OFFICIAL BRETT THE LIVING LEGEND THREAD

[packerbacker1234]

Eh, Favre's offense was heavily reliable on 4 big contributers in 2009 in terms of passing: Shiancoe, Rice, Taylor, and Harvin. Of that group...

Shiancoe was gimpy all year with a hamstring. Hurt redzone production. Rice was pretty much gone all season. By the time he came back he never really got back to where he was. Harvin was in and out seemingly on a weekly basis due to migraines. Taylor was no longer on the roster.

Of that group, only Shiancoe was the one most active, and this is why many noted Favre seemed to be "forcing" it to him. He was, for most intesive purposes, they only reliable target left on the team for most the season, with Harvin being hurt and having migraines as well as not being allowed to play slot anymore.

For the packers they lost Grant (little effect on the passing game as he was subbed out on third downs) and Finely - which is as big of a blow as losing Rice for the vikings.

However, we still had Jennings, Driver, Jones, and Nelson. The vikings meanwhile lost

Rice: 83 receptions - 16 games
Taylor: 44 receptions - played all 16 games
In and out harvin: 60 receptions - 15 of 16 games played
Gimpy TE SHiancoe: 56 receptions - 16 games
Berrian: 55 receptions - 16 games

That was 2009 stats. For 2010...

Rice: 17 receptions - 6 games
Taylor - no longer on the roster, replacement: Gerhert - 21 receptions - 15 games
Harvin: 71 receptions - 14 games
Shiancoe: 47 receptions - 16 games
Berrian: 28 receptions - 14 games

Only one player of their top 5 WR options played every game in 2010.

Comparitvely, the packers had their TE out for the season (again, comparable to Rice who never truly returned to form) and, of the 4 remaining (5 if you count nelson since we had Jackson at RB, plus the 4 WR's) only one missed game between the rest - by driver.

So, before you go calling the kettle black that "OMG, THE PACKERS SURVIVED THE LOSS OF FINELY AND GRANT, SO OMG RODGERS!" you have to realize that Rodgers had 90% of his passing weapons available to him in every single game this season, where as Favre did not. In addition, we all knew that outside of maybe Harvin and Rice, our receiving options were already superior to that of what Minnesota had. So we had the better core of WR's to overcome a loss like Finley, and outside of one game by driver the rest of the top 5 stayed healthy all year. Not counting rice, they had 4 lost games between their other top 5 and you can hardly count Gerhert as even a "solid" replacement for taylor.

So if you want to compare losses: Packers lost grant and finely. Vikings lost Rice and Taylor (to FA). Packers did not lose a WR but once all year for one game. Packers did not lose their 3rd down back. So, packers lost one big passing weapon. Vikings lost two (still a mistake they let taylor get away) and had 4 games missed between the remaining.

Overall, the vikings had a worse situation injury wise for the passing game thant he packers. Most of our losses were on defense, where on offense the passing game was left alone pretty well outside of Finely. We had a nice year for WR health.

Now, that doesn't mean favre didn't play worse - he did. That doesn't mean the OL was almost as good as 2009 because there were almost equal sacks - anyone who WATCHED a vikings game saw favre getting hammered on almost eveyr throw - it was like the saints game but EVERY GAME in 2010. Favre may have avoided sacks with quick releases and/or throwing picks, but the guy just got hammered all year. It was the hits that weren't sacks that hur thte most, and those happened a lot more in 2010 than 2009. 2009 they held up fairly well until the saints. 2010 they were bad from the start.

So does some of the bad play fall of favre? Yes. He is the leader and must perform. But at his age he needs to the team around him to stay relatively healthy like in 2009, and that didn't happened, combined with poor OL play and AP getting stuffed at the goalline due to it as well. Bottom line - the players around Favre either got hurt or performed poorly in comparison to 2009, and conversly Favre also performed poorly with little support behind him.

So, it was bad all around for the vikings, and it wasn't JUST that favre;s play got worse. When people hit walls at the end it's not usually THAT dramatic without other factors playing in. If he had rice and taylor off the bat, they likely beat the saints instead of losing close, and who knows what goes from there. Favre had a bad season, but it wasn't just his fault he didn;t have the weapons he did in 2009.

[channtheman]

Say what you want, we won the Super Bowl. Somehow I just don't care about Favre or the Vikings enough to stick up for him or them.

[Scott Campbell]

It's amazing the lengths people will go to make excuses for Bert's crappy season. He sucked. He got his coach fired. And he couldn't stay on the field.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Woodbuck,
You stated that the Vikings OL was "remarkably inferior" from 2009. Stats do not reflect that. You stated that it had the same problems as 2009, but if that's the case, how was it "remarkably inferior" in 2010 with the same issues? Answer: it wasn't. It was the same line. While it may have been below average, it certainly wasn't 'remarkably inferior" from 2009 to 2010 as you presented as a major reason for Favre's declining stats. How could it not be a factor in his season of 2009, but yet be so responsible in 2010? Can't have it both ways.

You also stated that Favre lost his #1. He wasn't lost and appeared on the injury report only twice last season and played and started every game. He caught a similar number of passes for a similar number of yards. His 11 TD season was out of his norm for his career for 2009. Now Finley's injury is the definition of lost, and Shiancoe is far, far from that. He was put on more blocking assignments as the Vikes acquired Randy Moss and the offense was more geared toward him. Not because of Shiancoe's injury. Shiancoe's injury was minor given he wasn't even on the report 3 weeks after it happened. After all, official statements are what we must go by when judging players right?

You over-exaggerated what happened to his OL and TE situation, plain and simple. That is what I have proven.

[woodbuck27]

Woodbuck? Anything? Looks like he brought some significant evidence that discredits your theory here. You could at least reply.

Sorry I did respond to this but via Louder than Lambeau's post that followed yours and referred to it. I hope that was OK.

GO PACKERS!

[woodbuck27]

WOODBUCK!!!!Brett Favre is 41 years old and has ankle spurs that require surgery--like often. Look up how many times he's made news in the offseason for having surgery to remove bone spurs. Face it, people age. Did his line let him down or did he let the line down? Brett Favre is not perfect. He is fallible. There's a reason he's retired, what is it, seven years running? If you're willing to believe everything he says to the media as fact, then he was done when he left the Packers. Not so much. You have to take off the Favre filters and really look. Play a game with yourself. Watch or read his interviews and figure out what he's saying that's true and what's not. You can do it. But wake up, dude. It's not the line, it's not the girl, it's not anyone else. It's Favre. He's not the 28-year-old kid anymore and he is responsible for his own play and his own behavior.

Read that MJ. Many of your points I certainly accept.

His OL let him down big time. He was a sitting duck behinf=d center this season. I admit that he wasn't as capable of escaping the rush when he was 35-years old but he needed time to make reads. He needed time for WR's to get open. He took way too much heat from an OL that may 'in fact' need a major overhaul.

GO PACKERS!

[woodbuck27]

The Bears locked up the NFCN title by beating the Vikings. The Bear/Packer game was meaningless in the NFCN standings. That was known before the game with the Vikings.

Face it, Favre was hoping to see the Packers knocked out of the playoffs. The Packer/Bear game had no other meaning.

That is your opinion based on your analysis based on your assessment and slant on Brett Favre. Have you ever read that Brett Favre said:

I hope that the Green Bay Packers don't make the playoffs last yer.

If you find that quote. All you have is your opinion. Your opinion is understood on this forum.

GO PACKERS!

[woodbuck27]

WB you are confused. Shiancoe had less td cause favre sucked. Favre didn't suck because sh
iancoe was inured. Can't believe you are trying to use a player being probable as an injury excuse, especially after all the legit injuries the packers had this year.

I have to break that down:

WB you are confused. ... Response ... I don't believe I'm confused.

Shiancoe had less td cause favre sucked. .... Response ... I don't believe that is accurate.

Favre didn't suck because shiancoe was inured. ...

Response ... Favre didn't suck. He was either to often rushed or pounded just after throws or was sacked a lot. Why? Because the Minny OL allowed an effective pass rush Vs the Vikings all season long. Why? Because the Minny OL was/is in decline and needs a major overhaul. Favre gets injured. Favre plays injured. Favre's effectiveness declines and he suffers more injuries to his body and it just snowballs.

