagine if there were ever a matchup Favre WOULD be wound up for, this is probably it.
It's a match up of two pretty decent passing defenses (at least as the numbers would rank) thus far.
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/2_999_Def._Passer_Rating.html
The Packers rank 5th in defensive Packer rating, and the Vikings rank 11th, despite facing Quinn, Stafford and Shaun Hill. With all due respect to Hill, Rodgers will be the first legitimate QB the Vikings see this season. It will be interesting to see how their secondary holds up. I anticipate a shift in scheme that doesn't allow the Vikings line time to get to Rodgers. Less long developing pass plays, more getting the ball to receivers on slants and quick hitters in space, and allowing them to beat anyone not named Antoine Winfield.
Put everything you have into containing Peterson, throw some crazy fronts at Favre and get in his head, and the Pack can walk away with a victory in the dome.
-
I think one of the keys to the game will be if Barbre can keep Rogers from winding up on his back. It seems that pressure in the backfield is what helped keep Chicago in the game, despite 4 ints, and helped Cinci win @ the tundra.
-
I think one of the keys to the game will be if Barbre can keep Rogers from winding up on his back. It seems that pressure in the backfield is what helped keep Chicago in the game, despite 4 ints, and helped Cinci win @ the tundra.
And kept the game in St. Louis closer than it should have been, at least for a while. And it's not just Barbre. Colledge has been pretty bad, too. The Pack absolutely must straighten out their pass protection.
-
I figured I'd be a gentleman and allow the ladies the first move. ;)
Should be an entertaining matchup. Divisional games are often closer than they should be. I've been watching Brett Favre for long enough to know that he comes out really wound up in high profile games in recent years (see: Dallas in '07), and I'd imagine if there were ever a matchup Favre WOULD be wound up for, this is probably it.
It's a match up of two pretty decent passing defenses (at least as the numbers would rank) thus far.
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/2_999_Def._Passer_Rating.html
The Packers rank 5th in defensive Packer rating, and the Vikings rank 11th, despite facing Quinn, Stafford and Shaun Hill. With all due respect to Hill, Rodgers will be the first legitimate QB the Vikings see this season. It will be interesting to see how their secondary holds up. I anticipate a shift in scheme that doesn't allow the Vikings line time to get to Rodgers. Less long developing pass plays, more getting the ball to receivers on slants and quick hitters in space, and allowing them to beat anyone not named Antoine Winfield.
Put everything you have into containing Peterson, throw some crazy fronts at Favre and get in his head, and the Pack can walk away with a victory in the dome.
One thing to keep in mind about defensive passing stats:
EDIT: I just clicked the link and it appears to take into account attempts, so at this point those stats are probably pretty accurate.
The Vikes don't appear to have a good passing defense because a lot of teams chose to pass against them (vs running the ball). Now, I'm not saying the Vikes pass defense is great, but it's probably better than 11th.
The Packers pass defense appears good because their run defense hasn't been that good, and thus teams are choosing to run the ball. The Packers secondary is still pretty good, but maybe not as good as their ranking.
Either way, you can "toss out the stats on this one", it's going to be a battle.
My hope is that the Vikings open up with some running plays/trick plays to get the game going. I don't really want Brett trying to block again (too risky), but that might be something that gets some of his energy out and settles him down.
If the Vikes are smart, they will be conservative (even with the trick plays), but design a couple of shots down the sideline that Brett either completes or just overthrows. I don't want to see any deep over the middle stuff that he can airmail to the safety.
Should be good.
My prediction:
Vikes 34
Pack 28
Tuesday morning Jay Bee will come on here and piss some of you guys off, and then the normal "Jay bee is a rapper" vs "You dumb wesconisn people are rednecks and the Vikes always sell out." debates will continue.
-
From a bears fan perspective (though it is probably not wanted), I see Rodgers running for his life. I like the bears front 4, but lets be honest, they aren't great. And they made Rodgers quite uncomfortable.
Someone as good as Jarred Allen is going to have a field day on Monday Night. Add in the two fat drug users (Williams brothers?) you are going to make the packers one dimensional. I see AP having a huge night. You can throw as many people in the box as possible (I am sure every team they have played this year has done it), and he still gets a good chunk of yards.
I see Vikings winning by 2 TDs
-
>GOMU1104: Awfly quiet, considering it is Wednesday...
Awfly? I see you’re a Packers fan. Some of us in Minnesota are enjoying a pennant race in the AL Central this week, as well as gearing up for the Gophers / Wesconsin game on Saturday. Not to mention the start of the Wild’s season and TWolves training camp (featuring a 31 pound lighter version of Al Jefferson – although we’ll still blow it big). Monday’s game will be just another W for the Vikings. We’ve done that every week this season, nothing new.
>PXILiberace: Force him to win games with his arm and it will catch up to the Vikes by week 9 or 10, at which point they will tank. They better hope Peterson starts to shy away from contact, or he won't last much longer either.
So week 9 or 10, Favre will just turn to mush? You guys are blinded by spite. As for AD, people didn’t draft him because of injury concerns… I am concerned about him getting seriously injured, but he’s going to play like a real man and I’ve accepted that.
>I've been watching Brett Favre for long enough to know that he comes out really wound up in high profile games in recent years (see: Dallas in '07)
“long enough”.. “recent years”… your commentary doesn’t follow. At any rate, if this game stays close and we’re not in a position where Brett doesn’t need to make a dramatic play in the game, it will be interesting to see if he does stay relatively conservative (as opposed to throw up some sh1t pass that gets picked). So far, so good. But, I understand he will throw a stupid pass or a few this year – I’ll take the ‘bad’ with the good.
>It's a match up of two pretty decent passing defenses (at least as the numbers would rank) thus far.
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/2_999_Def._Passer_Rating.html
The Packers rank 5th in defensive Packer rating, and the Vikings rank 11th, despite facing Quinn, Stafford and Shaun Hill.
I don’t think the passing defense of these teams is the story of the game at all, but I guess since you had a link to the website you felt the need to highlight it (along with something called the ‘defensive Packer rating’).
Erin Rodgers performance is key in this game. The Minnesota line, statistically, hasn’t done a lot this year. I’m sure Jared is foaming at the mouth, eager to face the pathetic offensive line of Green Bey… the Williams boys will have no problem with a second-string type player like Rian Grant on the ground – Rodgers is going to have to overcome a line battle that heavily favors the Vikings and make plays.
Anything could happen in this one – the only thing certain is that I will throw down several beers and have to listen to some stupid name-calling and arguments between Packers and Vikings ‘fans’. It will be even worse than this thread. Also, I’ll probably mack some chicks and drop some ill freestyles for the people up in the Dome.
Vikings 27, Packers 21.
-
I threw up a little bit, after reading this
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-30-morrissey-jay-cutler-sep30,0,315321.column
-
I threw up a little bit, after reading this
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-30-morrissey-jay-cutler-sep30,0,315321.column
Oh man that is great stuff...so Cutler is the next Brady, why didn't he put something as equally ridiculous as Hester is the next Jerry Rice...
-
So week 9 or 10, Favre will just turn to mush? You guys are blinded by spite. As for AD, people didn’t draft him because of injury concerns… I am concerned about him getting seriously injured, but he’s going to play like a real man and I’ve accepted that.
“long enough”.. “recent years”… your commentary doesn’t follow. At any rate, if this game stays close and we’re not in a position where Brett doesn’t need to make a dramatic play in the game, it will be interesting to see if he does stay relatively conservative (as opposed to throw up some sh1t pass that gets picked). So far, so good. But, I understand he will throw a stupid pass or a few this year – I’ll take the ‘bad’ with the good.
Blinded by spite, or supported by fact? You don't have to believe me, check it out yourself.
-
So week 9 or 10, Favre will just turn to mush? You guys are blinded by spite. As for AD, people didn’t draft him because of injury concerns… I am concerned about him getting seriously injured, but he’s going to play like a real man and I’ve accepted that.
Isn't AP the one who dove into the endzone in college (as a celebration) and ended up breaking his collarbone?
I'd be seriously worried about that every time he lowered his shoulder. I'd hate to see him injured though, he's as exciting as they come.
-
Isn't AP the one who dove into the endzone in college (as a celebration) and ended up breaking his collarbone?
I'd be seriously worried about that every time he lowered his shoulder. I'd hate to see him injured though, he's as exciting as they come.
I immediately thought of that injury last week watching a WR, maybe Desean Jackson, do a similar flip going into the endzone. Hey here's a better idea, go head butt the wall behind the endzone... er wait.
-
The Vikings suck; Brett Favre swallows!
-
Facts:
Favre is old. He'll be 40 before week five. He cannot do the physical things he could when he was younger and his body takes longer to recover.
It's called degeneration.
Thank you Chicos for posting the Thomas Jones quotes as well as a Veteran on the Jets team at the end of the year last year, thus proving Favre ruined the team at the end, not Mangini-Fact.
Packer fans will care if Favre fails this year because he plays on a team IN THE SAME DIVISION. Thus; if Favre struggles, the Vikings more than likely will struggle, which is good for the Packers and their fans because they are DIVISION RIVALS. If he was playing in S.D. I and most fans wouldn't give a flying f*** if Favre did or didn't throw a last second T.D. pass. It only matters because he plays for a team in the same division (I keep repeating that because I am not sure if Jay Bee understands the importance of that fact-repetition repetition repetition..."oh I finally get it now"...you're welcome Jay Bee).
Favre is not clutch...Like PXI said, check it out. Fact.
Jay Bee secretly has always loved Favre and would silently cheer for the Packers (when around his Sota friends) because of said dude-crush on Favre. He can finally now exhibit the man-love without being judged. I applaud you finally coming out with your man-love for Favre, Jay Bee. I applaud you.
-
Favre is not clutch...Like PXI said, check it out. Fact.
Yep, and it's not even something I'd like to willingly admit, seeing as outside of two years he quarterbacked my team. He has a handful of comebacks in the last decade, ranging from the Christmas Eve game at the dome in '04 (to win the division championship) to the overtime heave in Denver in '07. Other than that, it's been disappointment after disappointment since the barrage of late game comebacks early in the 1999 season. If Favre still had "it" in big games, we might have another championship or two in Green Bay. Sh*tting the bed in '01 and '02 in the playoffs, a killer overtime lame duck in '03, another awful performance in '04, one good playoff game in '07, followed by another back breaking interception. And that's just in the playoffs. We could look at performances in prime time games too. They haven't been that great.
I mean, the guy was a heck of a lot of fun to watch, but outside of the '07 renaissance, he's been increasingly frustrating since about 2002 - his last real push for an MVP year.
-
Yep, and it's not even something I'd like to willingly admit, seeing as outside of two years he quarterbacked my team. He has a handful of comebacks in the last decade, ranging from the Christmas Eve game at the dome in '04 (to win the division championship) to the overtime heave in Denver in '07. Other than that, it's been disappointment after disappointment since the barrage of late game comebacks early in the 1999 season. If Favre still had "it" in big games, we might have another championship or two in Green Bay. Sh*tting the bed in '01 and '02 in the playoffs, a killer overtime lame duck in '03, another awful performance in '04, one good playoff game in '07, followed by another back breaking interception. And that's just in the playoffs. We could look at performances in prime time games too. They haven't been that great.
I mean, the guy was a heck of a lot of fun to watch, but outside of the '07 renaissance, he's been increasingly frustrating since about 2002 - his last real push for an MVP year.
12-10 in playoff games...the BIG games. Almost 30 interceptions in those games. 3-7 in the last 10 playoff games.
-
12-10 in playoff games...the BIG games. Almost 30 interceptions in those games. 3-7 in the last 10 playoff games.
Don't throw out facts, numbers, statistics, or records, VaJay-Jay will come on crying about how they don't mean anything and how Favre at 40 is God's gift to football, that the only reason he has regressed is NOT, in fact, because of the fact that he IS 40 and NOT 28 anymore (although he still tries to play like he is at times), but because he was hurt (which he also threw the Jets under the bus on...it's all about himself).
And then 2002mualum will come on here and complain about how we as Packer fans are just making excuses for the future of when Brett Favre messes up to cost the Vikings their season and says that even if he takes the Vikings to a 16-0 regular season and into the Super Bowl but loses we will still say it was a terrible move for the Vikings.
...wait for it...
-
Yeah, fellas.. he definitely doesn't have 'it' anymore. Terrible since 2002, right? That's when everyone started crying for his head, right?
Get real, young skirts. The god is real. See this past Sunday.
Instead of being a drugged up womanizer on a crappy team, Brett is a refined man playing for the sake of winning football games. Finally, the cipher is complete.
Obviously he's going to be disappointing in the past - dude was playing for the a$$ Packers. What do you expect? Don't front - he's got the best supporting cast this season that he's ever had, in real life or his wildest dreams.
Boys, get back to studying and stop wasting daddi's money. You do well and get an A in the western civ class and I may just have a few pizza shuttle specials sent your way!
Favre - age - Packers < Favre - age + Vikings
KNOW DAT
-
Obviously he's going to be disappointing in the past - dude was playing for the a$$ Packers. What do you expect? Don't front - he's got the best supporting cast this season that he's ever had, in real life or his wildest dreams.
How many Lombardi Trophies does the Vikings organization have?
Simple question, one word will do, just answer it. It might give you some insight as to which organization, the Packers or the Vikings, are "a$$."
-
Yeah, fellas.. he definitely doesn't have 'it' anymore. Terrible since 2002, right? That's when everyone started crying for his head, right?
Get real, young skirts. The god is real. See this past Sunday.
Instead of being a drugged up womanizer on a crappy team, Brett is a refined man playing for the sake of winning football games. Finally, the cipher is complete.
Obviously he's going to be disappointing in the past - dude was playing for the a$$ Packers. What do you expect? Don't front - he's got the best supporting cast this season that he's ever had, in real life or his wildest dreams.
Boys, get back to studying and stop wasting daddi's money. You do well and get an A in the western civ class and I may just have a few pizza shuttle specials sent your way!
Favre - age - Packers < Favre - age + Vikings
KNOW DAT
Bahahahaha...
Classic Jay Bee isms.
I should have known that Favre was just holdin back for the Pack and Jets when after switching teams and beating:
1.) a team that has scored 1...repeat 1 offensive touchdown in the past 9 games--which was against against them!--
2.) a team that hadn't won a game since 2007 and was losing to a team that had lost 18 games in a row until the middle of the third quarter
3.) a team that lost their stud back after one play and had to rely on a 101 yard kick return and a last second ball to an unknown receiver.
You're right Jay Bee, it is quite obvious that Favre was holding back for the Pack and is now playing for ViQueens with a renewed vigor for football and life! I mean, wow, what a resume!
-
a$$ Packers.
And the ViQueens played receiver, willingly-if not forcefully receiving
-
wad's why are you so age-ist, at select times? You love when daddi Chris helps you, yet are so upset with 'old man' Favre. You love 'reminiscing' on trophy's you weren't alive for, yet so upset living in the now. It's bizarre.
Do you have a big day of class tomorrow? Probably an hour and 40 minutes in class, plus some homework... tough day! Hopefully you don't have any exams Tuesday morning! Maybe you can tell your teacher, "but, I got an A in multiplication when I was in 4th grade!!! you're an old jerk!"
My biggest issue is that some of you believe having Favre is worse for us compared to Tarvaris and Sage - CRAZY. The rest will be proven on the field - I've put my money where my mouth is. A few of you have put some small change where your spite and hope is. Reality will decide the winner, which will be me and the MINNESOTA VIKINGS!
pillarqueen: Huh? Did you see Favre on Sunday? did you see the a$$ Packers in week 2? Live in reality. I'm sure you find it funny to pretend 'creative writing' is an actual major given out by Marquette University, but limit to your sig, not your NFL football 'commentary'.
-
pillarqueen: Huh? Did you see Favre on Sunday? did you see the a$$ Packers in week 2? Live in reality. I'm sure you find it funny to pretend 'creative writing' is an actual major given out by Marquette University, but limit to your sig, not your NFL football 'commentary'.
Hmmm....Reality?
The Vikings have beaten 2 of the most atrocious teams at present and another team that lost their running back after one carry only to pull out the victory on a last second play. Who was the other teams stellar QB? Ohh yeah, Shaun Hill.
I'm pretty sure that is reality. If I'm missing something, please enlighten.
-
Facts:
Favre is old. He'll be 40 before week five. He cannot do the physical things he could when he was younger and his body takes longer to recover.
It's called degeneration.
Agree. He's not the same as he used to be. However, he's still better than anything the Vikes had, so that's why fans are excited about him.
Thank you Chicos for posting the Thomas Jones quotes as well as a Veteran on the Jets team at the end of the year last year, thus proving Favre ruined the team at the end, not Mangini-Fact.
