RE:The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 5:33:59 AM)

[quote="David Moufang"][quote="John Childress"]The Packers are good. This is Favre's last gasp but he can still do it on occassion.[/quote] What are you talking about? Last gasp? WTF?[/quote] Um, this season Do you really expect him to play this well next year?



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 6:49:53 PM)

[quote="John Childress"][quote="David Moufang"][quote="John Childress"]The Packers are good. This is Favre's last gasp but he can still do it on occassion.[/quote] What are you talking about? Last gasp? WTF?[/quote] Um, this season Do you really expect him to play this well next year?[/quote] Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? He's been in the NFL since 1992. Why, after 16 seasons, would his performance suddenly take a hit? If this team ends up in the playoffs, which they very well could, he'll be back next year. No question. He may be back anyway. And I expect his performance to be roughly equal, depending on the skill of his teammates. He's pretty much playing as well as he ever has.



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 7:10:01 PM)

[quote="David Moufang"][quote="John Childress"][quote="David Moufang"][quote="John Childress"]The Packers are good. This is Favre's last gasp but he can still do it on occassion.[/quote] What are you talking about? Last gasp? WTF?[/quote] Um, this season Do you really expect him to play this well next year?[/quote] Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? He's been in the NFL since 1992. Why, after 16 seasons, would his performance suddenly take a hit? If this team ends up in the playoffs, which they very well could, he'll be back next year. No question. He may be back anyway. And I expect his performance to be roughly equal, depending on the skill of his teammates. He's pretty much playing as well as he ever has.[/quote]Not true This year he has a QB rating of 93 The last 2 years it was 71 Clearly he is playing much better this year http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=112 At 39 I would expect he won't match this year



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 7:18:21 PM)

[quote="John Childress"][quote="David Moufang"][quote="John Childress"][quote="David Moufang"][quote="John Childress"]The Packers are good. This is Favre's last gasp but he can still do it on occassion.[/quote] What are you talking about? Last gasp? WTF?[/quote] Um, this season Do you really expect him to play this well next year?[/quote] Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? He's been in the NFL since 1992. Why, after 16 seasons, would his performance suddenly take a hit? If this team ends up in the playoffs, which they very well could, he'll be back next year. No question. He may be back anyway. And I expect his performance to be roughly equal, depending on the skill of his teammates. He's pretty much playing as well as he ever has.[/quote] Not true This year he has a QB rating of 93 The last 2 years it was 71 Clearly he is playing much better this year http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=112 At 39 I would expect he won't match this year[/quote] As well as he ever has implies better than his worst year. It implies nearly as good as his best year. Is there big difference between 38 and 39? At 38, he plays great, but look out! Here comes 39! He's 1% older than last year! He's gonna suck! Where do you get this stuff?



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 7:23:01 PM)

"Why, after 16 seasons, would his performance suddenly take a hit?" Those are YOUR words. His last 2 years before this one were at a 71 QB rating level so don't try and act like all 16 years have been like 2007 when they were not. Yes, he will not be as good next year. You can't escape age.



Trekgeekscott -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 7:28:12 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]"Why, after 16 seasons, would his performance suddenly take a hit?" Those are YOUR words. His last 2 years before this one were at a 71 QB rating level so don't try and act like all 16 years have been like 2007 when they were not. Yes, he will not be as good next year. You can't escape age.[/quote] But...but...but...He's playing like he is 24 again...John Madden says so...and so does Joe Buck...and Chris Berman. He must be able to reproduce this season next year. Age means nothing when you are talking about Brett Favre. He is the greatest ever... * disclaimer - please note sarcasm.



Guest -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 7:38:34 PM)

why you guys even bother with homers like moufang is beyond me....



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 7:41:08 PM)

Favre's QBRating for this year is 93.3, eight points higher than his career QBR of 85.3, and his highest since 2001. I don't think the QBR stat means all that much, but it says something that he's so far ahead of his "average." He managed a 100.1 yesterday despite the two INTs. He is on pace to throw for more than 4800 yards, which would break Lynn Dickey's team record of 4458 set in 1983. That's one of the few Packers QB records not held by Favre. He's passing for 300.8 yds/gm, also a personal high, and he leads the NFL in this category. Tom Brady has 298.4. His 2007 completion percentage is 66.6, the best of his career, and way ahead of his overall 61.3.



