OFFICIAL BRETT THE LIVING LEGEND THREAD

[ThunderDan]

That's interesting Thunder Dan, but they did just get Jared Allen and Adrian Peterson the last couple years, so they are kind of peaking with our without Favre.

I agree Favre helps them. He's still a damn good QB, but they're good without him right now. Maybe they weren't very good in 2000-2006 without him, but this is a different Viking team, a better one.

That's true. Let's look at their offensive numbers.

2007: 2,634 rushing, 2,745 passing, 336 yards per game 13th overall
2008: 2,338 rushing, 2,956 passing, 331 ypg 17th overall
2009: 1,918 rushing, 4,156 passing, 380 ypg 5th overall

So, BF is under center and they average 45 yards more per game or about a 13% improvement.

AP was explosive in 2007 and 2008 so you got to see a lot of Viking highlights showing his runs. Other than that, their offense was very average at best.

[pbmax]

I don't doubt that Favre believes he is saving himself wear and tear by staying away. He likely is doing less work by staying home. I don't think that part of it is a sham. I also believe that he would rather be anywhere than another mini-camp.

But the jury is still out on whether a 40 year old player can do this and maintain a sustained level of performance. I was quite surprised when played well later into the season. But he is also noticeably less mobile and easier to hit. That trade off may not be worth it. If you truly need to be an athlete to be a QB, he is headed the wrong way.

[packerbacker1234]

Vikings PPG

2007: 22.8
2008: 23.7
2009: 29.4

Thats almost a TD more a game with favre at the helm - that's a significant difference. I am not saying the vikings are not good without favre, but they aren't 12-4 guarenteed playoff bound without him. They are mos tlikely looking up at the packers without him, and fight to stay above .500. That defense has Jared Allen, but it's getting picked apart in the secondary now. Your best CB is getting ancient, and you don't have stud safties. The defense is starting to wear down, and you need a high scoring offense to really balance it out.

While you had more games in 2008 with 40+ then in 2009, you had significantly more games with less than 21 points than in 2009. The offense was way more consistent and explosive with Favre at the helm.

I think viking fans are really underestimating how good that offense is without favre, and what favre did last year was far more than a "compitent QB" - and there are several analysts that feel Favre was the real league wide MVP last season, not Peyton Manning. Favre performed like he was up there with the best QB's in the league last year. An impressive feat at 40.

The point is that without Favre, the vikings are going to take a signficant step backwards. Last year with favre playing at MVP levels, they went 12-4. Without a QB capable of putting up those sort of numbers, how well do you think the vikings really do? AP had 18 TD's. Favre had 30. You think without favre AP goes from 18 td's to 30? Because that is what he'll need to do to even attempt to compensate.

Tavaris Jackson and Sage are not the answer. They are solid career backups, good enough to play spot duty. Favre is leagues ahead of anyone on that roster in the last decade at QB. Don't feel bad, what favre did last year puts him leagues ahead of most teams have save the select top 10.

Point is, teh vikings are fucked without favre this season. Especially since the packers really are that good, and a lot of NFC teams are primed to be good this year.

[ThunderDan]

Point is, teh vikings are fucked without favre this season. Especially since the packers really are that good, and a lot of NFC teams are primed to be good this year.

The Vikings aren't fucked without Favre. They are just an average team that will need to have good breaks to make the playoffs. Which is the same for most of the elite teams if their starting QB goes down for the season.

[Joemailman]

I don't doubt that Favre believes he is saving himself wear and tear by staying away. He likely is doing less work by staying home. I don't think that part of it is a sham. I also believe that he would rather be anywhere than another mini-camp.

But the jury is still out on whether a 40 year old player can do this and maintain a sustained level of performance. I was quite surprised when played well later into the season. But he is also noticeably less mobile and easier to hit. That trade off may not be worth it. If you truly need to be an athlete to be a QB, he is headed the wrong way.

The last 2 years, Favre has ended his season with a pretty serious injury. In both cases he has waited until May to have the necessary surgery. In my opinion, he has done this to have a perfect excuse to stay away until August, since he can't practice anyway due to the surgery. I wonder though is that could backfire on him this time. Last year he only needed to throw some footballs to tell if his shoulder was okay. That ankle could be more troublesome though, and he may wish he had started his rehab, including surgery, sooner.

[packerbacker1234]

Point is, teh vikings are fucked without favre this season. Especially since the packers really are that good, and a lot of NFC teams are primed to be good this year.

The Vikings aren't fucked without Favre. They are just an average team that will need to have good breaks to make the playoffs. Which is the same for most of the elite teams if their starting QB goes down for the season.

Actually, most teams that lose their "stud" starting QB are fucked. Bottom line. Falcons lose Matt Ryan last year? Team struggles mightly against teams they would normally beat. If AR goes down? So does our offense. Without that offense, we don't hav ethe right pieces to still be contendors. The only teams that can really still be great without a good starting QB are the jets and ravens, and to apoint MAYBE the vikings. Though, the vikings are surrounded with some super tough games, that without favre, they need all the luck in the world to win. And unlike in 2008 when the packers sucked it up, were actually a very good team, so without favre they almost guarentee to be looking up at us and trying hard to fight for WC.

There are many games last year the vikings would of lost without the stellar play of favre, and this year is even tougher for them. I'm just stating the obvious I feel: Without favre the vikings go from contendor to "hope and prayer" for a WC spot. Even the bears could knock them down a notch if Cutler has a decent season.


But I disagree: if a team loses a stud qb, generally they are screwed. If Manning goes down? So do the colts. Brees? So do the saints. What happened with Matt Cassel was an anonmaly, not a "to be expected" ideal.