This is not a fact at all. Magini is getting roasted by his own players in Cleveland right now (who can't stand him), while the "schism" in the Vikes locker rooms hasn't made headlines.
Listen, I know Brett is a diva, I've always known that. But, let's not act like he single handedly ruined the Jets. He had some help destroying the player culture. Also, when the Jets were winning, Brett was a cool guy, when they started losing, they turned on him. Again, Brett is a diva... but I'm not sure he's ruining every locker room he steps foot in. By that logic, the Pack should have been way better last year without him, and they weren't.
Packer fans will care if Favre fails this year because he plays on a team IN THE SAME DIVISION. Thus; if Favre struggles, the Vikings more than likely will struggle, which is good for the Packers and their fans because they are DIVISION RIVALS. If he was playing in S.D. I and most fans wouldn't give a flying f*** if Favre did or didn't throw a last second T.D. pass. It only matters because he plays for a team in the same division (I keep repeating that because I am not sure if Jay Bee understands the importance of that fact-repetition repetition repetition..."oh I finally get it now"...you're welcome Jay Bee).
GB fans should certainly care, I agree. The only thing I'll disagree with is the extreme stuff (burning jerseys, bitter commentary, etc.) The dude is just a football player. The Packers aren't Jesus and Brett isn't really Judas. It's just football, rubes.
Favre is not clutch...Like PXI said, check it out. Fact.
OK
Jay Bee secretly has always loved Favre and would silently cheer for the Packers (when around his Sota friends) because of said dude-crush on Favre. He can finally now exhibit the man-love without being judged. I applaud you finally coming out with your man-love for Favre, Jay Bee. I applaud you.
-
wad's why are you so age-ist, at select times? You love when daddi Chris helps you, yet are so upset with 'old man' Favre. You love 'reminiscing' on trophy's you weren't alive for, yet so upset living in the now. It's bizarre.
Do you have a big day of class tomorrow? Probably an hour and 40 minutes in class, plus some homework... tough day! Hopefully you don't have any exams Tuesday morning! Maybe you can tell your teacher, "but, I got an A in multiplication when I was in 4th grade!!! you're an old jerk!"
My biggest issue is that some of you believe having Favre is worse for us compared to Tarvaris and Sage - CRAZY. The rest will be proven on the field - I've put my money where my mouth is. A few of you have put some small change where your spite and hope is. Reality will decide the winner, which will be me and the MINNESOTA VIKINGS!
pillarqueen: Huh? Did you see Favre on Sunday? did you see the a$$ Packers in week 2? Live in reality. I'm sure you find it funny to pretend 'creative writing' is an actual major given out by Marquette University, but limit to your sig, not your NFL football 'commentary'.
Who's wads?
I will ask again, how many Lombardi Trophies do the Vikings organization have? Again, just a one word answer will do, nothing more is needed. The answer should give you an idea as to which organization is "a$$," the Vikings or the Packers.
Also, you make fun of pillar's majoring in creative writing while you MAKE A LIVING BY MIXING SICK BEATZ! YOUR LIFE IS AN ABSOLUTE JOKE!
-
Hmmm....Reality?
The Vikings have beaten 2 of the most atrocious teams at present and another team that lost their running back after one carry only to pull out the victory on a last second play. Who was the other teams stellar QB? Ohh yeah, Shaun Hill.
I'm pretty sure that is reality. If I'm missing something, please enlighten.
Yawn, yawn. Did the Vikings win their first two games on the road, while giving their second string QB time on the field? Yep. Did the a$$ Packers lose a game, at home, as 10 point favorites? Yep. Did a 2-0 team have a lead on us with 3 seconds to play? Yes. Did we pull it out? Yep. Thanks to... Brett Favre.
That is reality, youngster. It's obvious you're not into 'rough sports' such as football.. let's talk about this change in your sig. It used to be 'creative writing'.. now it's 'intensive writing' or something? Still with the same weird little 'emoticon'..? Is that what you creative/intensive writing persons call it?
NFL reality is easy - Win or shuttup. NFC North teams have very similar schedules this year -- so unless you want to say, 'hey, we have a couple of freebies later this year, and you have tough ones later, especially with Cinci!', then shhhh, lil guy.
Wad's: I don't make a living in music, kiddo. Just because you jock the ill rhymes doesn't mean that's what I do. Ask Chris.
-
wad's why are you so age-ist, at select times? You love when daddi Chris helps you, yet are so upset with 'old man' Favre. You love 'reminiscing' on trophy's you weren't alive for, yet so upset living in the now. It's bizarre.
Do you have a big day of class tomorrow? Probably an hour and 40 minutes in class, plus some homework... tough day! Hopefully you don't have any exams Tuesday morning! Maybe you can tell your teacher, "but, I got an A in multiplication when I was in 4th grade!!! you're an old jerk!"
My biggest issue is that some of you believe having Favre is worse for us compared to Tarvaris and Sage - CRAZY. The rest will be proven on the field - I've put my money where my mouth is. A few of you have put some small change where your spite and hope is. Reality will decide the winner, which will be me and the MINNESOTA VIKINGS!
pillarqueen: Huh? Did you see Favre on Sunday? did you see the a$$ Packers in week 2? Live in reality. I'm sure you find it funny to pretend 'creative writing' is an actual major given out by Marquette University, but limit to your sig, not your NFL football 'commentary'.
The old creative writing gig again? You really need some new material.
I saw Favre on Sunday. And I live in reality. We're in week 4 of the NFL season. I remember a day where the Vikings were 6-0. Remember that time? How did that turn out for you?
Oh, and let me tell you a little secret. Childress is every bit as bad a coach as Tice was - maybe worse. Don't believe me? Don't worry, it won't take long.
As far as the best option for you guys at QB... at this point, it would still be Tarvaris. It's easy to not believe it now in week three, but eventually Favre will be forced to win a game with his arm, and when teams figure that out, the wheels will fall off the bus.
Favre since 2005: 95 TDs, 95 turnovers. Congratulations, you have a ticking time bomb under center.
BELIEVE DAT.
-
Yawn, yawn. Did the Vikings win their first two games on the road, while giving their second string QB time on the field? Yep. Did the a$$ Packers lose a game, at home, as 10 point favorites? Yep. Did a 2-0 team have a lead on us with 3 seconds to play? Yes. Did we pull it out? Yep. Thanks to... Brett Favre.
That is reality, youngster. It's obvious you're not into 'rough sports' such as football.. let's talk about this change in your sig. It used to be 'creative writing'.. now it's 'intensive writing' or something? Still with the same weird little 'emoticon'..? Is that what you creative/intensive writing persons call it?
NFL reality is easy - Win or shuttup. NFC North teams have very similar schedules this year -- so unless you want to say, 'hey, we have a couple of freebies later this year, and you have tough ones later, especially with Cinci!', then shhhh, lil guy.
Wad's: I don't make a living in music, kiddo. Just because you jock the ill rhymes doesn't mean that's what I do. Ask Chris.
Win or shut up? Really? How many more playoff games did you win than we did last year? How many more playoff games did you win than the LIONS last year? Exactly. Win. Or shut up.
-
And then 2002mualum will come on here and complain about how we as Packer fans are just making excuses for the future of when Brett Favre messes up to cost the Vikings their season and says that even if he takes the Vikings to a 16-0 regular season and into the Super Bowl but loses we will still say it was a terrible move for the Vikings.
...wait for it...
I believe this 100%.
Brett could throw 40 TDs and 2 picks all year, and you guys would still be saying "Wait for the playoffs, he'll suck".
Then, when Brett throws 1 rocket-ball in the playoffs, you'll all rejoice and say "See! See!"
You all claim be using facts and viewing Favre objectively from your own experiences with him. It's bogus. You want to know why his playoff record isn't so great? Because the Packers had some bad teams that he made look great, and those teams were exposed in the playoffs. Troy Aikman has a good playoff record. Hmmm.... I wonder why.
Favre has won more games than anybody for the Packers. Don't crap on him now, guys. He was an AWESOME player. Don't bash him now. I never hated him when he was a Packer, because I knew how F-ing good he was and how lucky the organization was to have him. I can't hate a guy that is that good. I hated losing to him, but I couldn't hate him because he was so good.
Favre could make the pro bowl and lead the Vikes to the playoffs, and yet somehow you guys will paint the season like a failure because God-forbid we all admit that he's successful for the dreaded Vikings. ohhhhh, soooo scary, I can never admit that my EX is happy with somebody else! Oh No!
It's the equivalent of calling your Ex a "fat bitch" when everybody can see that she looks good and is doing well. Just leave her alone.
I know this is the "pissing match" guys, but show some maturity and respect for one of your greatest players. And don't give me some BS about how "Brett disrespected the fans" That's a bunch of crap. The dude tore himself up for 16 years entertaining you rubes. Give him some credit. I'm sorry that he doesn't bow down to every fat, drunk packer fan and thank them for naming their stupid kid brett, or for buying their ugly wife a #4 tattoo.
He did his job as well if not better than anybody else for 16 years. Keep that in mind. He'll go down as a top 10 and realistically a top 5 QB of all time.
Don't forget that now, fellas. You were lucky to have him, and got a chance to watch him play every sunday. Don't ruin it now by talking a bunch of trash.
-
NFL reality is easy - Win or shuttup. NFC North teams have very similar schedules this year -- so unless you want to say, 'hey, we have a couple of freebies later this year, and you have tough ones later, especially with Cinci!', then shhhh, lil guy.
Wad's: I don't make a living in music, kiddo. Just because you jock the ill rhymes doesn't mean that's what I do. Ask Chris.
Hey, OLD FART, again, how many Super Bowls do the almighty Vikings have? NFL REALITY IS EASY, SON...WIN, OR SHUTUP!
Who's Wad's? Was that message board about your mix tapes all false then? We can put the screenshots of those up again, if you would like? They even state that you would like to meet up with some teenage males. It's kind of...awkward? Weird? Or was that a different VaJay Jay Bee? Who just happened to, by chance, have the exact same email address as you? Because that is possible? And what Chris am I supposed to ask? I know a lot of them.
But I forgot, you write those HILARIOUS clips for whatever AWFUL television show would hire a homosexual pedophile with no commonsense or sense of humor whatsoever.
They're fantastic, keep up the GREAT work, you old fart.
-
I realize kids have become increasingly more dumb than when I was in school, but you young ladies are trying my patience.
>Childress is every bit as bad a coach as Tice was - maybe worse. Don't believe me? Don't worry, it won't take long.
Huh? When have I ever said this?
>As far as the best option for you guys at QB... at this point, it would still be Tarvaris. eventually Favre will be forced to win a game with his arm, and when teams figure that out, the wheels will fall off the bus.
Huh? did you see our game vs. the 49ers? You're insane.
>How many more playoff games did you win than the LIONS last year?
Really? This is you dissing the Minnesota Vikings? Oooh, you won the same amount of playoff games as the Lions! Get real. Minnesota has the best team in the NFC North this year (and did last year, as proven by winning the division), hands down. It's simple.
Now, hit the books wad's and PXI. I hope you two can be a fraction of the man I am one day - and that's gonna take a lot of work. Get BIZ.
pillar queen - you might be hopeless. Luckily, you enjoy living in hostels and sharing cheap bread with diseased foreign people in foreign lands. And crappy football teams.
-
I'm surprised this this thread is still up, and that some of the guys on this thread know how to use this new fangled internet dealy.
-
I believe this 100%.
Brett could throw 40 TDs and 2 picks all year, and you guys would still be saying "Wait for the playoffs, he'll suck".
Then, when Brett throws 1 rocket-ball in the playoffs, you'll all rejoice and say "See! See!"
You all claim be using facts and viewing Favre objectively from your own experiences with him. It's bogus. You want to know why his playoff record isn't so great? Because the Packers had some bad teams that he made look great, and those teams were exposed in the playoffs. Troy Aikman has a good playoff record. Hmmm.... I wonder why.
Favre has won more games than anybody for the Packers. Don't crap on him now, guys. He was an AWESOME player. Don't bash him now. I never hated him when he was a Packer, because I knew how F-ing good he was and how lucky the organization was to have him. I can't hate a guy that is that good. I hated losing to him, but I couldn't hate him because he was so good.
Favre could make the pro bowl and lead the Vikes to the playoffs, and yet somehow you guys will paint the season like a failure because God-forbid we all admit that he's successful for the dreaded Vikings. ohhhhh, soooo scary, I can never admit that my EX is happy with somebody else! Oh No!
It's the equivalent of calling your Ex a "fat bitch" when everybody can see that she looks good and is doing well. Just leave her alone.
I know this is the "pissing match" guys, but show some maturity and respect for one of your greatest players. And don't give me some BS about how "Brett disrespected the fans" That's a bunch of crap. The dude tore himself up for 16 years entertaining you rubes. Give him some credit. I'm sorry that he doesn't bow down to every fat, drunk packer fan and thank them for naming their stupid kid brett, or for buying their ugly wife a #4 tattoo.
Here's the thing, when you were talking about why you couldn't hate him while he was on the Packers and how we shouldn't crap on him now, the key word you used A LOT is the word WAS. No doubt he was UNBELIEVABLE. He WAS unbelievable. He IS not unbelievable anymore. He is, at best, an average quarterback. As XI said, 95 TDs and 95 turnovers since 2005. That IS not unbelievable. He WAS great. He IS soon to be 40 years old. And he IS not getting any younger. So I think our point IS that it IS only week 3, and that over the past many years, with the exception of ONE year, his production has decreased GREATLY over the last half of the year. If your purple sun glasses are that shaded that you are blind to the fact that he will be 40 years old and that you don't get BETTER at that point, then nothing I or any Packer fan says will make you realize that we WILL be right about him NO LONGER being amazing. He IS not the same player that he WAS for the Packers when he WAS a 3 time NFL MVP. If you truly believe he still IS, then more power to you, but I think you ARE crazy then.
-
Favre has won more games than anybody for the Packers. Don't crap on him now, guys. He was an AWESOME player. Don't bash him now. I never hated him when he was a Packer, because I knew how F-ing good he was and how lucky the organization was to have him. I can't hate a guy that is that good. I hated losing to him, but I couldn't hate him because he was so good.
Bold. Underline. Italicized.
I love what Favre did for this franchise. I also HATE what he's done in the playoffs in the last decade. Don't go blaming his 6 INT playoff meltdown, his poor play in the Packers' first EVER home playoff loss, his overtime duck in Philly, his poor play in the Packers SECOND ever home playoff loss, and his overtime INT to cost us a Super Bowl appearance on everyone else. Sure, plays could have been made by other players during those games, but aren't we supposed to hold the leader, the legend, the hall of famer, to a higher standard to go above and beyond and pull the team through when those clutch situations are necessary? I guess not.
The Vikings did this the wrong way. If they had done it the right way, it would be a frightening combination. But Favre didn't show up until the end of August. Sure, it'll work for the first few cupcakes, but when this team gets to the meat and potatoes of their schedule, you can bet your ass they'll be slowed down.
And as for the playoffs - if the Vikings make it that far - well....
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2623_The_mighty_CHFF_interception_ladder.html
Feel free to call it bitterness against Favre. I've never had more fun watching another player. I'm not burning any Favre merchandise. I look forward to hopefully attending his hall of fame induction. But his time has passed.
-
I realize kids have become increasingly more dumb than when I was in school, but you young ladies are trying my patience.
>Childress is every bit as bad a coach as Tice was - maybe worse. Don't believe me? Don't worry, it won't take long.
Huh? When have I ever said this?
>As far as the best option for you guys at QB... at this point, it would still be Tarvaris. eventually Favre will be forced to win a game with his arm, and when teams figure that out, the wheels will fall off the bus.
Huh? did you see our game vs. the 49ers? You're insane.
>How many more playoff games did you win than the LIONS last year?
Really? This is you dissing the Minnesota Vikings? Oooh, you won the same amount of playoff games as the Lions! Get real. Minnesota has the best team in the NFC North this year (and did last year, as proven by winning the division), hands down. It's simple.
Now, hit the books wad's and PXI. I hope you two can be a fraction of the man I am one day - and that's gonna take a lot of work. Get BIZ.
pillar queen - you might be hopeless. Luckily, you enjoy living in hostels and sharing cheap bread with diseased foreign people in foreign lands. And crappy football teams.
Way to, yet again, ignore my post. I will copy and paste it on here again. For the 4th time I will ask the same question. Maybe you will answer it this time:
"Hey, OLD FART, again, how many Super Bowls do the almighty Vikings have? NFL REALITY IS EASY, SON...WIN, OR SHUTUP!
Who's Wad's? Was that message board about your mix tapes all false then? We can put the screenshots of those up again, if you would like? They even state that you would like to meet up with some teenage males. It's kind of...awkward? Weird? Or was that a different VaJay Jay Bee? Who just happened to, by chance, have the exact same email address as you? Because that is possible? And what Chris am I supposed to ask? I know a lot of them.
But I forgot, you write those HILARIOUS clips for whatever AWFUL television show would hire a homosexual pedophile with no commonsense or sense of humor whatsoever.
They're fantastic, keep up the GREAT work, you old fart."
-
I realize kids have become increasingly more dumb than when I was in school, but you young ladies are trying my patience.
>Childress is every bit as bad a coach as Tice was - maybe worse. Don't believe me? Don't worry, it won't take long.
Huh? When have I ever said this?
>As far as the best option for you guys at QB... at this point, it would still be Tarvaris. eventually Favre will be forced to win a game with his arm, and when teams figure that out, the wheels will fall off the bus.
Huh? did you see our game vs. the 49ers? You're insane.
>How many more playoff games did you win than the LIONS last year?
Really? This is you dissing the Minnesota Vikings? Oooh, you won the same amount of playoff games as the Lions! Get real. Minnesota has the best team in the NFC North this year (and did last year, as proven by winning the division), hands down. It's simple.
Now, hit the books wad's and PXI. I hope you two can be a fraction of the man I am one day - and that's gonna take a lot of work. Get BIZ.
pillar queen - you might be hopeless. Luckily, you enjoy living in hostels and sharing cheap bread with diseased foreign people in foreign lands. And crappy football teams.
There's only one thing that's correct in this entire post, and it's that you are, indeed, a fraction of a man.
-
wad's, I'm talking about your dad Chris. My career is in something far different from anything musical or anything to do with TV/entertainment. I understand you like me for some of the few of my hobbies that you're aware of, but that doesn't mean that's what I do for a living. Get a grasp, kiddo. Some internet 'site' that pops up doesn't mean its reality, young Patti. There's a pointplankn.com -- think that is what I do for a living? Tonight when you pray to the Jonas Bros posters above your bed, ask them for some clarity. It probably won't help you understand how great the Vikings are, but will probably make you and your roomies happy for a short while.
2002mulaum has it right on - there is nothing the Vikings or Favre could do. Even if Minnesota win without a loss.. it would be, 'oooh, Peterson did it all.'. That's why I had to throw out the bet offerings - it's the only way for idiots to really say something. A few did, but not much. I'll collect on that.
PXI - if your tuition is not fully covered already, I'm confident we can get some additional aid your way for the obscene mental defects you have to deal with in life. Wow.
-
That is reality, youngster. It's obvious you're not into 'rough sports' such as football.. let's talk about this change in your sig. It used to be 'creative writing'.. now it's 'intensive writing' or something? Still with the same weird little 'emoticon'..? Is that what you creative/intensive writing persons call it?
BAHAHAHAHAHA
That's funny "not a fan of contact sports." Have you ever been invited to a football camp in Florida and had a sit down with the ole ball coach?
Think of something new to come back with, please.
Jay Bee where were you when I said that the ViQueen franchise is a failed franchise because they have yet to win a S.B. after their long miserable existence with your "Win or Shut Up?"
Thank you for proving my point.
-
wad's, I'm talking about your dad Chris. My career is in something far different from anything musical or anything to do with TV/entertainment. I understand you like me for some of the few of my hobbies that you're aware of, but that doesn't mean that's what I do for a living. Get a grasp, kiddo. Some internet 'site' that pops up doesn't mean its reality, young Patti. There's a pointplankn.com -- think that is what I do for a living? Tonight when you pray to the Jonas Bros posters above your bed, ask them for some clarity. It probably won't help you understand how great the Vikings are, but will probably make you and your roomies happy for a short while.
2002mulaum has it right on - there is nothing the Vikings or Favre could do. Even if Minnesota win without a loss.. it would be, 'oooh, Peterson did it all.'. That's why I had to throw out the bet offerings - it's the only way for idiots to really say something. A few did, but not much. I'll collect on that.
PXI - if your tuition is not fully covered already, I'm confident we can get some additional aid your way for the obscene mental defects you have to deal with in life. Wow.
I wasn't sure what you were talking about, so I googled "mental defects", and this is what came up.
(http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/102/screenshot20090930at103.png)
Oops.
-
Here's the thing, when you were talking about why you couldn't hate him while he was on the Packers and how we shouldn't crap on him now, the key word you used A LOT is the word WAS. No doubt he was UNBELIEVABLE. He WAS unbelievable. He IS not unbelievable anymore. He is, at best, an average quarterback. As XI said, 95 TDs and 95 turnovers since 2005. That IS not unbelievable. He WAS great. He IS soon to be 40 years old. And he IS not getting any younger. So I think our point IS that it IS only week 3, and that over the past many years, with the exception of ONE year, his production has decreased GREATLY over the last half of the year. If your purple sun glasses are that shaded that you are blind to the fact that he will be 40 years old and that you don't get BETTER at that point, then nothing I or any Packer fan says will make you realize that we WILL be right about him NO LONGER being amazing. He IS not the same player that he WAS for the Packers when he WAS a 3 time NFL MVP. If you truly believe he still IS, then more power to you, but I think you ARE crazy then.
You are 100% correct, actually. This is NOT 1996, and Brett is not going to be the MVP.
If you'll look back in this thread, here is what I said (ALMOST 1 MONTH AGO!):
Hey, he's better than anything else the Vikes have.
I'm realistic. Don't confuse me with some whacked out Vikes fan.
Do I expect Brett to be 1995 Brett Favre? (like you said before) Nope.
Do I think he can be effective at 39 years old after missing training camp, having surgery and having his name mentioned on ESPN 100,000 times? Yep, I think he can. There have been several QB's who have been effective into their 40's. Brett is not exactly breaking new ground here.
He's in a good situation where I think he can play well.
We can do all of the pissing and moaning we want, but the proof will be on the field this fall.
If Favre sucks, I'll admit I was wrong, but I expect him to play pretty well. (not MVP numbers, but maybe 20tds and 14 picks depending on how the season goes (injuries, defensive issues, etc.))
I've never said Brett is awesome. I've just said he looks good, and no matter how he looks, you guys are just waiting to knock him down.
-
That's funny "not a fan of contact sports." Have you ever been invited to a football camp in Florida and had a sit down with the ole ball coach?
Instead of dwelling on questions which you already know the answer to, let's look at this -- 'not a fan of contact sports'.. where was this said? Also, are you telling me you were invited to a 'football camp in Florida'? And then went on to get a creative writing degree at MU? Well, that certainly makes the invite to visit with 'the ole ball coach' all the more impressive! CONGRATS! Way to go! Awesome RAD! Idiot.
>I wasn't sure what you were talking about, so I googled "mental defects", and this is what came up.
I can help you on a much deeper level. Just keep asking.
-
wad's, I'm talking about your dad Chris. My career is in something far different from anything musical or anything to do with TV/entertainment. I understand you like me for some of the few of my hobbies that you're aware of, but that doesn't mean that's what I do for a living. Get a grasp, kiddo. Some internet 'site' that pops up doesn't mean its reality, young Patti. There's a pointplankn.com -- think that is what I do for a living? Tonight when you pray to the Jonas Bros posters above your bed, ask them for some clarity. It probably won't help you understand how great the Vikings are, but will probably make you and your roomies happy for a short while.
2002mulaum has it right on - there is nothing the Vikings or Favre could do. Even if Minnesota win without a loss.. it would be, 'oooh, Peterson did it all.'. That's why I had to throw out the bet offerings - it's the only way for idiots to really say something. A few did, but not much. I'll collect on that.
PXI - if your tuition is not fully covered already, I'm confident we can get some additional aid your way for the obscene mental defects you have to deal with in life. Wow.
My dad Chris? Hmm...? So because your email address came up with the a name on an online forum, to go along with the forum name of "Jay Bee" makes it...not you. I got it. Makes perfect sense.
OK 2 very easy questions for you. Were those posts made by somebody other than you?
How many Super Bowls do the Vikings have?
-
Bold. Underline. Italicized.
I love what Favre did for this franchise. I also HATE what he's done in the playoffs in the last decade. Don't go blaming his 6 INT playoff meltdown, his poor play in the Packers' first EVER home playoff loss, his overtime duck in Philly, his poor play in the Packers SECOND ever home playoff loss, and his overtime INT to cost us a Super Bowl appearance on everyone else. Sure, plays could have been made by other players during those games, but aren't we supposed to hold the leader, the legend, the hall of famer, to a higher standard to go above and beyond and pull the team through when those clutch situations are necessary? I guess not.
The Vikings did this the wrong way. If they had done it the right way, it would be a frightening combination. But Favre didn't show up until the end of August. Sure, it'll work for the first few cupcakes, but when this team gets to the meat and potatoes of their schedule, you can bet your ass they'll be slowed down.
And as for the playoffs - if the Vikings make it that far - well....
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2623_The_mighty_CHFF_interception_ladder.html
Feel free to call it bitterness against Favre. I've never had more fun watching another player. I'm not burning any Favre merchandise. I look forward to hopefully attending his hall of fame induction. But his time has passed.
You bring up some good points, and I know how it can be frustrating to watch him sometimes.
I'm not a Packer fan, and I can tell you that I was never scared of any Packer player other than Favre and Reggie. The Pack have had some nice role players come through town, but I'm really telling you, he was the reason the Pack were in any of those playoff games.
Brett has always been the "slinger", and you guys had to dance with the girl that brought ya. I'm definitely NOT saying he WAS perfect or IS perfect. I'm just saying that even Joe Montana threw INTs. Even Jordan had turnovers, and Babe Ruth struck out... a LOT.
Great players are great... but they aren't perfect.
Oh, also, brett is not perfect off of the field either. He's made a lot of mistakes. He's human. I can live with that.
-
Instead of dwelling on questions which you already know the answer to, let's look at this -- 'not a fan of contact sports'.. where was this said? Also, are you telling me you were invited to a 'football camp in Florida'? And then went on to get a creative writing degree at MU? Well, that certainly makes the invite to visit with 'the ole ball coach' all the more impressive! CONGRATS! Way to go! Awesome RAD! Idiot.
>I wasn't sure what you were talking about, so I googled "mental defects", and this is what came up.
I can help you on a much deeper level. Just keep asking.
Help me with what? I'm a college kid with time on my hands. I don't want to turn into a middle-aged Vanilla Ice wanna be who spends my free time creating 4th grade quality insults and quarreling with kids half my age about something I know nothing about.
Someone needs help here, and it's certainly not me.
-
I believe this 100%.
Brett could throw 40 TDs and 2 picks all year, and you guys would still be saying "Wait for the playoffs, he'll suck".
Then, when Brett throws 1 rocket-ball in the playoffs, you'll all rejoice and say "See! See!"
You all claim be using facts and viewing Favre objectively from your own experiences with him. It's bogus. You want to know why his playoff record isn't so great? Because the Packers had some bad teams that he made look great, and those teams were exposed in the playoffs. Troy Aikman has a good playoff record. Hmmm.... I wonder why.
Sorry, not buying. To believe this, then you have to believe that he was good enough carry them that far into the playoffs, too, but then he just couldn't do it anymore despite getting to the playoffs. Come on.
Want to know why Aikman had a good playoff record...he played on a good team AND he didn't turn over the ball. See Brady. See Manning. See any Ben. DON'T TURNOVER THE BALL
Want to know why Favre doesn't have a good playoff record....he turned the ball over at a clip not seen before. It's really that simple. Turnovers kill.
Back to the point, Favre had great talent in the 2007 Super Bowl, but lost. Favre's team going into the last game of the season in 2002 would have homefield for the entire playoffs if they won the last game....the got crushed by the Jets. The next week, against a reeling Atlanta Falcons team, three more turnovers by Favre and they get clobbered by Atlanta at Lambeau. Are you really saying that a 9 win Falcons team that lost 3 of it's final 4 games was a better team than the Packers that year? 20 points better?
Two years ago, Packers have home field, frigid cold, playing the Giants for the NFC title. Turn the ball over and you lose. Favre obliges. That team went 13-3 and was playing at home, a damn good team.
At Philadelphia in the playoffs, game is in OT when the Pack stops the Eagles on a 3 and out. Pack gets the ball. First play, Favre throws ball and misses his receiver by 20 yards = interception. Eagles win a few plays later.
This continued argument about Favre carrying teams just doesn't mesh with reality. You win games in the NFL by playing turnover free ball, something Favre never quite got. When he played turnover free ball, his teams won and he was great. When he didn't, his teams lost. The talent was there on multiple occasions to go farther, but his key turnovers killed his club (along with other factors...defense played poorly, injuries, etc...no loss is on one player, but the QB is the most important position).
-
VaJay Jay, since you're having trouble answering my two VERY simple questions, I'll leave out all other information from this post and ask you my two questions, and I'll even give you a hint as to what the answers could possibly be:
1. How many Lombardi Trophies do the Vikings have?
2. Was that you who made those comments on those forums, under the name "Jay Bee" with the email address "jbbauer612@gmail.com," the same name and email address you have on MUScoop?
Here are your hints:
#1 should be one word. It is the same answer that you get when you multiply a number, ANY number, by zero. If the answer to this is too hard for you, PM me and I can help you.
#2 should also be one word. The two options for this one word would be either "yes" or "no." Again, if this is too challenging for the old fart that you are, PM me and I can help you.
-
You bring up some good points, and I know how it can be frustrating to watch him sometimes.
I'm not a Packer fan, and I can tell you that I was never scared of any Packer player other than Favre and Reggie. The Pack have had some nice role players come through town, but I'm really telling you, he was the reason the Pack were in any of those playoff games.
Brett has always been the "slinger", and you guys had to dance with the girl that brought ya. I'm definitely NOT saying he WAS perfect or IS perfect. I'm just saying that even Joe Montana threw INTs. Even Jordan had turnovers, and Babe Ruth struck out... a LOT.
Great players are great... but they aren't perfect.
Understood. And I don't necessarily disagree. But to say Favre (and, by association, the Vikings) is flirting with danger is an understatement. He sold himself and the Vikings short by not preparing like he did prior to '07. No film study. No relationship building with teammates. No NFL-caliber conditioning. It's dangerous. And clearly it can work effectively against the likes of the Browns, Lions, and Gore-less 49ers. But to think that abbreviated style of offense will carry through the entire season and guide the Vikes to the playoffs is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. And when Favre is forced to put the ball up more to come from behind against better teams, we'll see what happens.
I understand the sentiment behind the fact that QBs commit turnovers, just as Jordan committed turnovers and Ruth struck out, but we're talking about the most turnover prone QB in the NFL since 2005. Not middle of the pack. Not bottom tier. Dead last. You guys just better hope that trend doesn't cause the Vikings games in the same manner it did the Jets down the stretch last year.
I'm not saying this situation CAN'T be successful for the Vikings, just that conventional wisdom tells us it's a time bomb waiting to explode. Who knows though? Favre has bucked conventional wisdom before.
-
Wad's: "those two posts" - I don't know what you're talking about. Is this in reference to screen shots you posted awhile back? No idea, I don't pay much attention to your posts.
PXI: I'm glad you admit you're 'just a college kid with time on my hands'. I realize you think you're doing well, cheering for the Packers, hating Favre, getting a 3.2 in liberal arts classes, drinking a couple brews at the hot party at Renee Row, etc... and you are. You're doing great. Awesome, man. But, to call someone 'a middle-aged Vanilla Ice wanna be' is fine.. but don't include, 'creating 4th grade quality insults' in the same sentence.
With respect to Favre, what I have said, time and time again.. is that he's an improvement compared to what we had several weeks ago. Some CONTINUE, over and over again, to take issue with that. And it's strange at first.. but quickly it's evident the issue is that those taking issue simply have it out for their former hero.
Are any of you little freaks gunna burn your Favre jerseys like so many Packers fans will on Monday? Why not? I'm sure your cute little Erin Rodgers jerseys look better. What is not to love about a 6-10 record, except for the fact that it sucks?
Wad's
1) The answer is readily available. Why do you keep asking me?
2) I don't think there was anything posted under a user name of Jay Bee. You're apparently making things up again. I'll pass on sending you a private message, unless your mom will be using your account tonight.
-
Instead of dwelling on questions which you already know the answer to, let's look at this -- 'not a fan of contact sports'.. where was this said? Also, are you telling me you were invited to a 'football camp in Florida'? And then went on to get a creative writing degree at MU? Well, that certainly makes the invite to visit with 'the ole ball coach' all the more impressive! CONGRATS! Way to go! Awesome RAD! Idiot.
>I wasn't sure what you were talking about, so I googled "mental defects", and this is what came up.
I can help you on a much deeper level. Just keep asking.
You don't fail to astonish
-
Wad's: "those two posts" - I don't know what you're talking about. Is this in reference to screen shots you posted awhile back? No idea, I don't pay much attention to your posts.
PXI: I'm glad you admit you're 'just a college kid with time on my hands'. I realize you think you're doing well, cheering for the Packers, hating Favre, getting a 3.2 in liberal arts classes, drinking a couple brews at the hot party at Renee Row, etc... and you are. You're doing great. Awesome, man. But, to call someone 'a middle-aged Vanilla Ice wanna be' is fine.. but don't include, 'creating 4th grade quality insults' in the same sentence.
With respect to Favre, what I have said, time and time again.. is that he's an improvement compared to what we had several weeks ago. Some CONTINUE, over and over again, to take issue with that. And it's strange at first.. but quickly it's evident the issue is that those taking issue simply have it out for their former hero.
Are any of you little freaks gunna burn your Favre jerseys like so many Packers fans will on Monday? Why not? I'm sure your cute little Erin Rodgers jerseys look better. What is not to love about a 6-10 record, except for the fact that it sucks?
Wad's
1) The answer is readily available. Why do you keep asking me?
2) I don't think there was anything posted under a user name of Jay Bee. You're apparently making things up again. I'll pass on sending you a private message, unless your mom will be using your account tonight.
Not creating fourth grade quality insults.
Inclusion of a "your mom" joke.
Check.
-
I vote this thread for most ridiculous thread in the history of MUScoop. It is even more comical when you realize that neither the Vikings nor the Packers will win the division. :D
PS Wades World... Where does VaJay Jay come from? I thinking I'm missing some "pop culture" reference.
-
I vote this thread for most ridiculous thread in the history of MUScoop. It is even more comical when you realize that neither the Vikings nor the Packers will win the division. :D
PS Wades World... Where does VaJay Jay come from? I thinking I'm missing some "pop culture" reference.
Think slang for part of the female anatomy. Fits, doesn't it?
-
Sorry, not buying. To believe this, then you have to believe that he was good enough carry them that far into the playoffs, too, but then he just couldn't do it anymore despite getting to the playoffs. Come on.
Want to know why Aikman had a good playoff record...he played on a good team AND he didn't turn over the ball. See Brady. See Manning. See any Ben. DON'T TURNOVER THE BALL
Want to know why Favre doesn't have a good playoff record....he turned the ball over at a clip not seen before. It's really that simple. Turnovers kill.
Back to the point, Favre had great talent in the 2007 Super Bowl, but lost. Favre's team going into the last game of the season in 2002 would have homefield for the entire playoffs if they won the last game....the got crushed by the Jets. The next week, against a reeling Atlanta Falcons team, three more turnovers by Favre and they get clobbered by Atlanta at Lambeau. Are you really saying that a 9 win Falcons team that lost 3 of it's final 4 games was a better team than the Packers that year? 20 points better?
Two years ago, Packers have home field, frigid cold, playing the Giants for the NFC title. Turn the ball over and you lose. Favre obliges. That team went 13-3 and was playing at home, a damn good team.
At Philadelphia in the playoffs, game is in OT when the Pack stops the Eagles on a 3 and out. Pack gets the ball. First play, Favre throws ball and misses his receiver by 20 yards = interception. Eagles win a few plays later.
This continued argument about Favre carrying teams just doesn't mesh with reality. You win games in the NFL by playing turnover free ball, something Favre never quite got. When he played turnover free ball, his teams won and he was great. When he didn't, his teams lost. The talent was there on multiple occasions to go farther, but his key turnovers killed his club (along with other factors...defense played poorly, injuries, etc...no loss is on one player, but the QB is the most important position).
Do you think Favre could have won superbowls if he played on Dallas?
I'm never going to say Brett was perfect. I'm just saying that I don't think those teams were that great. I saw them play, a lot and they have had very few great players to go along with Brett.
Dallas had 3 or 4 hall of famers on their teams.
New England won early on with Brady and some good role players, but now they have Moss, and maybe the best front office in all of sports.
Pittsburgh did it without superstars, but still has a lot of talent.
Montana had rice.
Elway didn't win until he had TO and a dominant defense.
Marino had Duper and Clayton early in his career, and not much else (Irving Fryer?)
The Packer team that lost in 2007 lost to the eventual superbowl champs. I'm not saying Brett played well, but give the giants some credit, they were a good team. Also, Tynes missed 2 FG that could have won it for the Giants, so really the Packers should have never been in OT.
Against the Eagles, the defense blew a 4th and 26.
Again, I'm not trying to say that Favre is/was perfect... but don't act like he wasn't GREAT for all of those years. The Packers never would have been in those playoff games without him.
-
And this notion of Favre haters, I don't get that either. I don't know anyone that truly hates Favre, I certainly don't. Conversely, there are many of us that don't give the worship and adulation, but that's another story.
Favre has great statistics, but he's like the guy who leads the league in scoring because he chucked up 40 shots a game.
It shouldn't be lost on people that Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Brett Favre, Fran Tarkenton, Warren Moon, Drew Bledsoe, Vinny Testaverde, Peyton Manning are all top ten in passing yards and have a grand total of 2 Super Bowl ring (thank you Desmond Howard).
The only top ten passers that won multiple Super Bowls? John Elway, but only after he matured enough not to throw the ball all over the yard and Joe Montana (#10).
Stats are great, but they rarely mean getting the most important of wins.
Give me wins, give me ball control, give me a QB that gets it that turnovers are killers and has to be smart with the ball. This is why Romo drives me insane, he's mini-Favre which means he puts up great numbers but will never be a true winning QB. He already owns a ton of Cowboys records despite Aikman and Staubach playing there, yet those other two without the records have all the rings. Danny White and Romo own many of the individual passing records and zero hardware.
-
And this notion of Favre haters, I don't get that either. I don't know anyone that truly hates Favre, I certainly don't. Conversely, there are many of us that don't give the worship and adulation, but that's another story.
Favre has great statistics, but he's like the guy who leads the league in scoring because he chucked up 40 shots a game.
It shouldn't be lost on people that Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Brett Favre, Fran Tarkenton, Warren Moon, Drew Bledsoe, Vinny Testaverde, Peyton Manning are all top ten in passing yards and have a grand total of 2 Super Bowl ring (thank you Desmond Howard).
The only top ten passers that won multiple Super Bowls? John Elway, but only after he matured enough not to throw the ball all over the yard and Joe Montana (#10).
Stats are great, but they rarely mean getting the most important of wins.
Give me wins, give me ball control, give me a QB that gets it that turnovers are killers and has to be smart with the ball. This is why Romo drives me insane, he's mini-Favre which means he puts up great numbers but will never be a true winning QB. He already owns a ton of Cowboys records despite Aikman and Staubach playing there, yet those other two without the records have all the rings. Danny White and Romo own many of the individual passing records and zero hardware.
Hmmm.. I know a quarterback who's showing a tendency to play like that...
Anyways, co-sign on everything. I'll never back down on the fact that Favre will be my favorite player ever when all is said and done - both because of his ability and because I watched him at the time in a kid's life where sports stars are larger than life. Within the last five years, I've grown more into a fan of the entire sport and started doing research and learning. What did I learn? For my money, give me Starr as not only the best Packers QB of all time, but as the best QB ever, period, followed closely by Montana.
-
Do you think Favre could have won superbowls if he played on Dallas?
Favre never won at Cowboys stadium so I don't think he would have done well. ;)
Honestly, I think Jimmie Johnson would have made Favre a different QB and it would be interesting to see if Favre could do it. Johnson did not tolerate turnovers at all. Favre would have driven him crazy.
Let's put it the other way, Ron Wolf said on multiple occasions that Aikman could throw for 300 yards a game every game of the season if the Cowboys wanted him to. The thing is, the Cowboys didn't and only relied on Aikman to do that if they were in serious trouble. Would the Packers have won more titles if Aikman was their QB? Would Aikman had made all the silly turnovers that Favre made over the years?
Yes, the Cowboys had some Hall of Famers. So did the 49ers. So did the Steelers under Bradshaw. Etc, etc.
Packers had talent, enough to win in 1997, clearly enough to beat the Falcons, enough to be in OT at Philly, enough to be in OT against the Giants. Apparently they always seem to have just enough talent until that critical Favre turnover and then suddenly, they have no talent. Yeah, the Giants ended up winning it all, but how did they get there? What was the key play that allowed it to happen?
I just never understand the excuses because we all know if the Packers would have won that game, Favre would have received all the credit, but when they lose he seems to get none of the blame. It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen in sports. The love affair is odd, to say the least.
-
Wad's: "those two posts" - I don't know what you're talking about. Is this in reference to screen shots you posted awhile back? No idea, I don't pay much attention to your posts.
PXI: I'm glad you admit you're 'just a college kid with time on my hands'. I realize you think you're doing well, cheering for the Packers, hating Favre, getting a 3.2 in liberal arts classes, drinking a couple brews at the hot party at Renee Row, etc... and you are. You're doing great. Awesome, man. But, to call someone 'a middle-aged Vanilla Ice wanna be' is fine.. but don't include, 'creating 4th grade quality insults' in the same sentence.
With respect to Favre, what I have said, time and time again.. is that he's an improvement compared to what we had several weeks ago. Some CONTINUE, over and over again, to take issue with that. And it's strange at first.. but quickly it's evident the issue is that those taking issue simply have it out for their former hero.
Are any of you little freaks gunna burn your Favre jerseys like so many Packers fans will on Monday? Why not? I'm sure your cute little Erin Rodgers jerseys look better. What is not to love about a 6-10 record, except for the fact that it sucks?
Wad's
1) The answer is readily available. Why do you keep asking me?
2) I don't think there was anything posted under a user name of Jay Bee. You're apparently making things up again. I'll pass on sending you a private message, unless your mom will be using your account tonight.
Wow VaJay Jay, you really struggle to answer some pretty basic questions. There must be something wrong going on mentally with you. I'm sorry to hear that. Since you can't do it, I'll answer the questions for you.
#1. Zero. Basically, they are the definition of "a$$" when it comes to professional sports organizations. They can't even sell out 8 games a year. It must be embarrassing.
#2. Yes it was me.
And no, my mom will not be on here tonight. I remember when jokes about someone's mom were funny. People typically used them around 7th grade. And for you that's a LONG time ago!
Even more unfortunate for you, my teenage brother will not be on here tonight either. I am sorry to inform you of that. I know you're desperate to find those teenage males. You'll have to look elsewhere. Best of luck, brah!
-
Hmmm.. I know a quarterback who's showing a tendency to play like that...
Anyways, co-sign on everything. I'll never back down on the fact that Favre will be my favorite player ever when all is said and done - both because of his ability and because I watched him at the time in a kid's life where sports stars are larger than life. Within the last five years, I've grown more into a fan of the entire sport and started doing research and learning. What did I learn? For my money, give me Starr as not only the best Packers QB of all time, but as the best QB ever, period, followed closely by Montana.
Exactly....his name is TONY #$&(^&#$ ROMO. He's a joke. Lots of pretty stats, lovable, "great guy", etc...but lays a HUGE EGG in big games. Just like his hero. Sure, he'll throw for 300 yards, nice TD's, great escape artist at times and come the playoffs under the bright lights, BONK.
No thanks, give me boring, smart, precision play where the ball is valued and the QB doesn't have to play defender 3 times a game because another stupid interception or fumble.
And yes, Bart Starr was the greatest QB in Packer history. He GOT IT. The greats do.
-
Favre never won at Cowboys stadium so I don't think he would have done well. ;)
Honestly, I think Jimmie Johnson would have made Favre a different QB and it would be interesting to see if Favre could do it. Johnson did not tolerate turnovers at all. Favre would have driven him crazy.
Agree.
Let's put it the other way, Ron Wolf said on multiple occasions that Aikman could throw for 300 yards a game every game of the season if the Cowboys wanted him to. The thing is, the Cowboys didn't and only relied on Aikman to do that if they were in serious trouble. Would the Packers have won more titles if Aikman was their QB? Would Aikman had made all the silly turnovers that Favre made over the years?
Agree, aikman was great because he knew he had great players, and he played smart. How do you feel about Elway?
Yes, the Cowboys had some Hall of Famers. So did the 49ers. So did the Steelers under Bradshaw. Etc, etc.
Packers had talent, enough to win in 1997, clearly enough to beat the Falcons, enough to be in OT at Philly, enough to be in OT against the Giants. Apparently they always seem to have just enough talent until that critical Favre turnover and then suddenly, they have no talent. Yeah, the Giants ended up winning it all, but how did they get there? What was the key play that allowed it to happen?
This is where I guess we will just disagree. I don't see it as "The Packers had enough talent but Brett blew it". I see it as the Packers were a good team, but Brett couldn't make them a great team. I'm not saying he isn't to blame for his stupid mistakes. But, it's not like he sat out the whole season and the rest of the team got him to the championship game, and he threw it away. He was the main reason they were winning. What about the Ray Rhodes season? Brett almost single handedly won 3 games that year. I'm not saying he's perfect, I'm just saying he was AWESOME. He's on the short list of QB's I would want on my team. He's a top 10 qb of all time, and realistically top 5.
I just never understand the excuses because we all know if the Packers would have won that game, Favre would have received all the credit, but when they lose he seems to get none of the blame. It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen in sports. The love affair is odd, to say the least.
Agree. But, I feel like it's flipped now. It doesn't matter what he does, he won't get credit from some of you guys. Listen, I'm not John Madden, and I'm not the one trying to give #4 a hand job on air. I'm a fan who has seen the dude play a lot and do some AMAZING things. Let's not confuse disliking the media hype around Favre (which I do) with thinking he was not a once in a lifetime player (which we can all recognize).
-
Exactly....his name is TONY #$&(^&#$ ROMO. He's a joke. Lots of pretty stats, lovable, "great guy", etc...but lays a HUGE EGG in big games. Just like his hero. Sure, he'll throw for 300 yards, nice TD's, great escape artist at times and come the playoffs under the bright lights, BONK.
No thanks, give me boring, smart, precision play where the ball is valued and the QB doesn't have to play defender 3 times a game because another stupid interception or fumble.
And yes, Bart Starr was the greatest QB in Packer history. He GOT IT. The greats do.
Dude, how old are you?
"3 yards and a cloud of dust! That was back when football was football! We didn't have these wacky plays like the "forward pass".
Seriously, I like smart players too, but let's not get carried away. Steve Young was a smart QB, but also took a lot of chances with his feet. Do you hate him too? What about Elway? Cunningham?
Romo is a good QB and 75% of the NFL teams would him over their current starter in a second.
-
The top 10 QB argument is often an interesting one. I'd be interested to see what people's lists around here look like. It says a lot about what people value as a football fan.
Personally?
1a. Starr
1b. Montana
3. Brady
4. Young
5. Manning
6. Favre
7. Marino
8. Elway
9. Unitas
10. Aikman
HM: Warner, Baugh, Tarkenton, Moon, Kelly
-
The top 10 QB argument is often an interesting one. I'd be interested to see what people's lists around here look like. It says a lot about what people value as a football fan.
Personally?
1a. Starr
1b. Montana
3. Brady
4. Young
5. Manning
6. Favre
7. Marino
8. Elway
9. Unitas
10. Aikman
HM: Warner, Baugh, Tarkenton, Moon, Kelly
Well, I know some people love the older guys, but I'm just not sold on them. I feel like you'd almost have to break up football into "eras" in order to be more accurate.
With that said, if I were starting a franchise tomorrow (in no particular order because I'd need to sit down to think about it some more)
Elway - won a ton of games almost by himself, and then won even more when he got quality help.
Montana - Winner, "clutch"
Favre - Yes, I know about the interceptions, but seriously, the dude has won a TON of games, and I don't think the talent around him was as good as some people like to pretend.
Tarkenton - He always was an ass, but he helped change the position with his ability to scramble and make plays, also tough to evaluate, not enough good footage
Young - Maybe the best of the bunch, but shorter career due to USFL and being traded
Moon - Ton of yards, enormous arm.
Fouts - underrated. He was making big time throws and a ton of yards back when nobody else was
Marino - Maybe the best pure passer. It's too bad he was a statue.
Brady - We've all seen it. It's like he's playing the game in slow motion
Manning - Crazy good at reading defenses and capitalizing
Jim Kelly - I don't think this guy gets enough credit. He was payton manning before payton manning. He was reading defenses and running no huddle.
Bart Starr - winner, but I have a tough time evaluating guys this far back, not enough good footage
Terry Bradshaw - The best actor of the bunch.
aikman - winner, great feel for the game
-
Dude, how old are you?
"3 yards and a cloud of dust! That was back when football was football! We didn't have these wacky plays like the "forward pass".
Seriously, I like smart players too, but let's not get carried away. Steve Young was a smart QB, but also took a lot of chances with his feet. Do you hate him too? What about Elway? Cunningham?
Romo is a good QB and 75% of the NFL teams would him over their current starter in a second.
I'm in my 40's. :)
Like I said, I don't hate Favre. Young....good, but not great in my opinion. Still think he never should have won a Super Bowl....1994 was gifted to him. Cunningham....ugh. Elway, I liked but appreciated much more at the end of his career.
I grew up out here with UCLA football (family friends of Terry Donahue and Dick Vermeil), the Cowboys under Landry (I was a Conejo Cowboy for the organization as a kid), the Rams, etc. I was old school. When Terry told us about Aikman, he said he was the best college QB he had ever seen. That perked me up...he didn't disappoint.
I've always felt you judge QB's by big wins and championships. You build your team around the QB. Yes, I love watching athletic QBs do their thing and Favre was a joy to watch, but having one of those types of players playing for my teams drove me insane. I don't believe in 3 yards and a cloud of dust, but I do believe in ball control offense, smart plays by the QB and keeping your team in the game.
My top 10
1) Montana
2) Starr
3) Unitas
4) Elway
5) Graham (I'm including his days in the AAFC)
6) Brady
7) Bradshaw
8) Aikman
9) Manning (could move up...love the guy and he's also a class act...work with him on a lot of commercial stuff...has a losing playoff record...must improve or he drops out)
10) Roger Staubach (the Navy cost him some key years to his career)
Brett Favre, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Moon, Jurgenson, Dawson,etc...all right there but I just value championships and wins...LEADERSHIP. Taking a team from nothing and leading them to championships. Almost all of the guys on my list were QBs of their team when they were horrible and people thought they sucked as QBs. Over time they got better, more mature, and they led their teams to championships. Stats are great, but give me the hardware every day.
-
Discussing quarterback play across eras is something I've put a bit of work into as a hobby.
It's tough, and there's not really a right or wrong way to go about it.
I always started with a baseline, and that's statistics. if a QB didn't measure up, at least remotely comparably, it kind of took them out of the running. For instance, Daunte Culpepper had one of the better passing seasons in NFL history, but with no consistency, he obviously hasn't established himself with the top tier of QBs in his era.
Now, inflation must be accounted for with passing stats in the same way that money is. Just as $1,000,000 in 1960 doesn't have the same value as $1,000,000 today, passing stats are weighted differently. Take Starr as an example. His 152 career TDs are none too spectacular when compared with the premier passers of the 90's and beyond. It looks even worse when you consider his 138 career INTs. But we also have to look at the structure of passing games back in the 60's. They were very much boom or bust, high risk and high reward. The west coast offense wasn't invented yet, and quick slants, curl routes, screens and dump offs didn't exist to boost completion percentages and dumb down INT numbers. To illustrate this statistically, take a look at the yards/attempt of guys like Starr and Unitas. Starr's 7.8 career Y/A is higher than even the most prolific passers of today.
Once we determine the statistical baseline in comparing how QBs fare against their competition in a given era, we see that Starr was actually one of the premier passers of the 60's, even if his stats don't measure up in contemporary terms.
Once we've broken that down, the process begins of weighing intangible plusses and minuses and determining what sort of value is attributed to each. Obviously, championships carry weight. Great performances in big games. In Starr's case, leading the final drive in the NFL's most iconic game under the worst conditions in league history is certainly something of a plus. In Favre's case, 280-whatever consecutive starts is something that weighs as a big plus. At the same time, the recent playoff meltdowns are minuses in the final tally. And so on and so forth for every QB.
There's an infinite amount of ways to approach this.
Now I promise I'm done boring you with needless football babble that I find fascinating.
Back to the pissing.
The Vikings suck.
-
Soft demand in the secondary ticket market...
http://www.jsonline.com/business/63007317.html
Too much supply...nobody wants to waste their time and money in that joke of a stadium...even if their savior is playing.
-
Romo is a good QB and 75% of the NFL teams would him over their current starter in a second.
Let's test this theory ( I will give my opinion, and feel free to correct me)
Would they take Romo over their current starter. (*to signify if I am on the fence)
Chi-No
GB-No
MIN-Yes
Det- No *
Atl- No
Car- Yes
NO- No
TB- Yes
NYG-No
PHI- Yes*
WAS- Yes
SF- Yes
STL- Yes
SEA-Yes
ARI-Yes
NE- No
NYJ- No*
MIA- Yes
BUF- Yes
PIT- No
BAL- No
CIN - No
CLE- Yes
Ten- Yes
JAX- Yes
HOU- Yes*
Ind- No
DEN- Yes
KC- Yes
OAK- YEs
SD - No
I count 13 teams that would not which means 59% of teams would replace their current QB with Carrie Underwood/Jessica Simpson's ex boyfriend. I was on the fence on 4 teams, and I gave 2 teams yes and 2 no.
-
Soft demand in the secondary ticket market...
http://www.jsonline.com/business/63007317.html
Too much supply...nobody wants to waste their time and money in that joke of a stadium...even if their savior is playing.
Do Packer fans really believe that Viking fans think Brett is their "Savior", and is there where some of this trash talk is coming from?
I assure you, all rational fans see Favre for what he is, an aging QB, but he's still knows the game and has a good arm. Certainly every game is Adrian Peterson's to win or lose. If a team chooses to shut him down, then I'd rather take my chances with Brett against an 8 or 9 man front vs Tavaris against an 8 or 9 man front.
-
Let's test this theory ( I will give my opinion, and feel free to correct me)
Would they take Romo over their current starter. (*to signify if I am on the fence)
Chi-No
GB-No
MIN-Yes
Det- No *
Atl- No
Car- Yes
NO- No
TB- Yes
NYG-No
PHI- Yes*
WAS- Yes
SF- Yes
STL- Yes
SEA-Yes
ARI-Yes
NE- No
NYJ- No*
MIA- Yes
BUF- Yes
PIT- No
BAL- No
CIN - No
CLE- Yes
Ten- Yes
JAX- Yes
HOU- Yes*
Ind- No
DEN- Yes
KC- Yes
OAK- YEs
SD - No
I count 13 teams that would not which means 59% of teams would replace their current QB with Carrie Underwood/Jessica Simpson's ex boyfriend. I was on the fence on 4 teams, and I gave 2 teams yes and 2 no.
That's fair, I guess I should have said 60%.
Also, you're right, a lot of these are close. Philip Rivers is a good player, and has put up some nice numbers, but certainly you could say the same for Romo.
I'm not saying Romo is better (I think Rivers is), but Chico's original point was that Tony Romo was a stat stuffer who would never win the big game. The same could be said for Rivers. He had the road playoff win a couple of years ago, but he hasn't won a superbowl.
-
Do Packer fans really believe that Viking fans think Brett is their "Savior", and is there where some of this trash talk is coming from?
I assure you, all rational fans see Favre for what he is, an aging QB, but he's still knows the game and has a good arm. Certainly every game is Adrian Peterson's to win or lose. If a team chooses to shut him down, then I'd rather take my chances with Brett against an 8 or 9 man front vs Tavaris against an 8 or 9 man front.
Vikings fans definately consider Brett Favre their savior. They are expecting to win the Super Bowl. Anything less is considered a disappointment...and their franchise will look like absolute fools, more than they already do.
Did they have these same expectations before Favre came? No, they did not.
If that isnt a savior, I dont know what is...
-
I'm in my 40's. :)
Like I said, I don't hate Favre. Young....good, but not great in my opinion. Still think he never should have won a Super Bowl....1994 was gifted to him. Cunningham....ugh. Elway, I liked but appreciated much more at the end of his career.
I grew up out here with UCLA football (family friends of Terry Donahue and Dick Vermeil), the Cowboys under Landry (I was a Conejo Cowboy for the organization as a kid), the Rams, etc. I was old school. When Terry told us about Aikman, he said he was the best college QB he had ever seen. That perked me up...he didn't disappoint.
I've always felt you judge QB's by big wins and championships. You build your team around the QB. Yes, I love watching athletic QBs do their thing and Favre was a joy to watch, but having one of those types of players playing for my teams drove me insane. I don't believe in 3 yards and a cloud of dust, but I do believe in ball control offense, smart plays by the QB and keeping your team in the game.
My top 10
1) Montana
2) Starr
3) Unitas
4) Elway
5) Graham (I'm including his days in the AAFC)
6) Brady
7) Manning (could move up...love the guy and he's also a class act...work with him on a lot of commercial stuff)
8) Bradshaw
9) Aikman
10) Roger Staubach (the Navy cost him some key years to his career)
Brett Favre, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Moon, Jurgenson, Dawson,etc...all right there but I just value championships and wins...LEADERSHIP. Taking a team from nothing and leading them to championships. Almost all of the guys on my list were QBs of their team when they were horrible and people thought they sucked as QBs. Over time they got better, more mature, and they led their teams to championships. Stats are great, but give me the hardware every day.
Oh, and just because we were talking about "valuing the football", here is Favre's numbers vs aikman's.
TDs INTs Ratio
Airkman 165 141 1.17 / 1
Favre 469 311 1.5 / 1
Favre's ratio is better. Also, his INT % is 3.3 vs Aikman's 3.0. Not a huge jump like we would expect.
I think Aikman was a great player, no doubt. But, I think people are jumping off of the deep end thinking that Brett threw/throws so many picks that he's not an all time great.
Also, judging a QB on championships is an honest way of looking at it, but I don't think it's really accurate. Way too many players and way too many variables to judge a QB this way.
I don't think there is an exact science to it, but I'd want to look at era, stats, wins, MVPs, talent around the QB, etc.
-
Vikings fans definately consider Brett Favre their savior. They are expecting to win the Super Bowl. Anything less is considered a disappointment...and their franchise will look like absolute fools, more than they already do.
Did they have these same expectations before Favre came? No, they did not.
If that isnt a savior, I dont know what is...
Who are you talking to?
Where are you reading this?
I have a lot of friends who live in the cities, and none of them are talking like this, nor is the general population that they deal with.
Is there a poll or something out there that you've seen?
People are excited to have a competent QB to go with AP. THAT is true. AP is a once in a lifetime player, and with the short shelf life of RB's, the vikes needed to move quickly to find a competent QB.
-
Who are you talking to?
Where are you reading this?
I have a lot of friends who live in the cities, and none of them are talking like this, nor is the general population that they deal with.
Is there a poll or something out there that you've seen?
People are excited to have a competent QB to go with AP. THAT is true. AP is a once in a lifetime player, and with the short shelf life of RB's, the vikes needed to move quickly to find a competent QB.
So you are telling me, that Vikings fans arent expecting a Super Bowl this year?
-
So you are telling me, that Vikings fans arent expecting a Super Bowl this year?
That is correct. Vikings fans (that I know, and the general group I communicate with in MN) are NOT expecting a superbowl this year.
Is there someplace out there where you are hearing about MN fans expecting a superbowl? I'll be the first to tell them to slow down.
Now, if the Vikings go 13-3 and have homefield adv. (not saying they will), then I think they could talk about superbowl.
Talking superbowl for any team in week 4 is premature and will ultimately lead to heavy disappointment for fans of almost any team.
You can be a big fan and still be realistic.
-
Vikings fans definately consider Brett Favre their savior. They are expecting to win the Super Bowl. Anything less is considered a disappointment...and their franchise will look like absolute fools, more than they already do.
Did they have these same expectations before Favre came? No, they did not.
If that isnt a savior, I dont know what is...
Vikings fans do not "definately" do anything - that's not a word. But, you're completely off here. All along 95% of the Vikings faithful have said, "we have a great team and a chance to compete this year. QB is a weak spot. With or without Favre, we will be an excellent team.". Favre comes, "good move - QB upgrade. We addressed our weakest spot... we're still an excellent team and the Consensus pick to win the NFC North"...
That's it. There has been no 'savior' talk - any such nonsense has come from weirdo Packers fans who are burning Favre jerseys one minute and banging elk in their backyard the next.
The ticket sales 'story' says nothing. I'm selling two crappy tickets right now and they will go for well over face value - there are tickets available to EVERY event.
-
Soft demand in the secondary ticket market...
http://www.jsonline.com/business/63007317.html
"Minnesota people are cheap people," Mike Holzberger, who runs Connections Ticket Service in the Milwaukee area said "They are bringing the price down."
Hilarious.
-
I'm not saying Romo is better (I think Rivers is), but Chico's original point was that Tony Romo was a stat stuffer who would never win the big game. The same could be said for Rivers. He had the road playoff win a couple of years ago, but he hasn't won a superbowl.
Rivers has at least won A playoff game. He also won some crucial games at the end of the season to get them to the playoffs. Romo....nothing. Favre jr.
-
Oh, and just because we were talking about "valuing the football", here is Favre's numbers vs aikman's.
TDs INTs Ratio
Airkman 165 141 1.17 / 1
Favre 469 311 1.5 / 1
Favre's ratio is better. Also, his INT % is 3.3 vs Aikman's 3.0. Not a huge jump like we would expect.
I think Aikman was a great player, no doubt. But, I think people are jumping off of the deep end thinking that Brett threw/throws so many picks that he's not an all time great.
Also, judging a QB on championships is an honest way of looking at it, but I don't think it's really accurate. Way too many players and way too many variables to judge a QB this way.
I don't think there is an exact science to it, but I'd want to look at era, stats, wins, MVPs, talent around the QB, etc.
Huh? You're doing it on TD to int ratio.....that doesn't talk about valuing the ball at all. That's not the way you do it. How many turnovers per game did Favre do vs Aikman. Turnovers = LOST points by your team and potential points for the other team.
I don't understand why you used your approach. Favre had many more turnovers (ints and fumbles) per game than Aikman did. That was my point.
-
Vikings fans do not "definately" do anything - that's not a word. But, you're completely off here. All along 95% of the Vikings faithful have said, "we have a great team and a chance to compete this year. QB is a weak spot. With or without Favre, we will be an excellent team.". Favre comes, "good move - QB upgrade. We addressed our weakest spot... we're still an excellent team and the Consensus pick to win the NFC North"...
That's it. There has been no 'savior' talk - any such nonsense has come from weirdo Packers fans who are burning Favre jerseys one minute and banging elk in their backyard the next.
The ticket sales 'story' says nothing. I'm selling two crappy tickets right now and they will go for well over face value - there are tickets available to EVERY event.
Brett Favre was brought to MIN to win a Super Bowl. If he does not, it will be considered a huge failure.
Vikings want that stadium, good luck...
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/businessofsports.html
-
Brett Favre was brought to MIN to win a Super Bowl. If he does not, it will be considered a huge failure.
Vikings want that stadium, good luck...
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/businessofsports.html
I think you posted the wrong link.
There's nothing in here about the Vikings expecting to win the superbowl.
Thanks.
-
Huh? You're doing it on TD to int ratio.....that doesn't talk about valuing the ball at all. That's not the way you do it. How many turnovers per game did Favre do vs Aikman. Turnovers = LOST points by your team and potential points for the other team.
I don't understand why you used your approach. Favre had many more turnovers (ints and fumbles) per game than Aikman did. That was my point.
Their INT % is reasonably close at 3% vs 3.3%. Neil Odonnel has a career INT # of 2.1%. That doesn't make him a great QB. Forgot INT vs TD if you want.
Favre was asked to throw the ball A LOT more. Aikman had one the best running backs ever, one of the best offensive lines ever, and a fantastic wide out. He has less turnovers per game because he has less attempts per game. He wasn't asked to carry the team.
I like INT vs TD because I think it shows risk vs. reward. 20 ints in a season is bad, but if the QB threw for 60 TD's, then it's not so bad. In that scenario, you're asking that QB to do a lot. It's similar to usage % in basketball that Henry Sugar puts out. The more you ask a QB to carry the team, the more likely he is to have increased turnovers.
Again, I'm not saying that Favre didn't throw a lot of INTs, some of them being stupid. I'm just saying that I don't think those INTs prevent him from being one of the greatest ever.
You can rank Aikman ahead of him, it's all just opinion. It just seems like you are talking about him like he was never that good.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?)
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Mall of America Field...LOL!...That is awesome.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
What was I thinking? The Bears have the next Tom Brady, they'll probably win 4 of the next 5.
This is fun.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
Vikings - 23
Packers- 17
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Packers 30
Queens 13
in a laugher....
-
Packers 27, Vikings 21
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;D 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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/
-
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.
-
Did miss something, are there 2 Favre's? Does the devoted Packer fan in you cringe at what you just did?
Haha oops...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Sigh....I picked 60 because of what the average was, very simple. Your numbers are hilarious. A crapty performance is a crapty performance. You make it sound like someone that got a D- is somehow worldly better if they got a D...that's basically what you're saying in your analysis. crapty is crapty. Play crapty, you lose. Play great, you win.
As you've been unable to this day to accept, despite the data, when someone has a really crappy day...60 or under (that's crappy), Favre had more of those than ANY of the great QB's, which is a major reason they lost. Favre also had fewer great games (100 or higher) than any of the great QB's, which is why on a percentage basis he has won at barely a 50% clip.
Want Favre to be considered the best ever or even top 5, he needs to play better in big games. He hasn't...the data is there staring you in the face. I'm sorry you don't want accept it.
-
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.
I wish I could say this was the first time a young person wanted to bang me, but I cannot.
The Gophers game was disappointing. Disturbing, disgusting. But, fun to be forced to bring in a flask and watch football outside in the rain. As of now I'm saying my prayers for the Twins and am hopeful. Monday is a great situation - the Consensus loses, not a big deal, still tied for first place. Win, a fly on the NFC North Wall is 2-2 and a long-haired jag is 8-12. WIN TWINS!!
-
Sigh....I picked 60 because of what the average was, very simple. Your numbers are hilarious. A crapty performance is a crapty performance. You make it sound like someone that got a D- is somehow worldly better if they got a D...that's basically what you're saying in your analysis. crapty is crapty. Play crapty, you lose. Play great, you win.
As you've been unable to this day to accept, despite the data, when someone has a really crappy day...60 or under (that's crappy), Favre had more of those than ANY of the great QB's, which is a major reason they lost. Favre also had fewer great games (100 or higher) than any of the great QB's, which is why on a percentage basis he has won at barely a 50% clip.
Want Favre to be considered the best ever or even top 5, he needs to play better in big games. He hasn't...the data is there staring you in the face. I'm sorry you don't want accept it.
Sigh...it appears you can't comprehend simple data. How does 60 correlate to 80? Was the standard deviation 20? Why do you believe 60 is a better standard than 50 or 70 (you have not answered this question because the fact is you picked 60 arbitrarily)?
I agree Favre has had a some crappy performances in the playoffs. Aikman, statistically, has had more crappy performances in the playoffs. Plain and simple.
I can't believe I've actually wasted my time arguing that Favre is better than Aikman. In nearly everybody's opinion, Favre is the better qb by a mile. Agree to disagree I guess.
-
Sigh...it appears you can't comprehend simple data. How does 60 correlate to 80? Was the standard deviation 20? Why do you believe 60 is a better standard than 50 or 70 (you have not answered this question because the fact is you picked 60 arbitrarily)?
I agree Favre has had a some crappy performances in the playoffs. Aikman, statistically, has had more crappy performances in the playoffs. Plain and simple.
I can't believe I've actually wasted my time arguing that Favre is better than Aikman. In nearly everybody's opinion, Favre is the better qb by a mile. Agree to disagree I guess.
Don't tell that to Ron Wolf. ;D The discussion really wasn't about Aikman vs Favre necessarily, it was basically all Super Bowl winning QBs vs Favre who has led his team to many more playoff losses by % than any of the other great QBs.
I always love the comments like "better than a mile"....talk about statistical integrity. LOL.
I told you why I used 60...because it's considered crappy. Look up the QB efficiency ratings and see what they determine to be Great, good, average, crappy. Great = 100+, good = 90+, average = 78.3, crappy equals 60 or lower.
I hope I've finally gotten through now.....below 60 = CRAPPY. THAT'S WHY I CHOSE IT. SIGH
Favre has had a ton of crappy games by %. He's had fewer great games by % (100 or higher rating). Why is this so difficult to understand?
-
What no one have any beverages today? The scoop is piss free.
Bears put up some points yesterday, but let's hope the injuries were all minor.
Prediction for tonight:
Vikes 28
Pack 14
Peterson 24 carries for 160 yards and 3 tds.
Favre, throws a pick early and is not a factor either way.
-
Well, Favre played great and won his Super Bowl. In the end none of that really matters...The Packers had their butts whipped to a good team on the road. That's what matters...kinf of. I say kind of because the Packers look as if they just may not be very good. Their O-line is a mess, their safties are worse, and they can't get any pressure. We'll see, they should get a bit healthier after they bye, and theoretically get better as we move along, just as I still expect Favre and the Vikings to get worse as we move along. Obviously, the loss should not come as a surprise to anyone. The only positive you can really take as a Packer fan tonight is the excellent job they did on Peterson.
Finally, how on earth does ESPN continue to make their MNF team worse year after year? Gruden makes me miss John Madden, and I am not just saying that. Are there people out there who actually think they are enjoyable to listen to? Just ridiculous.
-
Good game by old #4. Never had the one in the dome marked down as a win, and a few errors on early drives drove us down.
Happy that they didn't pack it in or let it get ugly at the end there.
And that Allen dude looked pretty solid against 2nd and 3rd string left tackles.
Packers just weren't as sharp on the road as the Vikes were at home, and this game ultimately ended up being a dropped TD away from overtime.
On we go.
Bye for the Pack to get healthy. Vikes get Ravens and Steelers, Packers get Lions and Browns, and then the Favre slide begins. Things will even out in due time.
For the time being, however, that's a heck of a football game for that guy.
-
Will someone tell McCarthy to tell the defensive line that they don't have to count to eight bananna before they can rush the QB!
-
Things will even out in due time.
For the time being, however, that's a heck of a football game for that guy.
True. I'm sure Vikings fans are excited, but last year at this point, his QB rating was basically identical to what it is now...including a 289 yd, 6 TD, 124 Passer rating performance against Arizona.
Maybe a bot better than I thought he'd be tonoght, but things going pretty much as expected thus far. As I said, he won his Super Bowl tonight. We'll see what happens the next 13 weeks.
-
True. I'm sure Vikings fans are excited, but last year at this point, his QB rating was basically identical to what it is now...including a 289 yd, 6 TD, 124 Passer rating performance against Arizona.
Maybe a bot better than I thought he'd be tonoght, but things going pretty much as expected thus far. As I said, he won his Super Bowl tonight. We'll see what happens the next 13 weeks.
Favre played well, better than Tjack or Sage has ever played, so I hope everybody sees why the Vikes wanted him instead of their other options.
As far as what happens later in the season, I don't really know. I'll keep checking in here so you guys can let me know when I can get excited.
PS Rodgers is a good QB, GB probably made the right move... but it's just hard to replace a legend.
-
Favre was absolutely fantastic tonight. No two ways about it.
Anyone still think the Packers are a 10 win team? Hard to do it with no safeties and no offensive line.
-
Favre was absolutely fantastic tonight. No two ways about it.
Anyone still think the Packers are a 10 win team? Hard to do it with no safeties and no offensive line.
Truer words never spoken. Luckily, there's a week to get healthy and both Clifton and Bigby should be back by then. If Thompson has half a brain, Tauscher will be in Packers camp by Wednesday.
Consider for a moment... the Packers turned the ball over twice deep in Vikings territory. They dropped a TD pass. They had an interception taken away that perhaps shouldn't have been. And with all that, they lost by 7. At the dome. If anyone still thinks these two teams aren't that close, you're crazy. Protection is an issue right now. If it gets figured out, the Packers WILL win this division.
-
Packers are not good. I think Erin is a good little quarterback, but he's 8-12...c'mon.
I thought Jared would have a great game but oh lawd..
Great time at the dome, thanks GB for making a semi-appearance at times, good luck to ya..
The Consensus was the Consensus for a reason. Namely, we are the best team in the division by a mile and then some. V-I-K-I-N-G-S. SKOL, VIKINGS, LET'S GO!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Truer words never spoken. Luckily, there's a week to get healthy and both Clifton and Bigby should be back by then. If Thompson has half a brain, Tauscher will be in Packers camp by Wednesday.
Consider for a moment... the Packers turned the ball over twice deep in Vikings territory. They dropped a TD pass. They had an interception taken away that perhaps shouldn't have been. And with all that, they lost by 7. At the dome. If anyone still thinks these two teams aren't that close, you're crazy. Protection is an issue right now. If it gets figured out, the Packers WILL win this division.
The interception wouldn't have counted either way. The Packers were offsides on the same play.
-
Packers are not good. I think Erin is a good little quarterback, but he's 8-12...c'mon.
I thought Jared would have a great game but oh lawd..
Great time at the dome, thanks GB for making a semi-appearance at times, good luck to ya..
The Consensus was the Consensus for a reason. Namely, we are the best team in the division by a mile and then some. V-I-K-I-N-G-S. SKOL, VIKINGS, LET'S GO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great analysis as always. You should donate yourself to science for research, because you're a modern marvel in the fact that you're a grown man with the capacity for reason of a three year old. If any of those words are too big for you, ask nicely, and I'll be happy to define them.
Brett has just about matched his performance through 4 weeks last season. Now comes the tough part of the schedule for the Vikes, and the cupcakes roll in for Green Bay after the bye. Will "the consensus" be able to hold their ground in the North before the Favre slide? And where do the Bears fall in all this?
-
The interception wouldn't have counted either way. The Packers were offsides on the same play.
Allegedly. I watched the play again, and no one jumped, and no one appeared to line up in the neutral zone. The referee didn't give a number on the play, so either it was a cornerback who was off the screen at the snap, or it was a blown call. And a heck of a play by Woodson.
-
Brett has just about matched his performance through 4 weeks last season. Now comes the tough part of the schedule for the Vikes, and the cupcakes roll in for Green Bay after the bye. Will "the consensus" be able to hold their ground in the North before the Favre slide? And where do the Bears fall in all this?
Ahh yes,... the tough part.. like when Cincy came to visit Green Bey. Gotcha. Favre is leagues better than our options we were looking at several weeks ago. Bless his soul. So glad to have him on God's squad now, after he's relinquished the demons of drugs and women,... I can understand why as a younger man he went towards that in Green Bey... but, he's with the Consensus now and we are solid, deep, and the hands down best in the division. Mullet Man with 4.5 sacks.. I knew he'd eat your line up, but 4.5? Unreal. SKOL VIKINGS, all up in your eyeball. 4-0 vs. 2-2. Erin Rodgers is not a winner. Love him all you want, but he's not a winner. Favre is. The Minnesota Vikings' Brett Favre is.
-
Ahh yes,... the tough part.. like when Cincy came to visit Green Bey. Gotcha. Favre is leagues better than our options we were looking at several weeks ago. Bless his soul. So glad to have him on God's squad now, after he's relinquished the demons of drugs and women,... I can understand why as a younger man he went towards that in Green Bey... but, he's with the Consensus now and we are solid, deep, and the hands down best in the division. Mullet Man with 4.5 sacks.. I knew he'd eat your line up, but 4.5? Unreal. SKOL VIKINGS, all up in your eyeball. 4-0 vs. 2-2. Erin Rodgers is not a winner. Love him all you want, but he's not a winner. Favre is. The Minnesota Vikings' Brett Favre is.
Those last two sentences are quite poetic. I'm sure you're happy with yourself. But God's squad? Really? The Cowboy fans often said that they put a hole in the roof at Dallas Stadium so "God could watch His team play." By the same token, they put a dome over Minnesota so God wouldn't be forced to watch that trash play.
Mullet Man certainly got his revenge after having his sh*t wrecked last season by Chad Clifton. If he gets the match up with the 3rd string rookie left tackle again in week 8, the results will be pretty much the same. I wouldn't bet on that happening though.
This "solid, deep" team played quite literally a perfect game. Not a penalty called against them. Make of that what you will. Benefitted from a drop in the end zone. And only won by a touchdown at home.
Payback will be a b*tch at Lambeau. And I'll be sure to let you hear about it.
-
Consider for a moment... the Packers turned the ball over twice deep in Vikings territory. They dropped a TD pass. They had an interception taken away that perhaps shouldn't have been.
Remember that there was also a Packer off sides on that play, so it would have been taken back even if there was no PI call on Woodson.
-
Packers are not good. I think Erin is a good little quarterback, but he's 8-12...c'mon.
I thought Jared would have a great game but oh lawd..
Anyone see the FOX pregame show where they showed why Terry Bradshaw likes Twitter?
-
Kudos to the Vikings, they played a flawless game.
But for GB...Where was the pressure? It's hard to get a pass rush when you only bring 3. That was my biggest problem with the game. Even with the OL problems, GB still had chances to get close...but you have to get off the field on 3rd down. Give Favre 7.5 seconds to find an open reciever, and hes going to convert. That just cant happen.
They sat back and rushed 3, instead of bringing the pressure...something that this Defensive scheme needs to do to be succesful.
Moving on...get healthy during the Bye, and get things figured out against DET and CLE...get to 4-2 and get revenge on Nov 1st.
-
Consider for a moment... the Packers turned the ball over twice deep in Vikings territory. They dropped a TD pass. They had an interception taken away that perhaps shouldn't have been. And with all that, they lost by 7. At the dome. If anyone still thinks these two teams aren't that close, you're crazy. Protection is an issue right now. If it gets figured out, the Packers WILL win this division.
Disagree. While the score says they "lost by 7" you do realize it "wasn't that close" right? The Vikings last 3-4 drives were conservative drives to waste time, which so often works poorly and you give the ball up after 3 plays.
Yes, GB scored some points last night, although 7 was on a fluke defensive strip. The biggest positive GB can take away from yesterday was that you contained AP to 55 yards. -- True, your QB racked up a bunch of yards, but a good 100 of them were in the 4th quarter, while MN was playing prevent defense (poorly).
These two teams were not that close. Do I expect a MN win in 3 (?) weeks when we play again? It'll be a much closer game, especially, as you admit, if they get their O-line in order.
-
In the post game show Steve Young and Matt Millen were talking a lot about how Favre's injury last season effected his play.
I know some of you guys think his late season fades had to do with his age, but could his injury be the reason he played poorly the second half of last season?
I'll need to see more to be "convinced", but it does make sense because he looks pretty sharp so far this year after having surgery.
-
In the post game show Steve Young and Matt Millen were talking a lot about how Favre's injury last season effected his play.
I know some of you guys think his late season fades had to do with his age, but could his injury be the reason he played poorly the second half of last season?
I'll need to see more to be "convinced", but it does make sense because he looks pretty sharp so far this year after having surgery.
Well, considering he had enough time to order a pizza and bang my mom before anyone broke through the line...
-
The more I think about this, the better I feel about it as a Packer fan, and the more concerned I would be as a Viking fan. It meant the world to Favre and that is his problem - all about him, and I predict a bit of a letdown for him til Lambeau. Pretty obvious he quit last year too. He played hurt and cost them the playoffs to keep the record going, then quit, and then called them out and got them fined. Then they have to watch that last night…..That tells it all. Wow does he get a hall pass.
I cherish the memories and appreciate his talent, but I really have lost all respect for him as a man. He proved it last night too, by throwing an absolutely stupid pass trying to send a dagger instead of milking the clock. That gave the Packers 2 chances and an extra minute, and you could tell Childress was miffed. That is the moment that kind of stood out for me. Childress may want to give Mike Sherman a call.
-
I know some of you guys think his late season fades had to do with his age, but could his injury be the reason he played poorly the second half of last season?
Its both. You really can't separate them. Injuries are worse for a 40 year old guy than a 30 year old guy, and a 40 year old is more likely to get hurt/wear down from the physical requirements of an NFL season.
You will see the same thing this year. He's a year older, the injury is still there, his off season conditioning wasn't, and his motivation will be gone after the two teams meet again in week 8.
I'll need to see more to be "convinced", but it does make sense because he looks pretty sharp so far this year after having surgery.
He looked equally sharp at this time last year. I don't think anyone should be surprised to this point. If he plays like this in November and December, that's something else. I will be very surprised if that happens.
-
The more I think about this, the better I feel about it as a Packer fan, and the more concerned I would be as a Viking fan....
Sorry, but I think you might be grasping at straws with that statement. Green Bay was never really in the game after halftime, regardless of the score, the O line was destroyed for the 2nd time in three weeks, and Minn really did whatever they wanted on offense.
Did Favre screw the Jet's chances down the stretch last year? Yes.
Will he do it to the Vikes this year? We don't know. All we know is they are 4-0 and 2-0 in the Division.
Go Bears.
-
In the post game show Steve Young and Matt Millen were talking a lot about how Favre's injury last season effected his play.
I know some of you guys think his late season fades had to do with his age, but could his injury be the reason he played poorly the second half of last season?
I'll need to see more to be "convinced", but it does make sense because he looks pretty sharp so far this year after having surgery.
I'm sure that has something to do with it. But that doesn't explain the late season fades in '05, '06, and '07 as well.
-
Sorry, but I think you might be grasping at straws with that statement. Green Bay was never really in the game after halftime, regardless of the score, the O line was destroyed for the 2nd time in three weeks, and Minn really did whatever they wanted on offense.
No doubt they got their butts whipped. I do also look at Clifton and Bigby potentially coming back which I believe will make a huge difference. Enough difference? I don't know. Believe me, I am holding open the possibility that the Packers just aren't very good. However, I equally hold open the possibility that the two teams will both have 2 losses when they meet again on November 1st, and by the end of that game, the Vikings will be looking up at the Packers, and be face to face with the prospect of their 40 year old QB beginning a slow steady decline to the end of the season.
-
The more I think about this, the better I feel about it as a Packer fan, and the more concerned I would be as a Viking fan.
Hahah.. we already know there's nothing that could happen this year that would make some of you admit Brett is a great player and the Vikings are a tremendous team.. perfect record and a Super Bowl and you'd still say stupid crap like this.
There was some 400 pound chick Packer Fan (oxymoron?) behind me that could yell pretty loud.. she lasted about 8 minutes into the game, thankfully. It was almost like the people from this thread were right there with me. I probably would have been more annoyed, but I was about as a drunk as Miguel Cabrera. GO TWINS! VIKES WILL WIN THEIR DIVISION AS THE CONSENSUS PICKED; TWINS WILL WIN AS THE UNDERDOG TODAY, AS USUAL!!!
- a very concerned Jay Bee, after that 'tough' game last night. Hahahahahahahahaahahahaha
-
Favre week 4 against the Cardinals in 2008: 6 touchdown passes
He played a great game, but I just don't see how it lasts.
-
Favre week 4 against the Cardinals in 2008: 6 touchdown passes
He played a great game, but I just don't see how it lasts.
Maybe he doesn't have a tendon hanging on for dear life in the latter part of this season? Imagine that. Crybabies.
-
Hahah.. we already know there's nothing that could happen this year that would make some of you admit Brett is a great player and the Vikings are a tremendous team.. perfect record and a Super Bowl and you'd still say stupid crap like this.
There was some 400 pound chick Packer Fan (oxymoron?) behind me that could yell pretty loud.. she lasted about 8 minutes into the game, thankfully. It was almost like the people from this thread were right there with me. I probably would have been more annoyed, but I was about as a drunk as Miguel Cabrera. GO TWINS! VIKES WILL WIN THEIR DIVISION AS THE CONSENSUS PICKED; TWINS WILL WIN AS THE UNDERDOG TODAY, AS USUAL!!!
- a very concerned Jay Bee, after that 'tough' game last night. Hahahahahahahahaahahahaha
Oxymoron - combining two normally contradictory terms. Failed attempt at an insult.
Moron - (http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/v225/1395/27/n1176561484_4665.jpg). This guy. Successful attempt at an insult.
Meeeowwwww.
-
This guy.
How many pictures of your family are out there? My people are only up to 43. We may need to get 'closer' sooner than later.
-
How many pictures of your family are out there? My people are only up to 43. We may need to get 'closer' sooner than later.
What does that even mean? Anyone?
-
I believe it means that JB's brain doesn't function as it is supposed to.
-
The Favre interception, I was curious about this also. From what I saw at the game, there was no offsides. I didn't have a great angle but I didn't see anyone jump unless they said someone lined up offsides. The PI call looked like a joke, they have to let the secondary play once in awhile
-
The Favre interception, I was curious about this also. From what I saw at the game, there was no offsides. I didn't have a great angle but I didn't see anyone jump unless they said someone lined up offsides. The PI call looked like a joke, they have to let the secondary play once in awhile
As someone who played corner and safety, I find it disgusting how much WR's are allowed to get a way with while the defensive back basically has to keep his hands behind his back.
Woodson got his arm around him, but he beat the WR to the ball. Definitely should have been a no-call.
-
The Favre interception, I was curious about this also. From what I saw at the game, there was no offsides. I didn't have a great angle but I didn't see anyone jump unless they said someone lined up offsides. The PI call looked like a joke, they have to let the secondary play once in awhile
The pass interference call was very cheap, but Poppinga (51) did jump offsides as well. Regardless, that was a heck of a football play by Woodson. May have been a very difference game if that interception ends up standing, but who knows.
-
As someone who played corner and safety, I find it disgusting how much WR's are allowed to get a way with while the defensive back basically has to keep his hands behind his back.
Woodson got his arm around him, but he beat the WR to the ball. Definitely should have been a no-call.
I played WR and corner in high school. I agree, you have to let them play, especially when the ball is at the 3 yard line or whatever it was, it's within 5 yards, it didn't give the defender an unfair advantage from what I could tell.
On the offsides, bad angle but never saw it.
-
Nobody cares what position you played in high school.
-
Nobody cares what position you played in high school.
I do.
-
Nobody cares what position you played in high school.
Was this for me or Lance's Other Nut....since both of us were talking about what positions we played.
Thanks
St. Bonaventure High....#12 in the nation in football last week, #2 in California. ;) Go Seraphs!!
-
Was this for me or Lance's Other Nut....since both of us were talking about what positions we played.
Thanks
St. Bonaventure High....#12 in the nation in football last week, #2 in California. ;) Go Seraphs!!
Both of you.
Nobody cares.
Do you still wear your letter jacket around too?
-
Both of you.
Nobody cares.
Do you still wear your letter jacket around too?
Apparently you do because you're commenting on it, no one else seemed to mind that much that felt the need to comment.
Yes, I wear my letterman's jacket to bed each night and my wife still puts on her cheerleading uniform....it's crazy at the Chico house. How about you?
-
Erin Rodgers is not a winner. Love him all you want, but he's not a winner. Favre is. The Minnesota Vikings' Brett Favre is.
When I see people use overused sports cliches like "Rodgers is not a winner," it leads me to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about. There are three things that make Favre a better quarterback than Rodgers is at this point.
First, he is more talented. As a Packer fan, I realize that Favre is very likely a once-in-my-lifetime talent as a Packer quarterback. Rodgers is very good, but he'll never be Brett Favre. Second, he's a veteran. He's seen it all. Some of the little things he did last night were the result of 17 years in the league. Rodgers will get there once he has more experience. Third, he's got a much better supporting cast...especially offensive line.
It has nothing to do with Favre being "a winner," and Rodgers "not being a winner." That's just local sports radio bullsh*t.
(By the way, I hope you realize that when you intentionally misspell names and insist on redefining words like "consensus," that it will cause most users on this group to question the legitimacy of the non-football opinions you express here.)
-
When I see people use overused sports cliches like "Rodgers is not a winner," it leads me to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about. There are three things that make Favre a better quarterback than Rodgers is at this point.
...that it will cause most users on this group to question the legitimacy of the non-football opinions you express here.)
When I see people talk in hyperbole, such as, "it will cause most users", it leads me to believe that you're dumb. "Rodgers is not a winner" is a fact - Favre had what?...one losing season over 17 years? He's a winner. Rodgers factually is not.
You say that Favre is a better QB and your reasons indicate that you believe this season, right now, Favre is a better QB than Rodgers. It's good to hear a Packers fan say that. I don't think many of your butties on here would agree.
-
When I see people talk in hyperbole, such as, "it will cause most users", it leads me to believe that you're dumb. "Rodgers is not a winner" is a fact - Favre had what?...one losing season over 17 years? He's a winner. Rodgers factually is not.
Well, I am not dumb. So your beliefs are inaccurate.
Favre was on winning teams because he is objectively a better quarterback and had an objectively better supporting cast. Outside of that, there is no subjective quality that makes him more of "a winner" than Rodgers.
-
Favre was on winning teams because he is objectively a better quarterback and had an objectively better supporting cast. Outside of that, there is no subjective quality that makes him more of "a winner" than Rodgers.
There is absolutely a subjective quality that makes Favre more of a winner than Rodgers. You're flat out wrong. Ever hear of Favre's "magic"?
In addition, last season Favre went to a sh1t team that was 4-12 the prior year.. he turned them into a winning team. Meanwhile, Erin Rodgers was on a team that was supposed to compete for the NFC North title and they went 6-10.
-
So you are basing whether or not someone is a winner by their first season as a starter?
-
There is absolutely a subjective quality that makes Favre more of a winner than Rodgers. You're flat out wrong. Ever hear of Favre's "magic"?
In addition, last season Favre went to a sh1t team that was 4-12 the prior year.. he turned them into a winning team. Meanwhile, Erin Rodgers was on a team that was supposed to compete for the NFC North title and they went 6-10.
Favre's "magic" has everything to do with his talents as a quarterback - as does the Jets' record at the beginning of last year. It isn't some sort of endowed quality. When Favre was hurt toward the end of last year, he performed poorly and the Jets started to lose. Did his "magic" get hurt too?
I mean, do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny???
-
Favre's "magic" has everything to do with his talents as a quarterback - as does the Jets' record at the beginning of last year. It isn't some sort of endowed quality. When Favre was hurt toward the end of last year, he performed poorly and the Jets started to lose. Did his "magic" get hurt too?
I mean, do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny???
I believe in intangibles and a 'winning mentality'.
-
I believe in intangibles and a 'winning mentality'.
You've been a Vikings fan all your life. How do you know about either of those things?
Anyways, much has been made about how Packer fans have "turned on Favre" and "pulled a 180." What about everyone across the border? Sure, being a fan of Favre now that he's in purple is one thing, but defending him as a Jet and a Packer? I wonder if everyone was doing that two years ago.
And as far as the Jets season goes, I think you're giving him far too much credit. It's not like Favre's play merely "came back down to earth" and the end of the season and no one could pick up the slack. He literally threw games away in which other members of the team had played well.
-
I believe in intangibles and a 'winning mentality'.
Right...something you can't substantiate. Put up those stockings!!!
-
Right...something you can't substantiate. Put up those stockings!!!
...there is no subjective quality that makes him more of "a winner" than Rodgers.
Tell your mom to put up those stockings. 'Magic'.. 'winning mentality'... 'intangibles'... hmmm, sounds almost... subjective.
-
I cherish the memories and appreciate his talent, but I really have lost all respect for him as a man. He proved it last night too, by throwing an absolutely stupid pass trying to send a dagger instead of milking the clock. That gave the Packers 2 chances and an extra minute, and you could tell Childress was miffed. That is the moment that kind of stood out for me. Childress may want to give Mike Sherman a call.
Saw an explanation today about that play .. Childress called it, not Favre showing off.
http://blogs.twincities.com/Vikings/2009/10/childress-explains-long-pass-l.html
"It was a shot to take a chance," Childress said. "Thinking that they are playing the run and they had no timeouts at that point in time. We could have run it and taken more seconds off the clock and we had a discussion on how to do that. We thought that we would get after that guy and we did in fact complete it, but unfortunately a long foul ball."
-
Saw an explanation today about that play .. Childress called it, not Favre showing off.
http://blogs.twincities.com/Vikings/2009/10/childress-explains-long-pass-l.html
"It was a shot to take a chance," Childress said. "Thinking that they are playing the run and they had no timeouts at that point in time. We could have run it and taken more seconds off the clock and we had a discussion on how to do that. We thought that we would get after that guy and we did in fact complete it, but unfortunately a long foul ball."
Don't let facts get in the way of a fan's b*tching about a former player.
-
Its both. You really can't separate them. Injuries are worse for a 40 year old guy than a 30 year old guy, and a 40 year old is more likely to get hurt/wear down from the physical requirements of an NFL season.
You will see the same thing this year. He's a year older, the injury is still there, his off season conditioning wasn't, and his motivation will be gone after the two teams meet again in week 8.
He looked equally sharp at this time last year. I don't think anyone should be surprised to this point. If he plays like this in November and December, that's something else. I will be very surprised if that happens.
Is there a magic date that you're waiting for?
I'm not saying I'm a "believer", but I'm also not predicting a collapse.
I know he's old, I just think he can still play effectively on this team.
-
Tell your mom to put up those stockings. 'Magic'.. 'winning mentality'... 'intangibles'... hmmm, sounds almost... subjective.
Right...and they are for the intellectually lazy. Who's point are you trying to argue here?
-
Both of you.
Nobody cares.
Do you still wear your letter jacket around too?
I mean, yeah, God forbid I can add perspective to my thoughts...
EDIT: And no one at my school wore letter jackets and you obviously cared enough to make some snide comment on it.
-
I mean, yeah, God forbid I can add perspective to my thoughts...
EDIT: And no one at my school wore letter jackets and you obviously cared enough to make some snide comment on it.
You being a stud CB/WR in high school, does not give any more credibility to your analysis.
-
You being a stud CB/WR in high school, does not give any more credibility to your analysis.
Harboring some jealousy from your pine-riding days?
EDIT: And I said as someone who's played the positions I think that WR's get away with too much, never claimed to be Deion Sanders...who pissed in your coffee?
If I wanted to play the role of the dumb jock (as you obviously have already pegged me) I would say something like "you never would have crossed the middle on me"
-
Harboring some jealousy from your pine-riding days?
EDIT: And I said as someone who's played the positions I think that WR's get away with too much, never claimed to be Deion Sanders...who pissed in your coffee?
If I wanted to play the role of the dumb jock (as you obviously have already pegged me) I would say something like "you never would have crossed the middle on me"
I didnt peg you as a dumb jock.
I just am pointing out that, your (and Chicos) analysis of the play doesnt become any more credible because you played the position 20 years ago in high school. It doesnt make you any more knowledgeable
Hence..."nobody cares..."
-
I didnt peg you as a dumb jock.
I just am pointing out that, your (and Chicos) analysis of the play doesnt become any more credible because you played the position 20 years ago in high school. It doesnt make you any more knowledgeable
Hence..."nobody cares..."
Well the position has obviously changed over the years, but I graduated HS in 2002.
But I get what you're saying, I just thought that my comment wouldn't get a "this guy is reliving his HS days" roll of the eyes, it wasn't my intention, like I said, just trying to add some perspective...Although I can't say I don't miss my playing days.
-
I didnt peg you as a dumb jock.
I just am pointing out that, your (and Chicos) analysis of the play doesnt become any more credible because you played the position 20 years ago in high school. It doesnt make you any more knowledgeable
Hence..."nobody cares..."
Maybe, but then again someone that has been on that island and played the position probably has more perspective than those that haven't. Not always, but generally speaking. Playing corner is a nightmare as it is, but they've made it more and more difficult with the rules for wide receivers.
I loved it on offense, but when we switched to defense and dropped back to corner, I hated it.
-
Maybe, but then again someone that has been on that island and played the position probably has more perspective than those that haven't. Not always, but generally speaking. Playing corner is a nightmare as it is, but they've made it more and more difficult with the rules for wide receivers.
I loved it on offense, but when we switched to defense and dropped back to corner, I hated it.
+1
-
Well, I took 2 days off from this forum trying to keep my blood pressure at healthy levels. Upon returning, I must say, I'm a little surprised at the relative lack of piss in this match.
My thoughts on the game (having seen only the 2nd half...school obligations)
-The Vikings are a good team. No question about it. Of course, everyone knew that going in.
-Favre played a flawless game. No question about that, either. Of course, given 7.5 seconds, I probably could have found that guy over the middle, too.
-The Packers need to get the O-line fixed. Now. Tauscher will help. A healthy Clifton will help, too. All that said, Rodgers MUST get rid of the ball more quickly, or McCarthy has to get him/the pocket moving.
-The lack of pressure on Favre was troubling, but I don't think blitzing is the answer. On plays where the Packers blitzed, Favre didn't miss. I realize he's not the "prototype" for a 3-4 end, but Aaron Kampman was made to rush the passer (he's top 5 in sacks in the NFL over the past 3 years...behind Jared Allen, who would look awfully good in Green).
-A healthy Bigby resets the defensive backfield, allowing Collins to play centerfield, as he has so well the last couple of years.
-The Packers absolutely made the right choice at QB.
-I still love Brett Favre, except for 3 hours on Oct. 5, and another 3-4 hours on Nov. 1.
-The Packers and Vikings are not that far apart. The Packers have some things to figure out. If they do, they'll be in the mix (along with the Vikings and Bears) for the division.
Well done, Minny. See you next month.
-
Some good emails from packer fans to sports guy in his last email bag. Liked the one by a packer fan who had never experienced the announcers gushing over everything he does as an opposing fan. Funny stuff.
The packers don't have the Oline they need to win anything. They'll be scary once they can get that fixed. (next year?)
-
Some good emails from packer fans to sports guy in his last email bag. Liked the one by a packer fan who had never experienced the announcers gushing over everything he does as an opposing fan. Funny stuff.
The packers don't have the Oline they need to win anything. They'll be scary once they can get that fixed. (next year?)
One can only hope. However, Clifton, Colledge, Spitz, Sitton, Tauscher will look a heck of a lot better than what was out there in the 3rd and 4th quarter versus Minnesota, and COULD be good enough to make some noise. Ted didn't do us many favors when concerning O line depth though.
-
The packers don't have the Oline they need to win anything. They'll be scary once they can get that fixed. (next year?)
The Packers are scary right now. Eeeek... ugly, ugly.
-
The Packers are scary right now. Eeeek... ugly, ugly.
Your intelligence knows no bounds. I will be interesting to see how the Vikings do with the real part of their schedule. Quarter one looks good with wins over the hapless Browns and Lions, the Gore-less 49ers (by a hair) and Green Bay and their third string line, by a TD at home.
It's better to be lucky than good, but it's best of all to be both.
At this point, who believes the matchup at Lambeau will match up the 4-2 Packers and the 5-2 Vikings?
-
At this point, who believes the matchup at Lambeau will match up the 4-2 Packers and the 5-2 Vikings?
This belief would be limited to retards and gimps.
-
At this point, who believes the matchup at Lambeau will match up the 4-2 Packers and the 5-2 Vikings?
1. (and it's not me)
-
This belief would be limited to retards and gimps.
Are you implying that it is out of the question?
-
At this point, who believes the matchup at Lambeau will match up the 4-2 Packers and the 5-2 Vikings?
I'll take some action on that if you are interested.
-
I'll take some action on that if you are interested.
Allow me to do a bit of research to make sure Polamalu will be back, and I will actually get back to you on this.
-
1. (and it's not me)
Now... I can understand being of the opinion that it might not happen, but I really don't understand why people are so adamant that this isn't a likely scenario. The Packers have some things to iron out during the bye, but I'd be remiss if I thought the Lions or Browns would give them any trouble.
And I'll go on record saying that the Ravens are a better team than the Vikings. And as long as Polamalu is in the lineup, the Steelers are too. Their D has been treading water without him back there. Once Labeau has his #1 weapon back, things will get back to normal in Pittsburgh.
Unless Jay Bee can somehow convince me that Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu are as clueless in the defensive backfield as Derrick Martin is, or that the Vikings defensive backfield isn't something of a sieve, I don't feel confident in picking the Vikings over EITHER of those teams given their stout run defenses (#1, and #9). But don't let facts get in the way of a rabid Vikings fan base.
EDIT: And just to prove I'm not really a fan of making things up (listening, Jay Bee?) the Vikings are currently ranked 17th in Defensive Passer Rating (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/2_999_Def._Passer_Rating.html), despite having faced Brady Quinn (ouch...), Stafford in his second career start, Shaun Hill (juggernaut) and Aaron "Erin" Rodgers. A few bounces have tipped the scale in their favor during this successful first quarter, and good for them. Things are probably electric in Winter Park right now. But part of the Vikes' success is via smoke and mirrors right now.
That being said, 2002mualum, I'd be in for $20 on that bet, provided that Polamalu plays. I'll take no more action on it though, since I'm down on working hours due to a battle with swine flu right now.
-
That being said, 2002mualum, I'd be in for $20 on that bet, provided that Polamalu plays. I'll take no more action on it though, since I'm down on working hours due to a battle with swine flu right now.
Swine flu for you was inevitable. Your only chance was with pigs, glad you 'got some'. I like your little 'provided the long haired jag plays'. Ridiculous. Minnesota runs thangs - you know this.
"oh hi guys I can't put my money where my mouth is because I'm not working 5 hours, just 0, because I have swine flu. Those 5 hours X $15 have just gotten me to the brink. I may have to call Kat (that's what everyone calls my mom) and ask for a bigger allowance. K thx!"
Minnesota's schedule gets ROUGH for a minute.. then things calm down. If we're at 6-3 or so, I'm not stressed in the slighest. I feel a 11-5 or 10-6 wins this division (although I certainly hope the CONSENSUS does better). Maybe Erin can improve this year (i.e. 7-9)
-
Swine flu for you was inevitable. Your only chance was with pigs, glad you 'got some'. I like your little 'provided the long haired jag plays'. Ridiculous. Minnesota runs thangs - you know this.
"oh hi guys I can't put my money where my mouth is because I'm not working 5 hours, just 0, because I have swine flu. Those 5 hours X $15 have just gotten me to the brink. I may have to call Kat (that's what everyone calls my mom) and ask for a bigger allowance. K thx!"
Minnesota's schedule gets ROUGH for a minute.. then things calm down. If we're at 6-3 or so, I'm not stressed in the slighest. I feel a 11-5 or 10-6 wins this division (although I certainly hope the CONSENSUS does better). Maybe Erin can improve this year (i.e. 7-9)
Hmmm... 9:49 on a Saturday night? I'm in because I have swine flu. What's your excuse, Jag? Oh wait, 30 years old, single, in your parents' basement, watching porn and playing five knuckle shuffle with your cat.
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/v225/1395/27/n1176561484_4665.jpg)
Better click over from the MUScoop tab. I'm sure your video is done loading.
Go Rams.
-
Hmmm... 9:49 on a Saturday night? I'm in because I have swine flu. What's your excuse, Jag?
Hahah, people in their mid-30s need excuses for typing something on a Saturday night? 'being in' is an assumption, but your comments indicate you believe it's "cool" for people to be away from MUscoop.com on a SATURDAY, SATURDAY, SATURDAY night. You're an effin doofus, that's why you're in. At your age, I was doing things you can't imagine in your wildest dreams - ask your moms, she knows some of it.
Alas, my excuse is because I'm a grown man about to go to bed. Tomorrow I will go out for brunch, work for a bit, check MUscoop (probably will be scolded for being on here on a Sunday afternoon by a geekwad), then head down to the Dome to see my Twins play some more postseason baseball.
Good luck with that flu, pansy.
-
Hahah, people in their mid-30s need excuses for typing something on a Saturday night? 'being in' is an assumption, but your comments indicate you believe it's "cool" for people to be away from MUscoop.com on a SATURDAY, SATURDAY, SATURDAY night. You're an effin doofus, that's why you're in. At your age, I was doing things you can't imagine in your wildest dreams - ask your moms, she knows some of it.
Alas, my excuse is because I'm a grown man about to go to bed. Tomorrow I will go out for brunch, work for a bit, check MUscoop (probably will be scolded for being on here on a Sunday afternoon by a geekwad), then head down to the Dome to see my Twins play some more postseason baseball.
Good luck with that flu, pansy.
With all due respect to Bentsen, I know grown men, and you sir are no grown man. You are, however, one of the most entertaining little trolls I've ever come across on a forum. It's almost unprecedented.
First, you cheer for the Twins and the Vikings, two teams I've been raised to despise.
Second, you harbor unnaturally outlandish opinions about both of them and wouldn't recognize evidence and justification if it kicked you square in the nutsack.
Third, you come on here not to generate quality football discussion as an adult should (and most do, including your Vikings fan comrades in 2002mualum and mu_hiltopper who are ashamed daily by your presence as a member of their fan base) but to lob lame, sophomoric insults at two kids almost fifteen years your junior.
Fourth, you FASHION yourself smart, credible, and witty but display the IQ of boulder with frightening regularity.
Fifth, my God, everything on that Minnesota hip-hop site is funny as hell.
And lastly, you just keep coming back for more. I guess you get an A for effort. There's certainly no quit in you.
Congratulations, your past time is being the b*tch of a college-aged student on an internet message board.
Keep spitting that "wicked shizz" you do. About my mom or whatever. Hope you get this before you're all tucked in.
-
Now... I can understand being of the opinion that it might not happen, but I really don't understand why people are so adamant that this isn't a likely scenario. The Packers have some things to iron out during the bye, but I'd be remiss if I thought the Lions or Browns would give them any trouble.
And I'll go on record saying that the Ravens are a better team than the Vikings. And as long as Polamalu is in the lineup, the Steelers are too. Their D has been treading water without him back there. Once Labeau has his #1 weapon back, things will get back to normal in Pittsburgh.
Unless Jay Bee can somehow convince me that Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu are as clueless in the defensive backfield as Derrick Martin is, or that the Vikings defensive backfield isn't something of a sieve, I don't feel confident in picking the Vikings over EITHER of those teams given their stout run defenses (#1, and #9). But don't let facts get in the way of a rabid Vikings fan base.
EDIT: And just to prove I'm not really a fan of making things up (listening, Jay Bee?) the Vikings are currently ranked 17th in Defensive Passer Rating (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/2_999_Def._Passer_Rating.html), despite having faced Brady Quinn (ouch...), Stafford in his second career start, Shaun Hill (juggernaut) and Aaron "Erin" Rodgers. A few bounces have tipped the scale in their favor during this successful first quarter, and good for them. Things are probably electric in Winter Park right now. But part of the Vikes' success is via smoke and mirrors right now.
That being said, 2002mualum, I'd be in for $20 on that bet, provided that Polamalu plays. I'll take no more action on it though, since I'm down on working hours due to a battle with swine flu right now.
Gambling is illegal at Bushwood, but I'll put $20 on it, regardless of Troy P. plays.
Also, just so you know, that Ravens team that you are so confident in, won 2 of their 3 games against the Browns and Kansas City.
I know you think MN is a weak 4-0, but by that same rationale, the Ravens are a weak 3-1.
Good luck. I take paypal.
-
First, you cheer for the Twins and the Vikings, two teams I've been raised to despise.
Ahh yes, and here we have the essence. You're a young twerp upset that your hero loves his teams. Don't worry, buddy, I will scold your mother appropriately for your upbringing.
You speak of, "two kids almost fifteen years your junior" as though it's my fault that you're on this thread. If you have an age issue, #1 display your age on your profile, which you currently do not, or #2 shut the eff up. You well know there are people that post on this site (and run this site) that are considerably older than you... do you think your posts should be tagged as 'idiotic young kid retard speak'? (it's not a bad suggestion).
"They just don't make 'em like they used to" makes more sense to me these days. You dislike my teams, because they absolutely own yours... I understand being salty... (but not quite in the same way you and your 'buds' do)... but understand you should do 100 Hail Mary's and 5,000 Our Father's, daily, due to the simple fact you're able to communicate with me.
"hey dudes... yeah man, I'm totally 'in' tonight yo. swine flu! yeah, crazy, first saturday night i've been in since prom yo! rock on guyz! "
-
Gambling is illegal at Bushwood, but I'll put $20 on it, regardless of Troy P. plays.
Also, just so you know, that Ravens team that you are so confident in, won 2 of their 3 games against the Browns and Kansas City.
I know you think MN is a weak 4-0, but by that same rationale, the Ravens are a weak 3-1.
Good luck. I take paypal.
Game is indeed on. Good luck to you sir.
-
Ahh yes, and here we have the essence. You're a young twerp upset that your hero loves his teams. Don't worry, buddy, I will scold your mother appropriately for your upbringing.
You speak of, "two kids almost fifteen years your junior" as though it's my fault that you're on this thread. If you have an age issue, #1 display your age on your profile, which you currently do not, or #2 shut the eff up. You well know there are people that post on this site (and run this site) that are considerably older than you... do you think your posts should be tagged as 'idiotic young kid retard speak'? (it's not a bad suggestion).
"They just don't make 'em like they used to" makes more sense to me these days. You dislike my teams, because they absolutely own yours... I understand being salty... (but not quite in the same way you and your 'buds' do)... but understand you should do 100 Hail Mary's and 5,000 Our Father's, daily, due to the simple fact you're able to communicate with me.
"hey dudes... yeah man, I'm totally 'in' tonight yo. swine flu! yeah, crazy, first saturday night i've been in since prom yo! rock on guyz! "
Sure, most of the people on this site are older than I am. And almost all of them behave like it. One continually does his best impression of Billy Madison, though.
#1 I'll display what I want, when I want to display it. #2 I'll talk when I want, about what I want to talk about, and you'll enjoy it, old man.
I've been pretty fortunate in my life... eleven playoff appearances, seven division championships, four NFC championship games, two Super Bowl appearances, one Super Bowl victory in 20 years. But if you feel justified in saying that your team "absolutely owns" that, I'd love to see some evidence to prove this theory. Maybe you'd recognize it if it kicked you square in the nutsack. Or maybe not.
And here you are running your mouth about my mother again. That's sweet.
(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3044/screenshot20091010at114.png)
Damn, here I was thinking that you had conjured up those insults about my mom, and allowances and all that all by yourself, just for me. I'm almost offended. Or maybe you just recycle the same sh*t everywhere you go.
But the more I think about it, the more sense it makes that you are my hero, I mean...
(http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3044/screenshot20091010at114.png)
Gosh, your rap style is groovy. And you definitely DO slurp something tutti frutti.
(http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3044/screenshot20091010at114.png)
If God has any mercy, Chantz... if God has any mercy...
-
Gambling is illegal at Bushwood, but I'll put $20 on it, regardless of Troy P. plays.
Also, just so you know, that Ravens team that you are so confident in, won 2 of their 3 games against the Browns and Kansas City.
I know you think MN is a weak 4-0, but by that same rationale, the Ravens are a weak 3-1.
Good luck. I take paypal.
By the way, fair point about the Ravens' schedule. Still, I feel like the Vikings are probably marginally better on offense, but the Ravens are a far more complete defense. The interesting thing to me in both the Ravens and Steelers games will be to see if either of those teams will finally put consistent pressure on Favre and how he will respond.
-
Ahh yes, and here we have the essence. You're a young twerp upset that your hero loves his teams. Don't worry, buddy, I will scold your mother appropriately for your upbringing.
You speak of, "two kids almost fifteen years your junior" as though it's my fault that you're on this thread. If you have an age issue, #1 display your age on your profile, which you currently do not, or #2 shut the eff up. You well know there are people that post on this site (and run this site) that are considerably older than you... do you think your posts should be tagged as 'idiotic young kid retard speak'? (it's not a bad suggestion).
"They just don't make 'em like they used to" makes more sense to me these days. You dislike my teams, because they absolutely own yours... I understand being salty... (but not quite in the same way you and your 'buds' do)... but understand you should do 100 Hail Mary's and 5,000 Our Father's, daily, due to the simple fact you're able to communicate with me.
"hey dudes... yeah man, I'm totally 'in' tonight yo. swine flu! yeah, crazy, first saturday night i've been in since prom yo! rock on guyz! "
Eh, no that is not the essence. That is actually the least important part of the entire post. The essence is that you aren't clever, no one believes that you had friends in college or now and your use of retards, idiots, and your mom jokes doesn't impress us.
-
Eh, no that is not the essence. That is actually the least important part of the entire post. The essence is that you aren't clever, no one believes that you had friends in college or now and your use of retards, idiots, and your mom jokes doesn't impress us.
Co-sign, Rawdog.
Should be some good games today. I'm a little miffed that we get DET-PIT for the early game on CBS. Cincy-Baltimore should be good. Atlanta-San Fran should be good as well. And New England-Dever in possible inclement weather should be a fun one to watch. Given that I'm not allowed to leave this house, I guess I'll have to sit inside all day watching football in HD and surround sound while following my fantasy teams. Tough life to live, having the flu.
-
Ahh yes, and here we have the essence. You're a young twerp upset that your hero loves his teams. Don't worry, buddy, I will scold your mother appropriately for your upbringing.
You speak of, "two kids almost fifteen years your junior" as though it's my fault that you're on this thread. If you have an age issue, #1 display your age on your profile, which you currently do not, or #2 shut the eff up. You well know there are people that post on this site (and run this site) that are considerably older than you... do you think your posts should be tagged as 'idiotic young kid retard speak'? (it's not a bad suggestion).
"They just don't make 'em like they used to" makes more sense to me these days. You dislike my teams, because they absolutely own yours... I understand being salty... (but not quite in the same way you and your 'buds' do)... but understand you should do 100 Hail Mary's and 5,000 Our Father's, daily, due to the simple fact you're able to communicate with me.
"hey dudes... yeah man, I'm totally 'in' tonight yo. swine flu! yeah, crazy, first saturday night i've been in since prom yo! rock on guyz! "
If MU Scoop "Jay Bee" is really an act....than this is a good act that's getting a little old.
If "Jay Bee" is an accurate reflection of the real life J. Bauer....seek help. I don't think you realize how moronic you sound.
-
Allright everyone.. chill out.. consider this thread locked as it is already way too long and way past off topic. Feel free to create new more specific threads if you wish but please be amicable and on topic in them.