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 7:45:48 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]"Why, after 16 seasons, would his performance suddenly take a hit?" Those are YOUR words. His last 2 years before this one were at a 71 QB rating level so don't try and act like all 16 years have been like 2007 when they were not. Yes, he will not be as good next year. You can't escape age.[/quote] Yeah, he had a 71 the previous two years and now he's got 93. By your logic, this year should be worse than last. But it isn't. It's way higher. The biggest determining factor for next year will be how well the team is playing, not Favre's age. Age hasn't affected his performance as much as you'd like to think. Furthermore, until someone starts calling for Vinny T to retire, I suggest we move on.



Trekgeekscott -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 7:56:49 PM)

[quote="David Moufang"]Favre's QBRating for this year is 93.3, eight points higher than his career QBR of 85.3, and his highest since 2001. I don't think the QBR stat means all that much, but it says something that he's so far ahead of his "average." He managed a 100.1 yesterday despite the two INTs. He is on pace to throw for more than 4800 yards, which would break Lynn Dickey's team record of 4458 set in 1983. That's one of the few Packers QB records not held by Favre. He's passing for 300.8 yds/gm, also a personal high, and he leads the NFL in this category. Tom Brady has 298.4. His 2007 completion percentage is 66.6, the best of his career, and way ahead of his overall 61.3.[/quote] He's having good year THIS year. That does not necessarily mean he will do well next year. Cunningham won the MVP in 98 and was benched halfway through 99. taking Favre's age into account, history tells us that he will regress. Good for him having a good year. Now let's look at the yardage thing. If the pack had any running game, he wouldn't have that yardage. They have to throw the ball a lot to win. Now if he really wants to shock people, he will retire after this season. ESPN, Joe Buck and John Madden are all breating a little easier now that Brett is playing so well, knowing that since he is having so much fun, that he will definately come back next year.



Trekgeekscott -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 7:57:56 PM)

[quote="David Moufang"][quote="John Childress"]"Why, after 16 seasons, would his performance suddenly take a hit?" Those are YOUR words. His last 2 years before this one were at a 71 QB rating level so don't try and act like all 16 years have been like 2007 when they were not. Yes, he will not be as good next year. You can't escape age.[/quote] Yeah, he had a 71 the previous two years and now he's got 93. By your logic, this year should be worse than last. But it isn't. It's way higher. The biggest determining factor for next year will be how well the team is playing, not Favre's age. Age hasn't affected his performance as much as you'd like to think. Furthermore, until someone starts calling for Vinny T to retire, I suggest we move on.[/quote] I call for Vinny T to retire. Can we keep going after Favre now?



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 8:07:19 PM)

[quote="Trekgeekscott"]He's having good year THIS year. That does not necessarily mean he will do well next year. Correct, but I never said it would mean that. All I'm saying is that you can't assume next year will be worse simply because of Favre's age. It could be worse, but it could also be better. No one expected him to have the season he's having. His age does not appear to be a factor.
quote:

Cunningham won the MVP in 98 and was benched halfway through 99.
And where is Cunningham now? You can't compare the two.
quote:

taking Favre's age into account, history tells us that he will regress.
His age tells us nothing. He has proved that again and again.
quote:

Now let's look at the yardage thing. If the pack had any running game, he wouldn't have that yardage. They have to throw the ball a lot to win.
I knew someone would say this. But guess what: you still have to be able to throw the ball to the right place at the right time and have someone catch it. Lack of a running game does not automatically fulfill these requirements.
quote:

Now if he really wants to shock people, he will retire after this season. ESPN, Joe Buck and John Madden are all breating a little easier now that Brett is playing so well, knowing that since he is having so much fun, that he will definately come back next year.
Much to the chagrin of Vikings fans, I would be very surprised if he retires.



Trekgeekscott -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 8:37:58 PM)

[quote="David Moufang"] And where is Cunningham now? You can't compare the two. sure I can, I just did... Two aging QBs, up in years, have good seasons. One of them plummeted back to earth the next year. Why can't I make that comparison?
quote:

I knew someone would say this. But guess what: you still have to be able to throw the ball to the right place at the right time and have someone catch it. Lack of a running game does not automatically fulfill these requirements.
Simply put, I was pointing out that his increased yardage totals are as much of an effect of having to throw the ball more, due to a lack of running game. Yes, he is doing well this year. but there is no way he has this yardage if they have a running game.
quote:

Much to the chagrin of Vikings fans, I would be very surprised if he retires.
So would I, That's why I said if he really wanted to shock people...



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/5/2007 9:35:04 PM)

For the record, I'm not sure why anyone would be so reticent to admit that a game here or there is won by luck. Every single team has experienced that, and we certainly are able to see it clearly in other teams. I can admit it when it happens to my own team. Two specific games come to mind. A couple of seasons ago we beat Detroit when, in the last seconds of the game, they missed a field goal. Who doesn't remember going "Phew - I'll take THAT break"? I also distinctly remember feeling lucky when Carolina's coach Fox chose to fake a punt near the end of the game. When we tackled them for a loss, it pretty much spelled the end of the game for them. It's not like it's a big shameful thing to admit when your team pulls a couple of games out of a big, fat, bag of luck. Think about how many times you look at OTHER teams and see when they get a lucky break. Trust me, it happens to your team too. Also, btw, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a homer. If you can't be a homer for your own team, what's the point?



Duane Sampson -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 2:29:27 AM)

Credit the coach By Dylan B. Tomlinson dylan1226@gmail.com Posted Nov 4, 2007 McCarthy proves to be best of head coaches hired after 2005 season After the 2005 season, 10 teams hired new head coaches. The Minnesota Vikings hired Brad Childress. The New Orleans Saints hired Sean Payton. The Kansas City Chiefs traded for Herm Edwards and the New York Jets hired Eric Mangini to replace him. The Rams tabbed Scott Linehan, the Houston Texans hired Gary Kubiak, Rod Marinelli headed to Detroit, Art Shell wound up in Oakland and the Buffalo Bills hired Dick Jauron. And the Green Bay Packers hired Mike McCarthy. The hire wasn't a popular one in Green Bay where most fans and players thought Ted Thompson would hire Jim Bates, who became a local favorite during his one season as the Packers' general manager. Heck, McCarthy's resume wasn't anything that impressive. The San Francisco 49ers had one of the worst offenses in the NFL during McCarthy's one season as their coordinator. McCarthy had done some good things with the Saints as their offensive coordinator, but he was hardly considered one of the NFL's hotshot assistants, a tag that had been placed on Childress, Payton, Kubiak, Linehan and Mangini. Less than two seasons later, McCarthy has clearly been the best hire of the bunch. Payton was honored as the NFL's coach of the year last season, an award that McCarthy should start clearing space for on his mantle this season. Shell has already been fired. Linehan will be lucky to last this entire season. It will surprise no one if Childress is gone after this season. In 1 ½ seasons, McCarthy has a 15-9 record and has the Packers off to a stunning 7-1 start this season. He's also done it with very little help, as several of the draft picks Thompson has given him have been disappointments. Other than signing Charles Woodson and Ryan Pickett before the 2006 season, they've done virtually nothing in free agency. Without a doubt the best move Thompson has made as GM has been to hire McCarthy. The Packers are 7-1 despite having virtually no running game, a first-round pick who is usually seen on game day in street clothes, and an offensive line that seems to get worse every week. Brett Favre has been great and McCarthy likely deserves the credit for that as well. During the 2005 season, Mike Sherman's last as head coach, Favre looked washed-up as he threw 29 interceptions, the most in the NFL since 1988. McCarthy has clearly gotten the attention of his future Hall of Fame quarterback because Favre has become a different player over the last 1 ½ seasons. Right now, nobody would be surprised if Favre plays another 2-3 seasons and that's something nobody would have said after the 2005 season. The Packers have won more than their share of tough games this season. To say they're "lucky" to be 7-1 is ludicrous. While the Packers have won ugly a few times this season, they're a lot closer to being 8-0 than they are to having a second loss. Some of the players deserve some credit for that record. Greg Jennings has had a spectacular season. Aaron Kampman is having a better season than he did a year ago when he made the Pro Bowl. Favre is having his best season since the late 1990s when he was stacking up the MVP trophies. But the bulk of the credit for being able to win with this bunch goes to McCarthy, who clearly has this team believing it can win every time it steps on the football field.



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 4:38:56 AM)

Just for the record - that isn't a journalist's article. It's a personal blog. I'm just going to take a guess and say that the writer of the blog is a Packer fan. He puts McCarthy ahead of Peyton who, by the guy's own admission, won Coach of the Year last year. Ummmm - that does not compute.



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 4:48:12 AM)

Sean Payton Rod Marinelli Mike McCarthy Herm Edwards Gary Kubiak Brad Childress Eric Mangini Dick Jauron Scott Linehan Art Shell The spaces indicate gaps in performance. I do think Jauron and BC have a chance to move up some with strong finishes.



Duane Sampson -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 2:57:28 PM)

Sometimes blogs say more than journalists, just like some very good opinions on this site. ;)



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 3:23:54 PM)

The blog might SAY more, but it's still just the opinion of someone with no credentials (just like any of us). I just wanted to make sure that people reading it didn't get the impression it was written by anyone with journalism props.



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 4:26:24 PM)

I would say the top people on this site know more about their respective teams than 90% of the known writers. Craig is about as good as it gets on the Packers. But we will find out for sure just how good the packers are this week. no articles needed



Guest -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 5:27:10 PM)

And we'll really find out about Favre if they make the playoffs. If memory serves, he's got about a 2 to 1 interception to touchdown ratio over the last five postseason games. In fact, as the weather turns, I expect them to fall quite a bit.



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 5:34:34 PM)

Looking at the last 5 years, Favre has thrown 44 INTs in the first 8 games and 58 in the last 8 games of the season. His last 5 playoff games - 7 TDs, 13 INTs, 1 win, 4 losses



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 7:15:09 PM)

[quote="Lynn G."]The blog might SAY more, but it's still just the opinion of someone with no credentials (just like any of us). I just wanted to make sure that people reading it didn't get the impression it was written by anyone with journalism props.[/quote] Lynn - he used to write for a GB newspaper and has written for the USA Today. He currently is a writer for Scout.com, on the Packers beat, who provides info for Fox Sports. To say he's just a blogger with no journalistic props is fallacious. As far as best coaches since 2005, I'd agree with JC that there are clearly 3 at the top since then. Given the season so far, I'd agree that MM is leading the Coach of the Year discussion. If the G-Men keep up their winning ways Tom Coughlin has to be up there as well.



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 7:18:17 PM)

Okay - I'll take your word that he used to write for legitimate outlets. But that particular article was his own blog, and he writes with a bias. If Payton continues to bring his team back the way he has, he could also be considered for Coach of the Year for the second year in a row.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 8:58:16 PM)

Given he's a Packers writer and has been for quite a few years, I'll certainly concede that he's biased. If you're not a fan of the team you're writing for, it doesn't make much sense to write about them. I don't think he's off at all about the COY discussion on MM, and whether he's the best new coach since 2005, Dylan's certainly entitled to his opinion. I still think it's Peyton as he has the hardware. The whole champ until proven differently theory applies here. Scout.com is a very legit site. They have great highschool, college and pro writers from all over. It does have a "blog" feel to it, but they aren't going to hire slugs off the street to write there. The article was not on a personal blog, but on the Scout.com Packer page, same one that Harry Sydney (who I disagree with often enough) writes on for the Packers. You can certainly disagree with Dylan on his take and claim he's biased and you would likely be right on both counts. But I feel you are in the wrong by dismissing the site as a "blog" and irrelevant.



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode