RE: RE:NFL News (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message

David Levine -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 12:49:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pete C

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

WFAN 66 NY

They had Phil Simms on and he was discussing it with Mike Francesca.  On their last offensive possession before the fumble Favre missed two open receivers.  As he headed off the field the coach came up to him and before coach could get on him Favre said that.

This is how Mike reported it.

*****************************
I heard it replayed on Mike and Mike this morning.  Favre questioning his own arm strength.  At least he still has Mary as a fan.


Where is Slipy when I need him? [:'(]

We had a pretty good argument going over Favre's arm earlier this year.



marty -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 4:00:50 AM)

..... Again, they added FIVE other ProBOWLERS this year!  And you want us to discount that?  FIVE!

1-12 with Pennington?  Seriously?

ABSOLUTELY, 1-12 with Pennington.   Pennington probably would have played like he did last year, when he didn't make plays.  The Jets' 2ndary sucks, and they were NOT stopping Lynch at all in the last game.  What good did those FIVE ProBowlers do them the last 3 games ? 

QB is the MOST important position on the field.  Did the Packers LOSE FIVE Pro Bowlers ?  No, just ONE, Brett Favre.  And they went from 13-3, to 5-9, possibly 5-11. 

The Packers wouldn't have needed a deep ball in the last game.  Favre could have dinked and dunked his way, and it wouldn't have taken much to beat Jacksonville.  The Vikes beat Jacksonville quite easily with Frerotte at QB. 

I do NOT think the Packers would right now be 14-0 with Favre, but I think 8-6 or 9-5 is quite realistic.  8-6 is still 3 more losses than last year, with the possibility of still dropping the last 2.  I don't think the Packers' 2ndary is as bad as the Jets, and I don't think with Favre you would have gotten the team implosion that you now have with the Pack.  This Pack team could EASILY lose to the Lions.  With Favre, I think 9 or 10 wins would have been very possible.  They would now just have to beat the Lions for win 9, or for win 10 if they were 9-5 right now and lost to the Bears next week. 

Maybe Favre just wants a built-in excuse for now losing the division, he can now say doesn't have the arm strength anymore, when in reality it could be a few other factors ?  Like his poor play in the next few games, or the poor play of his defense. 

Maybe RC didn't have all that much arm strength left in '98 at the end ?  We really didn't see bombs the last few games of the season, didn't see them against Arizona or Atlanta in the playoffs, and he seemed off target with deep throws against Atlanta in the late stages of that game.  Kurt Warner didn't complete deep passes in the playoffs when the Rams won thier last SB, and the only pass over 30 yards he completed in the SB was an UNDERTHROW to Isaac Bruce.       






Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 8:00:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty



QB is the MOST important position on the field.  Did the Packers LOSE FIVE Pro Bowlers ?  No, just ONE, Brett Favre.  And they went from 13-3, to 5-9, possibly 5-11. 





There are a lot of reasons why a team can go from 13-3 to 5-11.  and QB isn't necessarily one of them.  Aaron Rodgers hasn't been the problem in Green Bay.  He has outperformed what I expected him to do.  He has looked mature and poised for the most part. 

The problem is the Running game and the Defense are not performing like they did last season.  The QB has no control over the poor defense.  They can't stop the run and their corners are getting old.  The running game has a lot more to do with poor blocking and poor RBs than it does with the QB.  We've been through this before.   Aaron Rodgers has not been the problem in Green Bay. 

Plus a lot can change with the ball bouncing your way like it did for the Pack last year.  Karma evens things out...the ball ISN'T bouncing their way this year.  Calls they got last year, they aren't getting this year.  Fortune is not favoring the Packers this year. 

Rodgers is not the problem in Green Bay.  Losing Favre has had an effect...but I think you are overestimating that effect. 



marty -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 8:20:01 AM)

I do NOT think I'm overestimating the effect. 

I think it is NOT unrealistic to say a team that was 13-3 and one play away from the SB could with the basically the same team, the same QB (i.e. WITH Favre), would probably win from 8-11 games, THAT is what I was saying in the last post. 

8-8 or 9-7 is FAR from unrealistic, 10-6 or 11-5 COULD be a stretch but you never know.  5-11 is probably just as much a stretch as 11-5, and the Packers could well end up 5-11 this year, they will be 7-9 at best.  I do NOT think the Packers would have went 5-11 with Favre this year.   

Aaron Rodgers has NOT given the Packers early leads like Favre did last year, and he has NOT been clutch in the final 5 minutes.  THAT is the biggest difference between this year and last.  Rodgers HAS played well in the 2nd, 3rd quarters, along with the 1st 10 minutes of the 4th quarter, piled up some nice stats, but has NOT been clutch.  The Packer games usually end with a sack or INT by Rodgers, or the defense giving up big plays, usually BOTH.     



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 8:42:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

I do NOT think I'm overestimating the effect. 

I think it is NOT unrealistic to say a team that was 13-3 and one play away from the SB could with the basically the same team, the same QB (i.e. WITH Favre), would probably win from 8-11 games, THAT is what I was saying in the last post. 

8-8 or 9-7 is FAR from unrealistic, 10-6 or 11-5 COULD be a stretch but you never know.  5-11 is probably just as much a stretch as 11-5, and the Packers could well end up 5-11 this year, they will be 7-9 at best.  I do NOT think the Packers would have went 5-11 with Favre this year.   

Aaron Rodgers has NOT given the Packers early leads like Favre did last year, and he has NOT been clutch in the final 5 minutes.  THAT is the biggest difference between this year and last.  Rodgers HAS played well in the 2nd, 3rd quarters, along with the 1st 10 minutes of the 4th quarter, piled up some nice stats, but has NOT been clutch.  The Packer games usually end with a sack or INT by Rodgers, or the defense giving up big plays, usually BOTH.     


And their defense hasn't gone to crap?

That is the biggest reason they are losing as much as they are...they can't stop the run and their dynamic duo of corners is getting old,  they can't cover like they did earlier in this season. The Green Bay defense is the prime reason that the Packers are sucking wind.  The lack of a running game is hardly the QBs fault.   I am not saying Rodgers is the second coming or anything..but he hasn't been the main effect of the team falling back to earth. 

You are making it sound like the single biggest reason that the Packers have regressed this much is the loss of Favre.  It's not.  I am not saying it didn't have an effect...but you are overestimating that effect IMHO.

And the "same players" argument is foolish.  Some players age.  Younger players regress...coaches on opposing teams figure out McCarthy's normal tendencies and take them away. 



djskillz -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 8:54:54 AM)

Yep.  Plus, the Packers shouldn't have won 13 games last year.  They should have won more like 8. 

LUCK plays a HUGE factor. 

Seriously Marty, go make out with him or something.  This is getting ridiculous.



Lynn G. -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 9:44:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Yep.  Plus, the Packers shouldn't have won 13 games last year.  They should have won more like 8. 



I totally agree.   Someone else made the point earlier (maybe it was you Dustin) that they had one of those seasons where they got every bounce, every call, every flukey dink off the uprights ...

The Bears had a season like that about five years ago too, and then came back to reality the next season.  



Duane Sampson -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 9:47:37 AM)

Who gives a shit as long as the hillbilly cheese chucker never wears purple.



djskillz -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 9:51:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Yep.  Plus, the Packers shouldn't have won 13 games last year.  They should have won more like 8. 



I totally agree.   Someone else made the point earlier (maybe it was you Dustin) that they had one of those seasons where they got every bounce, every call, every flukey dink off the uprights ...

The Bears had a season like that about five years ago too, and then came back to reality the next season.  


Yep.  I railed on it all last year.

Again, I don't know why people choose not to acknowledge luck in sports.  It happens. 



Easy E -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:00:03 AM)

The Packers suck without Favre, the Jets are a lot better with him, and I have no problem with that.

I hate the Packers and have no issues with the Jets. If people want to love up Aaron Rogers, they can go right ahead, but I don't think he's ever taking a team to the Super Bowl no matter how lucky they get.



djskillz -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:01:35 AM)

But I don't think Favre would have either.

They made the right call IMO.



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:04:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

But I don't think Favre would have either.

They made the right call IMO.


It really was time for them to move into a new era.  Time to go with a youth movement...and in the end, the Favre drama netted them some draft picks...  They knew this time was coming and they couldn't afford to keep Rodgers on the bench anymore or he would have left for another team.  I agree they made the right decision.



Easy E -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:10:50 AM)

Look at you guys praising up the Packers.

I think they screwed over an icon in their history, and if the Vikes did the same thing, I'd be furious as a fan. I think they suck ass as a team right now, and no one can convince me that part of that is the players on that team, especially the vets, seeing them screw Favre over.

Since it's the Packers, I love that they did it, it's awesome.



djskillz -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:14:04 AM)

Eh, agree to disagree.

I think Favre played the part of a 5-year old.  He knew for the last few years that they drafted Rodgers for a reason.  You don't screw over your future (Rodgers) for one last year of being mediocre (Favre).  Legend or not.

Guess I'm just not sentimental that way.

If it was Fran Tarkenton and the Vikes and they had the exact same scenario, I'd side with the Vikes too. 



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:16:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Easy E

Look at you guys praising up the Packers.

I think they screwed over an icon in their history, and if the Vikes did the same thing, I'd be furious as a fan. I think they suck ass as a team right now, and no one can convince me that part of that is the players on that team, especially the vets, seeing them screw Favre over.

Since it's the Packers, I love that they did it, it's awesome.


Who's praising them up?

I was outlining why I thought they sucked this year...and actually agreeing with their decision to let his holiness go.



Easy E -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:19:08 AM)

When Franchises screw players, it comes back to haunt them. I firmly believe that. When Reggie White wanted to come out of retirement and play again, the Packers (who were run by smart people then) asked him where he wanted to go, gave him his release and blessing. When Joe and San Fran had their falling out, it got hot, but eventually they asked him where he wanted to go and traded him.

When Favre did the same thing, the Packers got bitter and vindictive, tried to force him to quit football altogether, and when that didn't work, laughed up their sleeve trying to send him to the worst team in football.

That shit will haunt them for a long time, and the players on the Packers, who are exactly the same, if not better from last year, are reflecting that. IMO of course.



djskillz -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:20:03 AM)

See, that's where we disagree.  I don't think they screwed Favre at all.  I think Favre TRIED to screw them.  And they didn't give in.



Easy E -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:20:30 AM)

Hey, I agree, any decision that leads to 5 wins and your club looking pathetic is the "right" on, from a Viking perspective.



Easy E -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:21:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

See, that's where we disagree.  I don't think they screwed Favre at all.  I think Favre TRIED to screw them.  And they didn't give in.


Favre tried to screw them by playing football?

99% of teams release a player when they don't want him anymore. I am actually glad that the players in this league got to see that the Packers aren't one of them. I think it will "help" them with FA a lot.



djskillz -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:24:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Easy E

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

See, that's where we disagree.  I don't think they screwed Favre at all.  I think Favre TRIED to screw them.  And they didn't give in.


Favre tried to screw them by playing football?

99% of teams release a player when they don't want him anymore. I am actually glad that the players in this league got to see that the Packers aren't one of them. I think it will "help" them with FA a lot.


He was supposed to retire.  His back and forth was trying to screw them.  IMO.

As for the 5 wins thing, we will vehemently disagree on Favre's role in that.  I think with Favre the Packers are no better than they currently are.  MAYBE 1-2 games more.  MAYBE.  But that wouldn't really mean anything in the long run.



Easy E -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:33:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

He was supposed to retire.  His back and forth was trying to screw them.  IMO.


Other than he's Favre, and you hate him, why was he "supposed" to retire?

Hundreds if not thousands of other athletes, from Reggie White to Roger Clemens, have done almost the exact same thing. Leave it to the Ted Thompson led Packers to take it personally and think he's just trying to screw with them. That's almost so paranoid an idea that it's laughable. It's much more likely he had the exact same though as virtually every athelete that has ever unretired.

The Packers actually have great talent. They have a better line than us, they have one of the best young receivers in the game, and a good receiving corps overall, and a solid overall defense. There is 'some' reason they are sucking this year, when they should be good. I think it very likely that the veterans on the team took notice of how that played out. Just my opinion of course.



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:34:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Easy E

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

See, that's where we disagree.  I don't think they screwed Favre at all.  I think Favre TRIED to screw them.  And they didn't give in.


Favre tried to screw them by playing football?

99% of teams release a player when they don't want him anymore. I am actually glad that the players in this league got to see that the Packers aren't one of them. I think it will "help" them with FA a lot.


He was supposed to retire.  His back and forth was trying to screw them.  IMO.

As for the 5 wins thing, we will vehemently disagree on Favre's role in that.  I think with Favre the Packers are no better than they currently are.  MAYBE 1-2 games more.  MAYBE.  But that wouldn't really mean anything in the long run.


People forget that the few years before last year's 13-3 they were a very average team, largely because Favre sucked, it was clear he was aging.  They can't seem to see that last year was the aberration...not the norm. 

Let's review the whole mess with Favre shall we...
After the Superbowl he announces he's retiring...
the Packers, thinking their boy retired, invest 2 draft picks on QBs in case Rodgers doesn't work out.
Packers start minicamps and OTAs and Brett starts hinting that he wants to come back.  Packers continue to practice as if Rodgers is their guy.
Favre then announces that he is Un-retiring and wants to play...Packers, having drafted QBs and prepared for life without Brett say they don't want him back.
Favre then wants a trade TO A BITTER DIVISION RIVAL!!!  HELLO?  So now the Packers are supposed to just grant him his wish?  Please.

The Packers did plenty wrong too.  but Favre was more to blame for the mess that occurred. 

Dustin is right.  The Packers would have sucked with or without Favre



Easy E -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:42:09 AM)

The Pack won fewer than 8 games one time in Favre's time there. There is an abberation in play here, most definitely. I am glad he's not there, especially with how weak this division has been. I think they made the "right" decision for the Vikes, for sure.



djskillz -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 10:49:49 AM)

We just won't agree on this E.

And yes, I hate Favre, but I hate the Packers too.  There's no bias here. 

I think the Packers made the right call.  And using Clemens as an example will get you nowhere with me.  I think Clemens is a pompous ass that should have been put out to pasture as well.



Lynn G. -> RE: RE:NFL News (12/16/2008 11:05:17 AM)

My thinking is that both sides are to blame.   Favre waffled for at least three years before finally deciding to retire, and, as Scott pointed out, the Packers invested two draft picks on QB after that.   So Favre wasn't just a one-time-retirement-wanting-to-come-back situation.

But the Packers handled it badly too by whining to the press about the situation and accusing the Vikings of interfering in the talks.

I lean more toward Favre being to blame, but I think both sides were idiots.

And I love the take that players in the league are most likely going to side with Favre and look badly at the Packer organization.   It might be hard to get the free agents they want (although Ted Thompson seems determined to build only from the draft anyway).  

I also have wondered if owners of the other 31 teams have an issue with Thompson for bringing the tampering charges.   That can't have set well with anyone, and those owners have long memories.



Page: <<   < prev  121 122 [123] 124 125   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode