JS-"VIKES HAVE OUTPERFORMED PACK IN OFFSEASON TOO"

[Bretsky]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/68817222.html

[MOBB DEEP]

Interesting

Thanks

[mraynrand]

we've been saying this or a while. They didn't even mention Fat Williams and Ben Leiber. And I had forgotten about Shanko and BerryAnn. Vikings want to win now. I don't know what their cash situation is, but one wonders what will happen when there is no cap.

[Bossman641]

we've been saying this or a while. They didn't even mention Fat Williams and Ben Leiber. And I had forgotten about Shanko and BerryAnn. Vikings want to win now. I don't know what their cash situation is, but one wonders what will happen when there is no cap.

Rastak would have to confirm this, but I believe they are in pretty good shape. I'm not sure how.

[chain_gang]

When I see the Vikings taking Adrian Peterson, when they already had a 1200 yd rusher(Taylor), while having bigger issues such as one of the worst pass D's in the league the season before, it kinda makes me think what might have been if Green Bay takes Crabtree with two 1000 yd receivers, instead of taking a player to shore up one of the worst run D's in the league. In my opinion, that shows you the biggest difference in how Minnesota builds their team, and Green Bay builds theirs. Minnesota goes for Impact in whichever Direction they go FA, Draft, Trades, and makes a point of have solid lines on both sides of the ball. Green Bay just doesn't seem to, and that to me is why you end up with an average team.

[Partial]

When I see the Vikings taking Adrian Peterson, when they already had a 1200 yd rusher(Taylor), while having bigger issues such as one of the worst pass D's in the league the season before, it kinda makes me think what might have been if Green Bay takes Crabtree with two 1000 yd receivers, instead of taking a player to shore up one of the worst run D's in the league. In my opinion, that shows you the biggest difference in how Minnesota builds their team, and Green Bay builds theirs. Minnesota goes for Impact in whichever Direction they go FA, Draft, Trades, and makes a point of have solid lines on both sides of the ball. Green Bay just doesn't seem to, and that to me is why you end up with an average team.

GB supposedly goes for best player available. The Raji pick was very surprising to me knowing they were moving to the 3-4, especially with the most talented player in the draft sitting there waiting.

Hard to argue that either would have an impact to this point, but Crabs has done more in significantly less time than Raji. I think anyone would have a very hard time that Raji has been anything but an disappointment so far.

[3irty1]

The Vikings ignored the most important position on the field and now have a competitive team because Brett Favre fell into their laps to band aid the problem. If I were a Viking fan I don't think I'd be pleased with the strategy of leaving a huge void at QB in case a HOFer wants to unretire and take the controls for a year of being football relevant.

[g4orce]

The Vikings ignored the most important position on the field and now have a competitive team because Brett Favre fell into their laps to band aid the problem. If I were a Viking fan I don't think I'd be pleased with the strategy of leaving a huge void at QB in case a HOFer wants to unretire and take the controls for a year of being football relevant.


Do you think they were trying to leave it as a void? I mean they brought in a QB every years since Chilly's been here, they just missed on the right QB. Chilly thought he drafted his future and he was obviously wrong and at least he had the nuts to move on and grab Brett.

[chain_gang]

The Vikings ignored the most important position on the field and now have a competitive team because Brett Favre fell into their laps to band aid the problem. If I were a Viking fan I don't think I'd be pleased with the strategy of leaving a huge void at QB in case a HOFer wants to unretire and take the controls for a year of being football relevant.


I guess we would have probably had this same discussion though if Rodgers didn't slip all the way to #24. Yes we took Brohm and Flynn the other year, but the Vikings have taken Jackson, Booty, brought in Sage, and others. They were still a playoff team, without Favre. Who also may make them a legit contender will also help the QB's they have on their current roster. I don't think they ignored it, but yeah if they don't have Favre they're not a legit super bowl contender this year, and they probably don't sweep Green Bay this year.

[mraynrand]

Vikings have been outstanding in pro player department

[sharpe1027]

Do you think they were trying to leave it as a void? I mean they brought in a QB every years since Chilly's been here, they just missed on the right QB. Chilly thought he drafted his future and he was obviously wrong and at least he had the nuts to move on and grab Brett.

By that logic, the Pack tried to fill their voids too, they just missed on the right guys... :wink:

[mraynrand]

Do you think they were trying to leave it as a void? I mean they brought in a QB every years since Chilly's been here, they just missed on the right QB. Chilly thought he drafted his future and he was obviously wrong and at least he had the nuts to move on and grab Brett.

By that logic, the Pack tried to fill their voids too, they just missed on the right guys... :wink:

Woodson, Pickett, maybe Chillar in five years. Not good enough.

[g4orce]

Do you think they were trying to leave it as a void? I mean they brought in a QB every years since Chilly's been here, they just missed on the right QB. Chilly thought he drafted his future and he was obviously wrong and at least he had the nuts to move on and grab Brett.

By that logic, the Pack tried to fill their voids too, they just missed on the right guys... :wink:

Woodson, Pickett, maybe Chillar in five years. Not good enough.


Perfectly said, not good enough. And if we are "trying" to fill our voids as you're saying, then I'll start the fire Ted Thompson banter now as he has failed then.

[packerbacker1234]

Woodson is turning into Favre in the way in his last years in GB. You always heard Favre say that he wants to win now, wants us to go after people, improve the roster.

Woodson is started to grumble a bit this year too. He knows he he has at most 3 really damn good years left at best before he starts to really drop off, so he wants to win now. This roster isn't built to win now. Yeah, we did well in 2007 because we won a lot of games we had no business winning, many times because Favre lifted us off the ground and willed us to win. The defense over performed at times, and we ended up beating teams we should have. Vikings at the dome, chargers, denver, heck even KC who was a bad team we should of lost. Yet, we won them all. In the playoffs... we had a really favorable matchup out the gate. Seattle was worse then we were, it wasn't really cold but it was cold enough to snow, and 30 degree weather, snow falling, lambeau... yeah we win. Next week we played the giants, who were the better club then us at the time.

2007 is one of those anomaly years. A fluke, if you would. We had the right bounces a few times, the defense made a few stops that were uncharacterisitic of them, and our QB produce some Game winning plays. It's pretty telling that since that season, the packers have only beaten two teams that had a winning record going in to the game they played them in.

That's a REALLY telling sign that something just isn't working.

[Freak Out]

It wasn't that long ago we were ridiculing Chilly and the way the team was run....to high a cost for 69 and such..... :)

[3irty1]

The Vikings ignored the most important position on the field and now have a competitive team because Brett Favre fell into their laps to band aid the problem. If I were a Viking fan I don't think I'd be pleased with the strategy of leaving a huge void at QB in case a HOFer wants to unretire and take the controls for a year of being football relevant.


I guess we would have probably had this same discussion though if Rodgers didn't slip all the way to #24. Yes we took Brohm and Flynn the other year, but the Vikings have taken Jackson, Booty, brought in Sage, and others. They were still a playoff team, without Favre. Who also may make them a legit contender will also help the QB's they have on their current roster. I don't think they ignored it, but yeah if they don't have Favre they're not a legit super bowl contender this year, and they probably don't sweep Green Bay this year.

Drafting Booty and signing the others isn't a serious effort. The only QB they ever tried to groom was Jackson and he was something of a long shot to begin with. Even when we had a serious QB groomed behind Favre when he left we took out an insurance policy by drafting another top drawer prospect in Brohm. Both Chicago and Detroit may have found franchise QBs in the offseason. The queens are just renting a winner.

[sharpe1027]

Do you think they were trying to leave it as a void? I mean they brought in a QB every years since Chilly's been here, they just missed on the right QB. Chilly thought he drafted his future and he was obviously wrong and at least he had the nuts to move on and grab Brett.

By that logic, the Pack tried to fill their voids too, they just missed on the right guys... :wink:

Woodson, Pickett, maybe Chillar in five years. Not good enough.

My comment was about the logic of the above statement, which was based largely upon the Vikings QB draft picks.

[Partial]

The Vikings ignored the most important position on the field and now have a competitive team because Brett Favre fell into their laps to band aid the problem. If I were a Viking fan I don't think I'd be pleased with the strategy of leaving a huge void at QB in case a HOFer wants to unretire and take the controls for a year of being football relevant.


I guess we would have probably had this same discussion though if Rodgers didn't slip all the way to #24. Yes we took Brohm and Flynn the other year, but the Vikings have taken Jackson, Booty, brought in Sage, and others. They were still a playoff team, without Favre. Who also may make them a legit contender will also help the QB's they have on their current roster. I don't think they ignored it, but yeah if they don't have Favre they're not a legit super bowl contender this year, and they probably don't sweep Green Bay this year.

Drafting Booty and signing the others isn't a serious effort. The only QB they ever tried to groom was Jackson and he was something of a long shot to begin with. Even when we had a serious QB groomed behind Favre when he left we took out an insurance policy by drafting another top drawer prospect in Brohm. Both Chicago and Detroit may have found franchise QBs in the offseason. The queens are just renting a winner.

It's tough to draft one when you're not picking top 1-2. They traded their first rounders for Allen. They found a franchise player in Peterson. Say all three of those picks (1 for Pete, 2 traded for Allen) are top 10. Getting those two players and we'll call one a bust player who was cut for the third pick is incredible.

