OFFICIAL BRETT THE LIVING LEGEND THREAD

[retailguy]

ya; sure

It has everything to do with your hate; anybody who pays attention to the forum IMO would agree with me.

No it doesn't. I am probably the only one on this forum who actually likes Childress and that is based off of his time at Wisconsin and the two Rose Bowl wins he was an instrumental part in. I can be objective enough to see that Favre at this point would be bad for the Vikings unless you can guarantee a SB. But you can't do that.

CPK, I call BS. There is NOTHING about your point that is objective, it's the same old Favre hate. Favre can still play. Bad decisions and all. He's always had them, always will. Are there better options for the Vikings? Maybe.

It isn't about that. If Favre goes to the Vikings, it'll be about two things for the Vikings. Ticket and merchandise sales, and a relatively inexpensive Super Bowl shot.

For Favre, it's about one thing. Poking Thompson in the eye.

Saying Favre can't play any longer is short sighted. Is he the Favre of old? Of course not. But, behind a good line, with good receivers and a threat like AP? He could play. If he accepts the fact that his arm is tiring, and he goes back to short passes, he could play quite well. If not, well it'll be unpredictable.

Just stop responding to the Favre posts. Trust me, we ALL know where you stand. You're entitled to your opinion, but for me, it's as old as Paco's (and the very same thing in reverse).

[Bretsky]

The Vikings would be smart to bring Favre in if he was cut. He needs to be in a dome or hot weather. It's a venue he could do very well at. Sorry cpk; I know your hate disallows you to do anything but rip on Favre in here but he was hurt last year and is suppose to get better w/o the surgery.

This has nothing to do with my Favre hate. This has to do with common sense. It is way to risky for the Vikings to do. They have questions as to how many games the Williams's will play. ANd you wnat them to bring in a 40 year old QB? Being in a dome or hot weather is not the answer becuase it does not explain the SF game. Childress has enough problems that he can't seem to control. Favre just makes things worse. There are better options at QB out there that will give them more than one year. It's no different that the Rodgers vs. Favre debate.

EDIT: And to blame Favre's dipping play at the end of the season to an injury reeks of excuse making BS. His decision making was horrible the last month of the season and that hasn't changed over the last 5 years.

ya; sure

It has everything to do with your hate; anybody who pays attention to the forum IMO would agree with me.

No it doesn't. I am probably the only one on this forum who actually likes Childress and that is based off of his time at Wisconsin and the two Rose Bowl wins he was an instrumental part in. I can be objective enough to see that Favre at this point would be bad for the Vikings unless you can guarantee a SB. But you can't do that.

[Bretsky]

ya; sure

It has everything to do with your hate; anybody who pays attention to the forum IMO would agree with me.

No it doesn't. I am probably the only one on this forum who actually likes Childress and that is based off of his time at Wisconsin and the two Rose Bowl wins he was an instrumental part in. I can be objective enough to see that Favre at this point would be bad for the Vikings unless you can guarantee a SB. But you can't do that.

CPK, I call BS. There is NOTHING about your point that is objective, it's the same old Favre hate. Favre can still play. Bad decisions and all. He's always had them, always will. Are there better options for the Vikings? Maybe.

It isn't about that. If Favre goes to the Vikings, it'll be about two things for the Vikings. Ticket and merchandise sales, and a relatively inexpensive Super Bowl shot.

For Favre, it's about one thing. Poking Thompson in the eye.

Saying Favre can't play any longer is short sighted. Is he the Favre of old? Of course not. But, behind a good line, with good receivers and a threat like AP? He could play. If he accepts the fact that his arm is tiring, and he goes back to short passes, he could play quite well. If not, well it'll be unpredictable.

Just stop responding to the Favre posts. Trust me, we ALL know where you stand. You're entitled to your opinion, but for me, it's as old as Paco's (and the very same thing in reverse).

[cpk1994]

ya; sure

It has everything to do with your hate; anybody who pays attention to the forum IMO would agree with me.

No it doesn't. I am probably the only one on this forum who actually likes Childress and that is based off of his time at Wisconsin and the two Rose Bowl wins he was an instrumental part in. I can be objective enough to see that Favre at this point would be bad for the Vikings unless you can guarantee a SB. But you can't do that.

CPK, I call BS. There is NOTHING about your point that is objective, it's the same old Favre hate. Favre can still play. Bad decisions and all. He's always had them, always will. Are there better options for the Vikings? Maybe.

It isn't about that. If Favre goes to the Vikings, it'll be about two things for the Vikings. Ticket and merchandise sales, and a relatively inexpensive Super Bowl shot.

For Favre, it's about one thing. Poking Thompson in the eye.

Saying Favre can't play any longer is short sighted. Is he the Favre of old? Of course not. But, behind a good line, with good receivers and a threat like AP? He could play. If he accepts the fact that his arm is tiring, and he goes back to short passes, he could play quite well. If not, well it'll be unpredictable.

Just stop responding to the Favre posts. Trust me, we ALL know where you stand. You're entitled to your opinion, but for me, it's as old as Paco's (and the very same thing in reverse).

I never said Favre couldn't play. Show me where I said Favre couldn't play anymore. All I am saying is, and Brett has said this himself, going for one year is risky unless you can guarantee a SB. This is too much of a risk for the Vikings to take. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion of Favre. This is trying to take a look from Childress' possible perspective. Even Ras sees my point.

[cpk1994]

The Vikings would be smart to bring Favre in if he was cut. He needs to be in a dome or hot weather. It's a venue he could do very well at. Sorry cpk; I know your hate disallows you to do anything but rip on Favre in here but he was hurt last year and is suppose to get better w/o the surgery.

This has nothing to do with my Favre hate. This has to do with common sense. It is way to risky for the Vikings to do. They have questions as to how many games the Williams's will play. ANd you wnat them to bring in a 40 year old QB? Being in a dome or hot weather is not the answer becuase it does not explain the SF game. Childress has enough problems that he can't seem to control. Favre just makes things worse. There are better options at QB out there that will give them more than one year. It's no different that the Rodgers vs. Favre debate.

EDIT: And to blame Favre's dipping play at the end of the season to an injury reeks of excuse making BS. His decision making was horrible the last month of the season and that hasn't changed over the last 5 years.

It may very well have been the injury. You don't have any inside knowledge I'm guessing.


That having been said, I tend to agree with your point, although neither of us know for sure.

Exactly right. But you can't write off his bad performance SOLEY to his injury when hhis decision making was very dubious at best.

[GrnBay007]

Let the hate go dude!!!!

[cpk1994]

Let the hate go dude!!!!

No hate here, but thanks anyway.

[Pugger]

This is what drives me crazy. A person says Brett played crappy and his decisions were lousy in December and he is labelled a hater. When Brett played for us I was a big fan. I have no ill will towards him (unless he goes to the queens - then he'll be just like Shortwell and Sharper) but I don't think he's the same QB now as he was 10 years ago.

[Zool]

This is what drives me crazy. A person says Brett played crappy and his decisions were lousy in December and he is labelled a hater. When Brett played for us I was a big fan. I have no ill will towards him (unless he goes to the queens - then he'll be just like Shortwell and Sharper) but I don't think he's the same QB now as he was 10 years ago.

Yup, its best to just stay out of it.

[GrnBay007]

This is what drives me crazy. A person says Brett played crappy and his decisions were lousy in December and he is labelled a hater. When Brett played for us I was a big fan. I have no ill will towards him (unless he goes to the queens - then he'll be just like Shortwell and Sharper) but I don't think he's the same QB now as he was 10 years ago.

I was not referring to "people" that questioned his play and decision making in December. My reply was directed at cpk, who has not hidden or attempted to hide his dislike of Brett Favre....it's well documented.

[GBRulz]

This is what drives me crazy. A person says Brett played crappy and his decisions were lousy in December and he is labelled a hater.

FYI, cpk is the person people are referring to as a hater, not anyone who says Favre played crappy in Dec. Hell, I said he played crappy in Dec.

What drives me crazy is people that don't have a clue.

[GBRulz]

ya; sure

It has everything to do with your hate; anybody who pays attention to the forum IMO would agree with me.

No it doesn't. I am probably the only one on this forum who actually likes Childress and that is based off of his time at Wisconsin and the two Rose Bowl wins he was an instrumental part in. I can be objective enough to see that Favre at this point would be bad for the Vikings unless you can guarantee a SB. But you can't do that.

CPK, I call BS. There is NOTHING about your point that is objective, it's the same old Favre hate. Favre can still play. Bad decisions and all. He's always had them, always will. Are there better options for the Vikings? Maybe.

It isn't about that. If Favre goes to the Vikings, it'll be about two things for the Vikings. Ticket and merchandise sales, and a relatively inexpensive Super Bowl shot.

For Favre, it's about one thing. Poking Thompson in the eye.

Saying Favre can't play any longer is short sighted. Is he the Favre of old? Of course not. But, behind a good line, with good receivers and a threat like AP? He could play. If he accepts the fact that his arm is tiring, and he goes back to short passes, he could play quite well. If not, well it'll be unpredictable.

Just stop responding to the Favre posts. Trust me, we ALL know where you stand. You're entitled to your opinion, but for me, it's as old as Paco's (and the very same thing in reverse).

[Fritz]

ya; sure

It has everything to do with your hate; anybody who pays attention to the forum IMO would agree with me.

No it doesn't. I am probably the only one on this forum who actually likes Childress and that is based off of his time at Wisconsin and the two Rose Bowl wins he was an instrumental part in. I can be objective enough to see that Favre at this point would be bad for the Vikings unless you can guarantee a SB. But you can't do that.

CPK, I call BS. There is NOTHING about your point that is objective, it's the same old Favre hate. Favre can still play. Bad decisions and all. He's always had them, always will. Are there better options for the Vikings? Maybe.

It isn't about that. If Favre goes to the Vikings, it'll be about two things for the Vikings. Ticket and merchandise sales, and a relatively inexpensive Super Bowl shot.

For Favre, it's about one thing. Poking Thompson in the eye.

Saying Favre can't play any longer is short sighted. Is he the Favre of old? Of course not. But, behind a good line, with good receivers and a threat like AP? He could play. If he accepts the fact that his arm is tiring, and he goes back to short passes, he could play quite well. If not, well it'll be unpredictable.

Just stop responding to the Favre posts. Trust me, we ALL know where you stand. You're entitled to your opinion, but for me, it's as old as Paco's (and the very same thing in reverse).

Except, Retail, I think there is a legitimate question as to whether Favre can still play - and it has to do with his injured shoulder. Doctors have determined he's suffered an injury, and whether he could come back and play effectively after such an injury is a legitimate question. He's not a 27 year old QB trying to heal up. It'll be difficult, and who knows if he or anyone can do it and be effective?

[cpk1994]

ya; sure

It has everything to do with your hate; anybody who pays attention to the forum IMO would agree with me.

No it doesn't. I am probably the only one on this forum who actually likes Childress and that is based off of his time at Wisconsin and the two Rose Bowl wins he was an instrumental part in. I can be objective enough to see that Favre at this point would be bad for the Vikings unless you can guarantee a SB. But you can't do that.

CPK, I call BS. There is NOTHING about your point that is objective, it's the same old Favre hate. Favre can still play. Bad decisions and all. He's always had them, always will. Are there better options for the Vikings? Maybe.

It isn't about that. If Favre goes to the Vikings, it'll be about two things for the Vikings. Ticket and merchandise sales, and a relatively inexpensive Super Bowl shot.

For Favre, it's about one thing. Poking Thompson in the eye.

Saying Favre can't play any longer is short sighted. Is he the Favre of old? Of course not. But, behind a good line, with good receivers and a threat like AP? He could play. If he accepts the fact that his arm is tiring, and he goes back to short passes, he could play quite well. If not, well it'll be unpredictable.

Just stop responding to the Favre posts. Trust me, we ALL know where you stand. You're entitled to your opinion, but for me, it's as old as Paco's (and the very same thing in reverse).

Except, Retail, I think there is a legitimate question as to whether Favre can still play - and it has to do with his injured shoulder. Doctors have determined he's suffered an injury, and whether he could come back and play effectively after such an injury is a legitimate question. He's not a 27 year old QB trying to heal up. It'll be difficult, and who knows if he or anyone can do it and be effective?

Thank you, Fritz. This is exactly what I trying to get at and why think the Vikings would be making a mistake bringing in Favre now.

[retailguy]

Except, Retail, I think there is a legitimate question as to whether Favre can still play - and it has to do with his injured shoulder. Doctors have determined he's suffered an injury, and whether he could come back and play effectively after such an injury is a legitimate question. He's not a 27 year old QB trying to heal up. It'll be difficult, and who knows if he or anyone can do it and be effective?

Fritz - You must have missed this article (basically, surgery gives immediate relief of the pain, but the injury can heal itself, it just takes time):

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/s...e=NFLHeadlines

Sources: Favre won't need major surgery
By Ed Werder
ESPN.com

Brett Favre has been told by doctors that pain in his right shoulder is from a torn biceps tendon and some calcification in the area, but the New York Jets quarterback would need nothing more than arthroscopic surgery to repair the injury, sources said.

The sources Tuesday also said the 39-year-old Favre might be able to avoid an arthroscopic procedure altogether if he decides to play a 19th NFL season. While playing with what is described as a partial tear of the biceps tendon, Favre contributed to the late-season Jets collapse with nine interceptions and only two touchdown passes in the final five games.

Favre has been encouraged to take as much time as he needs before determining whether to return to the Jets. According to a source, Favre is expected to deliberate for several weeks, perhaps to allow New York time to hire former coach Eric Mangini's successor. Mangini was fired Monday after three seasons.

Favre had complained about pain and seemed to suffer diminished arm strength late in the season. He indicated he was unwilling to undergo numerous surgeries if they were necessary to keep him playing. The latest medical development -- the tear is located near the acromioclavicular joint, sources said -- suggests Favre can make his decision knowing major surgery is not necessary.

Favre had a similar injury to his left shoulder three years ago while playing for the Packers and avoided surgery. He experienced relief from the pain that time when the tendon finally released and has been told to expect the same this time, according to the source. The purpose of arthroscopic surgery would be to provide relief from pain immediately.

Favre led the league with 22 interceptions, matching his number of touchdown passes. He passed for 3,472 yards, his fewest since 2003. In Favre's last five games, four of them losses, his highest passer rating was 61.4.

[Patler]

OK so Favre was injured and his performance the last 5 games of 2008 was due to the injury. What's the explanation for the last 5 games of 2007? Or 2006? Or 2005? For the last four years, Favre has tailed off rather significantly the last 5 game. 2008 was by no stretch of the imagination an oddity. The last 5 games of:

2008 - 98/175 1110 yards 2 TDs 9 Ints. 57.56 rating.
2007 - 65/110 799 yards 6 TDs 6 Ints. 77.05 rating.
2006 - 113/210 1251 yards 4 TDs 8 Ints. 62.22 rating.
2005 - 117/206 1167 yards 1 TDs 10 Ints. 54.41 rating.

In total, 20 games, 13 TDs and 33 interceptions when you need him the most to finish out a season. That's why MM and TT didn't mind seeing him retire, and that is also why any team with real playoff hopes should be reluctant to go with Favre. He generally starts the season quite strong, but finishes rather poorly

I think it is clear that Favre does not hold up through a 16 game schedule anymore, and one year very soon it may not be there at the start of a season, or may not be there the entire second half of the season.

[Lurker64]

I'm curious. If Favre goes to play for the Vikings, the team I detest more than any other, am I allowed to hate Favre for being a Viking without incurring the ire of the Favre aficionados around here?

If Favre becomes a Viking, I don't want to see him do well, I want to see him fail hard. Is that so wrong?

[Rastak]

I'm curious. If Favre goes to play for the Vikings, the team I detest more than any other, am I allowed to hate Favre for being a Viking without incurring the ire of the Favre aficionados around here?

If Favre becomes a Viking, I don't want to see him do well, I want to see him fail hard. Is that so wrong?

Totally understandable as a Pack fan....although you are hating on a great franchise!

I'd sorta cringe everytime he ran out of the tunnel to be honest. Once the game got going I'd likely be cool.

[Packers4Ever]

I think Favre is going to play for the Vikings next year. Its a LEGIT shot at a superbowl. Unless the Vikings can lure a better QB, they might as well give the old man a shot. The window closes quickly.

And the Vikings would be morons for it. He has a bum shoulder and they have other questions marks, mostly the lard ass twins. Childress has enough problems as it is. He doesn't need the circus coming to town.

When hasn't Brett Favre had an injury that he had to coax along, especially the shoulder? He's a war horse!!
I can feel it in my stomach that the Vikes would be quite eager to talk
with Favre, get a feel for his current approach for playing 16 games. Over in Jets Nation there are many who feel he's still their best chance at
winning anything this coming season. Very divided. If Brett wouldn't require any sort of approval from TT, I can see him checking it out. Would it hurt?
Isn't he first ballot HOF?

[Bossman641]

OK so Favre was injured and his performance the last 5 games of 2008 was due to the injury. What's the explanation for the last 5 games of 2007? Or 2006? Or 2005? For the last four years, Favre has tailed off rather significantly the last 5 game. 2008 was by no stretch of the imagination an oddity. The last 5 games of:

2008 - 98/175 1110 yards 2 TDs 9 Ints. 57.56 rating.
2007 - 65/110 799 yards 6 TDs 6 Ints. 77.05 rating.
2006 - 113/210 1251 yards 4 TDs 8 Ints. 62.22 rating.
2005 - 117/206 1167 yards 1 TDs 10 Ints. 54.41 rating.

In total, 20 games, 13 TDs and 33 interceptions when you need him the most to finish out a season. That's why MM and TT didn't mind seeing him retire, and that is also why any team with real playoff hopes should be reluctant to go with Favre. He generally starts the season quite strong, but finishes rather poorly

I think it is clear that Favre does not hold up through a 16 game schedule anymore, and one year very soon it may not be there at the start of a season, or may not be there the entire second half of the season.

And this pretty much sums it up. In order to win a SB, you need to be able to count on your best players to play their best at the end of the year. I don't think Brett is capable of that anymore.

And I know there are those who will say, well all Brett would have to do is throw the ball short and then he wouldn't have to force balls deep. Come on, it's Brett Favre. That isn't in his system.