OFFICIAL BRETT THE LIVING LEGEND THREAD

[Rastak]

I'm repeating myself but I wonder if indeed the queens are really interested in Favre. Unless Brett changes his tune and conditions himself like an older player must to withstand the rigors of an NFL season he will run out of steam again come December next year even tho he's playing in that Humpty Dump. And would they/could they pay Brett his accustomed millions? Are they up against the cap? Would they ask Brett to take a pay cut?

This move would really endear himself to Packer fans. If he did go to the Vikes - if the Jets release him and the queens want him - that would be the last straw for me!

They have a decent amount of cap space and I would assume he'd be playing for alot less than 10 mil. Frerotte took a pretty good beating last year so I have my strong doubts he'd last anywhere near the entire season.

Tp cpk's point, I wouldn't in the least worry about the "circus", because he'd likely have a one year deal, IMHO. Plus, if he plays next year, which I have my doubts, it would surely be his last.

[cpk1994]

Oops, hit the wrong button.

[cpk1994]

I'm repeating myself but I wonder if indeed the queens are really interested in Favre. Unless Brett changes his tune and conditions himself like an older player must to withstand the rigors of an NFL season he will run out of steam again come December next year even tho he's playing in that Humpty Dump. And would they/could they pay Brett his accustomed millions? Are they up against the cap? Would they ask Brett to take a pay cut?

This move would really endear himself to Packer fans. If he did go to the Vikes - if the Jets release him and the queens want him - that would be the last straw for me!

They have a decent amount of cap space and I would assume he'd be playing for alot less than 10 mil. Frerotte took a pretty good beating last year so I have my strong doubts he'd last anywhere near the entire season.

Tp cpk's point, I wouldn't in the least worry about the "circus", because he'd likely have a one year deal, IMHO. Plus, if he plays next year, which I have my doubts, it would surely be his last.

You really haven't been paying any attention to Favre the last couple of years have you?

[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.

[Rastak]

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.

[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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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

Bretsky is getting vicious. I think cpk1994 and Bretsky both need the quarter treatment. Madtown, do your thing.

[Bretsky]

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

Bretsky is getting vicious. I think cpk1994 and Bretsky both need the quarter treatment. Madtown, do your thing.

you should be the Pot Stirring Rat

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

is favre still a top 10 qb?

EZ question without the blinders

NO

07- top 5
08- top 20 (between 15-20)

It sucks, but its true.....

[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.

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.

[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.