They won't have a shot at a franchise QB unless they get very lucky and one slips or a college player is vastly overlooked like Brady.

[sharpe1027]

What is so different about this week from a week ago? We lost to a 6-1 team...

The team is 4-3 not 1-6. Granted, the season could go either way but I'm not ready to give up on them this year. It sounds like most posters here already have.

[3irty1]

The Vikings ignored the most important position on the field and now have a competitive team because Brett Favre fell into their laps to band aid the problem. If I were a Viking fan I don't think I'd be pleased with the strategy of leaving a huge void at QB in case a HOFer wants to unretire and take the controls for a year of being football relevant.


I guess we would have probably had this same discussion though if Rodgers didn't slip all the way to #24. Yes we took Brohm and Flynn the other year, but the Vikings have taken Jackson, Booty, brought in Sage, and others. They were still a playoff team, without Favre. Who also may make them a legit contender will also help the QB's they have on their current roster. I don't think they ignored it, but yeah if they don't have Favre they're not a legit super bowl contender this year, and they probably don't sweep Green Bay this year.

Drafting Booty and signing the others isn't a serious effort. The only QB they ever tried to groom was Jackson and he was something of a long shot to begin with. Even when we had a serious QB groomed behind Favre when he left we took out an insurance policy by drafting another top drawer prospect in Brohm. Both Chicago and Detroit may have found franchise QBs in the offseason. The queens are just renting a winner.

It's tough to draft one when you're not picking top 1-2. They traded their first rounders for Allen. They found a franchise player in Peterson. Say all three of those picks (1 for Pete, 2 traded for Allen) are top 10. Getting those two players and we'll call one a bust player who was cut for the third pick is incredible.

They won't have a shot at a franchise QB unless they get very lucky and one slips or a college player is vastly overlooked like Brady.

True, they're not bad enough to get a shot at a Stafford or a Ryan but they will/have had shots at a Flacco. There's not a Flacco every year but they don't even need a Flacco. The dramatic offensive improvement with Favre really just shows how inept the last few years of QBs were.

[Partial]

The Vikings ignored the most important position on the field and now have a competitive team because Brett Favre fell into their laps to band aid the problem. If I were a Viking fan I don't think I'd be pleased with the strategy of leaving a huge void at QB in case a HOFer wants to unretire and take the controls for a year of being football relevant.


I guess we would have probably had this same discussion though if Rodgers didn't slip all the way to #24. Yes we took Brohm and Flynn the other year, but the Vikings have taken Jackson, Booty, brought in Sage, and others. They were still a playoff team, without Favre. Who also may make them a legit contender will also help the QB's they have on their current roster. I don't think they ignored it, but yeah if they don't have Favre they're not a legit super bowl contender this year, and they probably don't sweep Green Bay this year.

Drafting Booty and signing the others isn't a serious effort. The only QB they ever tried to groom was Jackson and he was something of a long shot to begin with. Even when we had a serious QB groomed behind Favre when he left we took out an insurance policy by drafting another top drawer prospect in Brohm. Both Chicago and Detroit may have found franchise QBs in the offseason. The queens are just renting a winner.

It's tough to draft one when you're not picking top 1-2. They traded their first rounders for Allen. They found a franchise player in Peterson. Say all three of those picks (1 for Pete, 2 traded for Allen) are top 10. Getting those two players and we'll call one a bust player who was cut for the third pick is incredible.

They won't have a shot at a franchise QB unless they get very lucky and one slips or a college player is vastly overlooked like Brady.

True, they're not bad enough to get a shot at a Stafford or a Ryan but they will/have had shots at a Flacco. There's not a Flacco every year but they don't even need a Flacco. The dramatic offensive improvement with Favre really just shows how inept the last few years of QBs were.

Well yeah they went from bottom 5 QB play to top 3.

[Bretsky]

What is so different about this week from a week ago? We lost to a 6-1 team...

The team is 4-3 not 1-6. Granted, the season could go either way but I'm not ready to give up on them this year. It sounds like most posters here already have.

This week we got owned by a QB most in here detest
This week we lost a important divisional game that basically puts us 3 game back and into a wildcard race with other teams very similar to us

This week we all found out we weren't as good as many had thought we were

[ThunderDan]

What is so different about this week from a week ago? We lost to a 6-1 team...

The team is 4-3 not 1-6. Granted, the season could go either way but I'm not ready to give up on them this year. It sounds like most posters here already have.

This week we got owned by a QB most in here detest
This week we lost a important divisional game that basically puts us 3 game back and into a wildcard race with other teams very similar to us

This week we all found out we weren't as good as many had thought we were

Wasn't there a Vikings 2009 are the greatest team ever thread? How are we supposed to compete with that?

I think we are as good as we are.

MINN was a 10-6 team that split with the Pack last year with a crappy QB. How did we not think that they wouldn't improve?

[Bretsky]

What is so different about this week from a week ago? We lost to a 6-1 team...

The team is 4-3 not 1-6. Granted, the season could go either way but I'm not ready to give up on them this year. It sounds like most posters here already have.

This week we got owned by a QB most in here detest
This week we lost a important divisional game that basically puts us 3 game back and into a wildcard race with other teams very similar to us

This week we all found out we weren't as good as many had thought we were

Wasn't there a Vikings 2009 are the greatest team ever thread? How are we supposed to compete with that?

I think we are as good as we are.

MINN was a 10-6 team that split with the Pack last year with a crappy QB. How did we not think that they wouldn't improve?


well, we were the youngest team in the NFL last year so perhaps they would develop more

Who said the Vikings 2009 are the greatest ? I don't think they are the best in the NFC

The article kind of hits home; as fans we expect that our GM, players, and coaches are outperforming theirs.

If we don't then it's our right to question why.

[Iron Mike]

We still have three more SB trophies than they do. :P

[mraynrand]

The Vikings ignored the most important position on the field and now have a competitive team because Brett Favre fell into their laps to band aid the problem. If I were a Viking fan I don't think I'd be pleased with the strategy of leaving a huge void at QB in case a HOFer wants to unretire and take the controls for a year of being football relevant.


I guess we would have probably had this same discussion though if Rodgers didn't slip all the way to #24. Yes we took Brohm and Flynn the other year, but the Vikings have taken Jackson, Booty, brought in Sage, and others. They were still a playoff team, without Favre. Who also may make them a legit contender will also help the QB's they have on their current roster. I don't think they ignored it, but yeah if they don't have Favre they're not a legit super bowl contender this year, and they probably don't sweep Green Bay this year.

Drafting Booty and signing the others isn't a serious effort. The only QB they ever tried to groom was Jackson and he was something of a long shot to begin with. Even when we had a serious QB groomed behind Favre when he left we took out an insurance policy by drafting another top drawer prospect in Brohm. Both Chicago and Detroit may have found franchise QBs in the offseason. The queens are just renting a winner.

It's tough to draft one when you're not picking top 1-2. They traded their first rounders for Allen. They found a franchise player in Peterson. Say all three of those picks (1 for Pete, 2 traded for Allen) are top 10. Getting those two players and we'll call one a bust player who was cut for the third pick is incredible.

They won't have a shot at a franchise QB unless they get very lucky and one slips or a college player is vastly overlooked like Brady.

True, they're not bad enough to get a shot at a Stafford or a Ryan but they will/have had shots at a Flacco. There's not a Flacco every year but they don't even need a Flacco. The dramatic offensive improvement with Favre really just shows how inept the last few years of QBs were.

Well yeah they went from bottom 5 QB play to top 3.

Which QB is playing worse than Favre: Manning, Brady, or Brees?

[Bretsky]

The Vikings ignored the most important position on the field and now have a competitive team because Brett Favre fell into their laps to band aid the problem. If I were a Viking fan I don't think I'd be pleased with the strategy of leaving a huge void at QB in case a HOFer wants to unretire and take the controls for a year of being football relevant.


I guess we would have probably had this same discussion though if Rodgers didn't slip all the way to #24. Yes we took Brohm and Flynn the other year, but the Vikings have taken Jackson, Booty, brought in Sage, and others. They were still a playoff team, without Favre. Who also may make them a legit contender will also help the QB's they have on their current roster. I don't think they ignored it, but yeah if they don't have Favre they're not a legit super bowl contender this year, and they probably don't sweep Green Bay this year.

Drafting Booty and signing the others isn't a serious effort. The only QB they ever tried to groom was Jackson and he was something of a long shot to begin with. Even when we had a serious QB groomed behind Favre when he left we took out an insurance policy by drafting another top drawer prospect in Brohm. Both Chicago and Detroit may have found franchise QBs in the offseason. The queens are just renting a winner.

It's tough to draft one when you're not picking top 1-2. They traded their first rounders for Allen. They found a franchise player in Peterson. Say all three of those picks (1 for Pete, 2 traded for Allen) are top 10. Getting those two players and we'll call one a bust player who was cut for the third pick is incredible.

They won't have a shot at a franchise QB unless they get very lucky and one slips or a college player is vastly overlooked like Brady.

True, they're not bad enough to get a shot at a Stafford or a Ryan but they will/have had shots at a Flacco. There's not a Flacco every year but they don't even need a Flacco. The dramatic offensive improvement with Favre really just shows how inept the last few years of QBs were.

Well yeah they went from bottom 5 QB play to top 3.

Which QB is playing worse than Favre: Manning, Brady, or Brees?



Which ones are playing beter ?

That's not a really off the wall comment up to this point.

I don't expect this to last but Favre has the 3rd best QB rating of the four QB's

[mraynrand]

The Vikings ignored the most important position on the field and now have a competitive team because Brett Favre fell into their laps to band aid the problem. If I were a Viking fan I don't think I'd be pleased with the strategy of leaving a huge void at QB in case a HOFer wants to unretire and take the controls for a year of being football relevant.


I guess we would have probably had this same discussion though if Rodgers didn't slip all the way to #24. Yes we took Brohm and Flynn the other year, but the Vikings have taken Jackson, Booty, brought in Sage, and others. They were still a playoff team, without Favre. Who also may make them a legit contender will also help the QB's they have on their current roster. I don't think they ignored it, but yeah if they don't have Favre they're not a legit super bowl contender this year, and they probably don't sweep Green Bay this year.

Drafting Booty and signing the others isn't a serious effort. The only QB they ever tried to groom was Jackson and he was something of a long shot to begin with. Even when we had a serious QB groomed behind Favre when he left we took out an insurance policy by drafting another top drawer prospect in Brohm. Both Chicago and Detroit may have found franchise QBs in the offseason. The queens are just renting a winner.

It's tough to draft one when you're not picking top 1-2. They traded their first rounders for Allen. They found a franchise player in Peterson. Say all three of those picks (1 for Pete, 2 traded for Allen) are top 10. Getting those two players and we'll call one a bust player who was cut for the third pick is incredible.

They won't have a shot at a franchise QB unless they get very lucky and one slips or a college player is vastly overlooked like Brady.

True, they're not bad enough to get a shot at a Stafford or a Ryan but they will/have had shots at a Flacco. There's not a Flacco every year but they don't even need a Flacco. The dramatic offensive improvement with Favre really just shows how inept the last few years of QBs were.

Well yeah they went from bottom 5 QB play to top 3.

Which QB is playing worse than Favre: Manning, Brady, or Brees?



Which ones are playing beter ?

That's not a really off the wall comment up to this point.

I don't expect this to last but Favre has the 3rd best QB rating of the four QB's

I didn't say it was off the wall. I asked a question. Since you jumped in, are you basing it in QB ratings only? Is that the only criteria we should use? Or perhaps there are other factors to consider?

[Partial]

The only QB playing better than Favre right now is Manning. And it's close between those two.

Co-MVPs to this point.

[mraynrand]

The only QB playing better than Favre right now is Manning. And it's close between those two.

Co-MVPs to this point.

What do you base that on?

[Partial]

The only QB playing better than Favre right now is Manning. And it's close between those two.

Co-MVPs to this point.

What do you base that on?

My opinion.

[Bretsky]

The Vikings ignored the most important position on the field and now have a competitive team because Brett Favre fell into their laps to band aid the problem. If I were a Viking fan I don't think I'd be pleased with the strategy of leaving a huge void at QB in case a HOFer wants to unretire and take the controls for a year of being football relevant.


I guess we would have probably had this same discussion though if Rodgers didn't slip all the way to #24. Yes we took Brohm and Flynn the other year, but the Vikings have taken Jackson, Booty, brought in Sage, and others. They were still a playoff team, without Favre. Who also may make them a legit contender will also help the QB's they have on their current roster. I don't think they ignored it, but yeah if they don't have Favre they're not a legit super bowl contender this year, and they probably don't sweep Green Bay this year.

Drafting Booty and signing the others isn't a serious effort. The only QB they ever tried to groom was Jackson and he was something of a long shot to begin with. Even when we had a serious QB groomed behind Favre when he left we took out an insurance policy by drafting another top drawer prospect in Brohm. Both Chicago and Detroit may have found franchise QBs in the offseason. The queens are just renting a winner.

It's tough to draft one when you're not picking top 1-2. They traded their first rounders for Allen. They found a franchise player in Peterson. Say all three of those picks (1 for Pete, 2 traded for Allen) are top 10. Getting those two players and we'll call one a bust player who was cut for the third pick is incredible.

They won't have a shot at a franchise QB unless they get very lucky and one slips or a college player is vastly overlooked like Brady.

True, they're not bad enough to get a shot at a Stafford or a Ryan but they will/have had shots at a Flacco. There's not a Flacco every year but they don't even need a Flacco. The dramatic offensive improvement with Favre really just shows how inept the last few years of QBs were.

Well yeah they went from bottom 5 QB play to top 3.

Which QB is playing worse than Favre: Manning, Brady, or Brees?



Which ones are playing beter ?

That's not a really off the wall comment up to this point.

I don't expect this to last but Favre has the 3rd best QB rating of the four QB's

I didn't say it was off the wall. I asked a question. Since you jumped in, are you basing it in QB ratings only? Is that the only criteria we should use? Or perhaps there are other factors to consider?

Well, what would you like to consider ? If you are looking for any type of justification to measure them by to me QB rankings is about the most fair way to judge a QB's season along with how clutch he has been and the team's record.

At this point Manning is just over 109, Brees over 107, Favre over 106, and Brady just under 100

If you wanted to compare TD's to INT's

Manning 15 to 4
Brees 16 to 6
Favre 16 to 3
Brady 15 to 4

All of the QB's have higher attempts per game as well as yards, but about 300 yards separates the best (Manning at 2227) from the worst (Favre 1925)

[mraynrand]

The only QB playing better than Favre right now is Manning. And it's close between those two.

Co-MVPs to this point.

What do you base that on?

My opinion.

That's worthless. You don't have time to watch games.

[mraynrand]

The Vikings ignored the most important position on the field and now have a competitive team because Brett Favre fell into their laps to band aid the problem. If I were a Viking fan I don't think I'd be pleased with the strategy of leaving a huge void at QB in case a HOFer wants to unretire and take the controls for a year of being football relevant.


I guess we would have probably had this same discussion though if Rodgers didn't slip all the way to #24. Yes we took Brohm and Flynn the other year, but the Vikings have taken Jackson, Booty, brought in Sage, and others. They were still a playoff team, without Favre. Who also may make them a legit contender will also help the QB's they have on their current roster. I don't think they ignored it, but yeah if they don't have Favre they're not a legit super bowl contender this year, and they probably don't sweep Green Bay this year.

Drafting Booty and signing the others isn't a serious effort. The only QB they ever tried to groom was Jackson and he was something of a long shot to begin with. Even when we had a serious QB groomed behind Favre when he left we took out an insurance policy by drafting another top drawer prospect in Brohm. Both Chicago and Detroit may have found franchise QBs in the offseason. The queens are just renting a winner.

It's tough to draft one when you're not picking top 1-2. They traded their first rounders for Allen. They found a franchise player in Peterson. Say all three of those picks (1 for Pete, 2 traded for Allen) are top 10. Getting those two players and we'll call one a bust player who was cut for the third pick is incredible.

They won't have a shot at a franchise QB unless they get very lucky and one slips or a college player is vastly overlooked like Brady.

True, they're not bad enough to get a shot at a Stafford or a Ryan but they will/have had shots at a Flacco. There's not a Flacco every year but they don't even need a Flacco. The dramatic offensive improvement with Favre really just shows how inept the last few years of QBs were.

Well yeah they went from bottom 5 QB play to top 3.

Which QB is playing worse than Favre: Manning, Brady, or Brees?



Which ones are playing beter ?

That's not a really off the wall comment up to this point.

I don't expect this to last but Favre has the 3rd best QB rating of the four QB's

I didn't say it was off the wall. I asked a question. Since you jumped in, are you basing it in QB ratings only? Is that the only criteria we should use? Or perhaps there are other factors to consider?

Well, what would you like to consider ? If you are looking for any type of justification to measure them by to me QB rankings is about the most fair way to judge a QB's season along with how clutch he has been and the team's record.

At this point Manning is just over 109, Brees over 107, Favre over 106, and Brady just under 100

If you wanted to compare TD's to INT's

Manning 15 to 4
Brees 16 to 6
Favre 16 to 3
Brady 15 to 4

All of the QB's have higher attempts per game as well as yards, but about 300 yards separates the best (Manning at 2227) from the worst (Favre 1925)

What convinces you that Favre is playing better than Brady?

[Bretsky]

Statistically, one could argue AROD is having a MVP season and if you are trying to look for justification to throw Favre out of the top 3 you could bring him into the argument as well.

[Bretsky]

[quote:abd164a3c2="3irty1"]The Vikings ignored the most important position on the field and now have a competitive team because Brett Favre fell into their laps to band aid the problem. If I were a Viking fan I don't think I'd be pleased with the strategy of leaving a huge void at QB in case a HOFer wants to unretire and take the controls for a year of being football relevant.


I guess we would have probably had this same discussion though if Rodgers didn't slip all the way to #24. Yes we took Brohm and Flynn the other year, but the Vikings have taken Jackson, Booty, brought in Sage, and others. They were still a playoff team, without Favre. Who also may make them a legit contender will also help the QB's they have on their current roster. I don't think they ignored it, but yeah if they don't have Favre they're not a legit super bowl contender this year, and they probably don't sweep Green Bay this year.

Drafting Booty and signing the others isn't a serious effort. The only QB they ever tried to groom was Jackson and he was something of a long shot to begin with. Even when we had a serious QB groomed behind Favre when he left we took out an insurance policy by drafting another top drawer prospect in Brohm. Both Chicago and Detroit may have found franchise QBs in the offseason. The queens are just renting a winner.

It's tough to draft one when you're not picking top 1-2. They traded their first rounders for Allen. They found a franchise player in Peterson. Say all three of those picks (1 for Pete, 2 traded for Allen) are top 10. Getting those two players and we'll call one a bust player who was cut for the third pick is incredible.

They won't have a shot at a franchise QB unless they get very lucky and one slips or a college player is vastly overlooked like Brady.

True, they're not bad enough to get a shot at a Stafford or a Ryan but they will/have had shots at a Flacco. There's not a Flacco every year but they don't even need a Flacco. The dramatic offensive improvement with Favre really just shows how inept the last few years of QBs were.

Well yeah they went from bottom 5 QB play to top 3.

Which QB is playing worse than Favre: Manning, Brady, or Brees?



Which ones are playing beter ?

That's not a really off the wall comment up to this point.

I don't expect this to last but Favre has the 3rd best QB rating of the four QB's

I didn't say it was off the wall. I asked a question. Since you jumped in, are you basing it in QB ratings only? Is that the only criteria we should use? Or perhaps there are other factors to consider?

Well, what would you like to consider ? If you are looking for any type of justification to measure them by to me QB rankings is about the most fair way to judge a QB's season along with how clutch he has been and the team's record.

At this point Manning is just over 109, Brees over 107, Favre over 106, and Brady just under 100

If you wanted to compare TD's to INT's

Manning 15 to 4
Brees 16 to 6
Favre 16 to 3
Brady 15 to 4

All of the QB's have higher attempts per game as well as yards, but about 300 yards separates the best (Manning at 2227) from the worst (Favre 1925)

What convinces you that Favre is playing better than Brady?[/quote:abd164a3c2]


All of the above as well as a better completion percentage

Are you trying to play devil's advocate or has something convinced you the above is not valid ?

Brady has tons more weapons and a hybrid offense that will result in great stats. I'd take Brady over Favre any day....one season...one game...etc

But if you are looking at the numbers I'd say they justify the point that up to this part of the season Favre is playing better than Brady.

[mraynrand]

I'm just asking. I watch the games and don't pay much attention to the stats. I would put Favre just below Brady, Manning, and Brees. All four are playing extremely well, but based on relative support and managing the game, Manning is lights out right now.

[Bretsky]

I'm just asking. I watch the games and don't pay much attention to the stats. I would put Favre just below Brady, Manning, and Brees. All four are playing extremely well, but based on relative support and managing the game, Manning is lights out right now.


Manning is in another world.........and he's brilliant with fb knowledge
If he had Brees talent he might put up 50 points a game

By season's end I'd fully expect Brady's rating to exceed Favre's.

[SnakeLH2006]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/68817222.html

That's damn true. They are stacked on D and O. Who the fuck is their GM? Hire that bastard!

[mngolf19]

We still have three more SB trophies than they do. :P

While I would love for the Vikes to have some as well, whenever I hear that I actually feel embarassed for the person who has nothing left to argue with but "my dad can beat up your dad". :roll:

To stay on the subject, the Vikes are good for cap money. Should still be around $20+ available next year. Assuming a cap is in place.

[sharpe1027]

We still have three more SB trophies than they do. :P

While I would love for the Vikes to have some as well, whenever I hear that I actually feel embarassed for the person who has nothing left to argue with but "my dad can beat up your dad". :roll:

To stay on the subject, the Vikes are good for cap money. Should still be around $20+ available next year. Assuming a cap is in place.

Except this isn't speculation, your dad really did get beat up, so to speak. :wink:

[mngolf19]

We still have three more SB trophies than they do. :P

While I would love for the Vikes to have some as well, whenever I hear that I actually feel embarassed for the person who has nothing left to argue with but "my dad can beat up your dad". :roll:

To stay on the subject, the Vikes are good for cap money. Should still be around $20+ available next year. Assuming a cap is in place.

Except this isn't speculation, your dad really did get beat up, so to speak. :wink:


OH YEAH? WELL............... :)

[Scott Campbell]

40 years of futility has a tendency to make trash talk ring pretty hollow.

And then there's the pending move to LA.