Can't believe you are trying to use a player being probable as an injury excuse, especially after all the legit injuries the packers had this year ...

Response ... I'm not blaming Favre's performance exclusively on Minny player injuries. What has the adversity of the Green Bay Packers in this past season have to do with Favre's performance in Minny?

I''ll answer that. ... Answer. = ZERO ! You raise 'a moot point' when you bring Packer adversity into this discussion.

GO Packers !

[woodbuck27]

Those numbers look pretty similar to me. 36 less yards and a higher ypc don't back up your theory. Rodgers lost Finley and Grant for the year and did fine. Faver's gigantic decline was due to Rice and a slightly gimpy Shiancoe? Two more sacks did him in?

All the great ones dropped off somewhere near their 40th birthday or before. Why are you so unwilling to accept that Faver is human?

There 'you' go bringing up a moot point 'get louder at lambeau'.

Packer adversity had zero to do with anything Favre in Minny in 2010.

I've posted too often that Favre is human. I've also posted that he is retired and that I hope he stays retired. Yes it's time. It was time after the 2009 season. I did not want Brett Favre to come back in 2010. I am on record to that as a fact. I don't make Brett Favre's decisions.

Now are you and I done with this back and forth? If not then feel free to punch away all you care to. I'll handle it.

GO PACKERS!

[woodbuck27]

Which is all the more reason to view it as a truthful, uncensored statement of what Favre felt deep in his heart. Had he thought it would be made public, he would have sanitized it for image purposes.

Not necessarily Patler. He was using a common thing among fellow Pro atletes. Gamesmanship. It's very common in sports and in life in general. Favre was being just another guy.

Just as human as you and I Patler.

Yes he could have said nothing about the Bears Vs Packers upcoming game. He was human. God forbid that Brett Favre act human.

GO PACKERS!

[woodbuck27]

I still have my autographed Faver rookie hanging on my bedroom wall, Woodbuck. It's my most prized Packer possession, since I got it signed on the same day that he threw his first pass at Lambeau, just before he did it. I'm not the hater that you'd like to paint me to be. I'm a realist. I see both sides of the Faver coin- his greatness and his failings. I did even while he was in his prime and still playing for the Packers. I never considered him super human, so I'm not blinded by the sort of a hero worship relationship you seem to have with him.

You, on the other hand, just seem to ignore reality and focus only on things that you want to be true with regard to Brett, while ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary. That's why you are constantly arguing with some poster or another about him. It's always you vs. someone, and you always think it's the other person who doesn't see the truth, no matter who they are. You still can't see his warts, because you're too busy defending the guy. It's comical in a sad sort of way.


It's not all them, Woodbuck. It's you.

I still have my autographed Faver rookie hanging on my bedroom wall, Woodbuck. It's my most prized Packer possession, since I got it signed on the same day that he threw his first pass at Lambeau, just before he did it.

Nice ! (-:

I'm not the hater that you'd like to paint me to be.

My compliments. Find the post where I accuse you of hating Brett Favre please.

I'm a realist. I see both sides of the Faver coin - his greatness and his failings. I did even while he was in his prime and still playing for the Packers. I never considered him super human,

Then we are the same. I have lived through al of Favre exploits and his failings as well. He's just a human being .Not any super human. Find the post here where I state that Favre is a 'super human', please.

I'm not blinded by the sort of a hero worship relationship you seem to have with him.

Then we are the same here as well. I do NOT have a 'hero worship' of Brett Favre. He's no God man. Her's a mere human being with good and bad things about him. I don't place Brett Fvare above all or on some pedestal. I want to make all that very clear in this post.I have tried to do so numerous times in the past. other posts and that is ignored. I get baked into the same false pie.

The perception of some here of me is entirely false...their invention. I live with it.

You, on the other hand, just seem to ignore reality and focus only on things that you want to be true with regard to Brett, while ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary. That's why you are constantly arguing with some poster or another about him. It's always you vs. someone, and you always think it's the other person who doesn't see the truth, no matter who they are. You still can't see his warts, because you're too busy defending the guy. It's comical in a sad sort of way.

I do not care about your perception of me. I do not argue with posters. I post. It's a right to do so as long as I do that with proper deportment. With decent manners and some sense of style and not go all pissed off and over the top abrasive or sarcastic as some her choose as their style.We continue to live here and enjoy this forum

Relax and don't get all bent out of shape and into the ego drift over issues like this one. Learn to be cool calm and collected. It's a challenge here at times but you will manage. (-:

GO PACKERS!

[woodbuck27]

Say what you want, we won the Super Bowl. Somehow I just don't care about Favre or the Vikings enough to stick up for him or them.

Now there is some real sense in your post. I would not expect any Packer fan to stick up for Brett Favre. I would hope that Packer fans could be objective and fair in how that man is observed/judged. Everyone has a body of work. We all do things very well and some not so well. Sometimes we do things that later we regret. We error,make mistakes,screw up.

It's all about being human. It's really all about life.

Anyone that gets bent all out of shape over any Brett Favre issue should not read and post in this thread. It's all about friendly discussion and keeping the emotions and the rudeness out of it, IMO.

[woodbuck27]

It's amazing the lengths people will go to make excuses for Bert's crappy season. He sucked. He got his coach fired. And he couldn't stay on the field.

That's easy to ignore.

[woodbuck27]

Woodbuck,
You stated that the Vikings OL was "remarkably inferior" from 2009. Stats do not reflect that. You stated that it had the same problems as 2009, but if that's the case, how was it "remarkably inferior" in 2010 with the same issues? Answer: it wasn't. It was the same line. While it may have been below average, it certainly wasn't 'remarkably inferior" from 2009 to 2010 as you presented as a major reason for Favre's declining stats. How could it not be a factor in his season of 2009, but yet be so responsible in 2010? Can't have it both ways.

You also stated that Favre lost his #1. He wasn't lost and appeared on the injury report only twice last season and played and started every game. He caught a similar number of passes for a similar number of yards. His 11 TD season was out of his norm for his career for 2009. Now Finley's injury is the definition of lost, and Shiancoe is far, far from that. He was put on more blocking assignments as the Vikes acquired Randy Moss and the offense was more geared toward him. Not because of Shiancoe's injury. Shiancoe's injury was minor given he wasn't even on the report 3 weeks after it happened. After all, official statements are what we must go by when judging players right?

You over-exaggerated what happened to his OL and TE situation, plain and simple. That is what I have proven.

You have proven what? with all respect. We're having a discussion here or so I thought. It's not some Alpha Male pissing contest.

I could take a rip at your post but I just havn't the time at the present. Have a lovely day.

GO PACKERS!

[MJZiggy]

Not necessarily Patler. He was using a common thing among fellow Pro atletes. Gamesmanship. It's very common in sports and in life in general. Favre was being just another guy.

Just as human as you and I Patler.

Yes he could have said nothing about the Bears Vs Packers upcoming game. He was human. God forbid that Brett Favre act human.

GO PACKERS!

If what you say here is true, and Favre has no ill will as he said in his presser, then why single out the Packers to Peppers? Why not be a "gamesman" and tell him to win the Super Bowl? or to have a great rest of the season? Why bring up the Packers, unless there really is some animosity there?

[Patler]

Have you ever read that Brett Favre said:

I hope that the Green Bay Packers don't make the playoffs last yer.
[/B]

Yes, because that would have been the result of the Bears beating the Packers, which Favre was in favor of.

[Kiwon]

Question: After the living legend Brett Favre dies will this "OFFICIAL BRETT THE LIVING LEGEND THREAD" continue to exist?

[Scott Campbell]

I do not argue with posters.

Good one Woody!!!

[Cheesehead Craig]

You have proven what? with all respect. We're having a discussion here or so I thought. It's not some Alpha Male pissing contest.

I could take a rip at your post but I just havn't the time at the present. Have a lovely day.

GO PACKERS!

I did discuss and I proved my original points were accurate and your assertations were over-exaggerated. That's all. It appears you are the one trying to have some pissing contest with all the posters here.

[Tarlam!]

Good one Woody!!!

Well, Scott, are you suggesting that Woody is abusive, condascending, violent, and, worst of all, inable of admitting he was ever incorrect based on facts presented here? Have you SCOTT CAMPBELL gone completely MAD?