[RashanGary]

Favre certainly helps them. Tavaris and Ferotte were nothing short of horrible a couple years ago.

This isn't the 2005 Vikings though. This defense is very strong, their RB is elite and they have very good special teams too. They were good enough to win with the worst QB situation in football, so yeah, they're better with Favre (who is still very good). And having AP and Favre makes the offense damn near impossible to stop. Pick your poison, both can beat you if you try to stop the other and Favre is savvy enough to adjust at the line and take what's given.

The Jets were a great running team and now so are the Vikes. Most teams would rather get beat in the air than have the ball run down their throat, so I'd say Favre benefits much more from AP than AP does Favre. The numbers would agree. Favre didn't change so much as the team around him did.

Right now, I call the division a dead even race to the finish. Take Favre off and we have a real edge, but they are good regardless of how that plays out.

[packerbacker1234]

Favre certainly helps them. Tavaris and Ferotte were nothing short of horrible a couple years ago.

This isn't the 2005 Vikings though. This defense is very strong, their RB is elite and they have very good special teams too. They were good enough to win with the worst QB situation in football, so yeah, they're better with Favre (who is still very good). And having AP and Favre makes the offense damn near impossible to stop. Pick your poison, both can beat you if you try to stop the other and Favre is savvy enough to adjust at the line and take what's given.

The Jets were a great running team and now so are the Vikes. Most teams would rather get beat in the air than have the ball run down their throat, so I'd say Favre benefits much more from AP than AP does Favre. The numbers would agree. Favre didn't change so much as the team around him did.

Right now, I call the division a dead even race to the finish. Take Favre off and we have a real edge, but they are good regardless of how that plays out.

like I said, check the schedules. I also don't consider that defense "to be all world". They are great run stuffers, just like us, but they ahve a very, VERY, weak secondary.

They ahve a tud pass rusher, but if you subtract the two games against the apckers, Allen was subpar last season.

Just saying, I call like I see it. They were 10-6 without favre witha way weaker schedule. The schedule this year is BRUTAL for them. They need to be getting 30 a game to really have a chance.

[Scott Campbell]

Favre thought, "I'm done"; now thinks he could play to age 50

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/07/27/favre-thought-im-done-now-thinks-he-could-play-to-age-50/

[Fritz]

I do think there's a larger issue here - the uselessness of extended training camp for veteran players. Back in the day, players took the offseason off - that's why they called it "off"! - and needed training camp to, well, train.

But these guys work year round now, so training camp for Favre is more of a waste except maybe as a team building exercise. And the Vikes didn't seem to need that last year with Favre.

I don't agree with how Favre has gone about skipping half of camp, but the larger issue of vets not needing so much time is worthy of discussion.

[Pugger]

Point is, teh vikings are fucked without favre this season. Especially since the packers really are that good, and a lot of NFC teams are primed to be good this year.

The Vikings aren't fucked without Favre. They are just an average team that will need to have good breaks to make the playoffs. Which is the same for most of the elite teams if their starting QB goes down for the season.

When #4 took that one year detour to NY before going to his chosen team, MN had a 10-6 record with Jackson under center and won the division so MN may not be f*cked if #4 stays in MS or is injured. Of course in 2008 the Packers were not as explosive as they probably will be in 2010 so if MN doesn't have the services of their elderly QB they'll have a good season but not as good as they did in 2010 with Favre.

[mngolf19]

Favre certainly helps them. Tavaris and Ferotte were nothing short of horrible a couple years ago.

This isn't the 2005 Vikings though. This defense is very strong, their RB is elite and they have very good special teams too. They were good enough to win with the worst QB situation in football, so yeah, they're better with Favre (who is still very good). And having AP and Favre makes the offense damn near impossible to stop. Pick your poison, both can beat you if you try to stop the other and Favre is savvy enough to adjust at the line and take what's given.

The Jets were a great running team and now so are the Vikes. Most teams would rather get beat in the air than have the ball run down their throat, so I'd say Favre benefits much more from AP than AP does Favre. The numbers would agree. Favre didn't change so much as the team around him did.

Right now, I call the division a dead even race to the finish. Take Favre off and we have a real edge, but they are good regardless of how that plays out.

like I said, check the schedules. I also don't consider that defense "to be all world". They are great run stuffers, just like us, but they ahve a very, VERY, weak secondary.

They ahve a tud pass rusher, but if you subtract the two games against the apckers, Allen was subpar last season.

Just saying, I call like I see it. They were 10-6 without favre witha way weaker schedule. The schedule this year is BRUTAL for them. They need to be getting 30 a game to really have a chance.

JH is correct about AP and Favre and the Vikes changed their offense to match their QB. They were a dominant running team before Favre and would go back to that style if without Favre. So who knows how games go in that situation.

As far as the Def being weak againts the pass, that is kinda how the Tampa 2 works. Pressure on the QB and stop the run and big plays. Force teams to make long, sustained drives to win. It means you may put up lots of yards on them but they will cause you to settle for fgs or make a mistake along the way if you have a bad QB.

[Scott Campbell]

Point is, teh vikings are fucked without favre this season. Especially since the packers really are that good, and a lot of NFC teams are primed to be good this year.

The Vikings aren't fucked without Favre. They are just an average team that will need to have good breaks to make the playoffs. Which is the same for most of the elite teams if their starting QB goes down for the season.

They are no more fucked than any other team without an elite franchise QB. Were really spoiled here in Green Bay.

[Iron Mike]

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=861853

[Fritz]

"I can remember walking off that podium with (wife) Deanna and my family thinking, 'I'm done,' " the Vikings quarterback tells USA TODAY. "I mean, my heart ... it was broken."

Replace "Viking quarterback" with "Packer" or "Jet" and you could have any year from about 2005 on.