If I was a Viking fan, and thank God I'm not, I'd be quietly hoping that this didn't happen again:

http://www.mysticmedusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/LUCY+FOOTBALL.jpg

[Zool]

Is that Gary Anderson?

[mngolf19]

40 years of futility has a tendency to make trash talk ring pretty hollow.

And then there's the pending move to LA.


If I was a Viking fan, and thank God I'm not, I'd be quietly hoping that this didn't happen again:

http://www.mysticmedusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/LUCY+FOOTBALL.jpg

Uh, I was responding to the trash talk that wasn't part of the subject. Didn't start it. But see your willing to continue it as usual. And I'll state if for the 99millionth time. Why would you be happy about a potential move of the Vikes franchise? I hate the Packers as much as anybody but would never want them to leave. They belong where they are, the history is where they are, and the rivalry is over if they were to move. Just like never wishing injury on anyone, I would never wish for a franchise move. But I guess that just me.

Expecting another "they legally can't move" :roll:

[Scott Campbell]

40 years of futility has a tendency to make trash talk ring pretty hollow.

And then there's the pending move to LA.


If I was a Viking fan, and thank God I'm not, I'd be quietly hoping that this didn't happen again:

http://www.mysticmedusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/LUCY+FOOTBALL.jpg

Uh, I was responding to the trash talk that wasn't part of the subject. Didn't start it. But see your willing to continue it as usual. And I'll state if for the 99millionth time. Why would you be happy about a potential move of the Vikes franchise? I hate the Packers as much as anybody but would never want them to leave. They belong where they are, the history is where they are, and the rivalry is over if they were to move. Just like never wishing injury on anyone, I would never wish for a franchise move. But I guess that just me.

Expecting another "they legally can't move" :roll:




Hey, it's not my fault you people are too cheap to build a decent stadium.

I'd be upset if Chicago moved. That's our rivalry game. Detroit and MN? It doesn't really matter to me what division they play in.

[Fritz]

Right now it sure looks good for the Vikes, doesn't it?

But last year, as a Press Gazette article points out, Indy had just gotten thrashed by the Pack and was at 3-4 - dead in the water. Then they reeled off nine straight W's.

Oh, and Tennessee was the toast of the town going into the playoffs. Doh!

And Arizona looked like a wild card lame duck, as the Giants did in '07.

I'm not predicting any of this for the Packers this year. I think it might happen, the pieces are there, but then again the Pack was 4-3 a year ago, coming off that thrashing of Indy, and then Green Bay proceeded to suck ass. So who knows.

The point is, sometimes forum discussions read as if the season is over and the playoffs are starting next week. But that ain't the case. One day at a time - inlcuding the game today.

No matter what some of you say about the patsies - you dismiss the Pack victories against them out of hand - they are wins in the NFL. Today is a chance for the Pack to start to get right. So let's see that happen and not scoff if it does.

[mngolf19]

40 years of futility has a tendency to make trash talk ring pretty hollow.

And then there's the pending move to LA.


If I was a Viking fan, and thank God I'm not, I'd be quietly hoping that this didn't happen again:

http://www.mysticmedusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/LUCY+FOOTBALL.jpg

Uh, I was responding to the trash talk that wasn't part of the subject. Didn't start it. But see your willing to continue it as usual. And I'll state if for the 99millionth time. Why would you be happy about a potential move of the Vikes franchise? I hate the Packers as much as anybody but would never want them to leave. They belong where they are, the history is where they are, and the rivalry is over if they were to move. Just like never wishing injury on anyone, I would never wish for a franchise move. But I guess that just me.

Expecting another "they legally can't move" :roll:




Hey, it's not my fault you people are too cheap to build a decent stadium.

I'd be upset if Chicago moved. That's our rivalry game. Detroit and MN? It doesn't really matter to me what division they play in.

I live in Chicago.

[MichiganPackerFan]

40 years of futility has a tendency to make trash talk ring pretty hollow.

And then there's the pending move to LA.


If I was a Viking fan, and thank God I'm not, I'd be quietly hoping that this didn't happen again:

http://www.mysticmedusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/LUCY+FOOTBALL.jpg

Uh, I was responding to the trash talk that wasn't part of the subject. Didn't start it. But see your willing to continue it as usual. And I'll state if for the 99millionth time. Why would you be happy about a potential move of the Vikes franchise? I hate the Packers as much as anybody but would never want them to leave. They belong where they are, the history is where they are, and the rivalry is over if they were to move. Just like never wishing injury on anyone, I would never wish for a franchise move. But I guess that just me.

Expecting another "they legally can't move" :roll:

Always love a good Peanuts reference added. And I agree MN, the division belongs the way it is. I had no problem taking tampa bay out, they didn't belong IN to begin with!!