OFFICIAL BRETT THE LIVING LEGEND THREAD

[ThunderDan]

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.

But the offensive stats and scoring stats from above were for 2007, 2008 and 2009.

[Scott Campbell]

....... the Vikings quarterback tells USA TODAY. "I mean, my heart ... it was broken."

One of the all time greatest moments in sports.

[swede]

I watched the Bengals game from '92 that I recorded last night off of the NFL network. It was Brett's debut comeback game.

Impressions:

McJulien was the Brett Favre of punters. He kicked the hell out of the ball, but he was wild.

It was a bit sad watching Majik hauled off to the locker room never to play for us again.

Tony Bennet and Chuck Cecil and Brian Noble and Johnny Holland and LeRoy Butler were fine defensive players. It wasn't the most assignment-sure defense but they flew around and hit people HARD.

If life were fair Sterling Sharpe would have played for a dozen years instead of Terrell Buckley, who, by the way, had a very nice punt return for a TD.

Brett was a blast to watch. He made mistakes over and over again but he had a short memory and kept coming at the Bengals.

Late hits were tolerated and balls dropped near the end of a play were twice ruled to be turnovers instead of down. No replay challenges and no whining. The game has evolved a bit, what with instant replay. I knew it had changed since the 50's, but watching this made clear to me that the game has changed in some subtle ways over the span of Favre's career.

[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.

But the offensive stats and scoring stats from above were for 2007, 2008 and 2009.

There is a trickle down effect. Without Favre, as Viking fans will tell you, they ran the ball a lot more. The result was less yards and less points, but teams also didn't feel the need to try to score quick, so offenses played more to the Vikings defensive strength. The result was winning the division by winning a lot of close, grind'em out games lead by AP and a defense that ranked near the top in every category. Insert Favre and offenses play the Vikings different. The Vikings score more, so teams press harder to score fast and both scores go up.

And don't forget, Percy really helped their ST's. That changes scores in many ways. Sidney Rice got healthy and broke out as one of the NFL's top receivers. Having not great receivers and adding a great receiver helps the passing game. That's good for a change in score. If people think Favre made Rice, wait until Favre is gone. I'll take any bet that thinks Rice isn't going to be a top tier receiver without Favre.

So yeah, they had more yards and more points. Favre played a big part in that, but opposing teams also felt the need to play a different game against the Vikings and that leads to more points scored against them too.


Say what you will, Just like I thought the Jets got better with a lot of their additions (and they are one of the NFL's top teams with Favre gone), I think the Vikings are similar. Tavaris is better than 2 years ago. Sage is better than Ferotte. Favre is a year older. I'm not saying Favre doesn't make them better. I'm saying they'd be a nasty team without Favre. They were before him and have made moves to get better with him. They're good. The yard/point jump from 2008 to 2009 doesn't prove anything, same way you guys didn't prove Favre made the Jets what they were 2 years ago.

[pbmax]

It was before I watched the Packers seriously, but Chuck Cecil seemed more interested in the hit and bleeding than he did in the assignment and tackling.

[Fritz]

Johnny Holland was a good player. Brian Noble was, I think, the most assignment-sure of that bunch.

[ThunderDan]

There is a trickle down effect. Without Favre, as Viking fans will tell you, they ran the ball a lot more. The result was less yards and less points, but teams also didn't feel the need to try to score quick, so offenses played more to the Vikings defensive strength. The result was winning the division by winning a lot of close, grind'em out games lead by AP and a defense that ranked near the top in every category. Insert Favre and offenses play the Vikings different. The Vikings score more, so teams press harder to score fast and both scores go up.

And don't forget, Percy really helped their ST's. That changes scores in many ways. Sidney Rice got healthy and broke out as one of the NFL's top receivers. Having not great receivers and adding a great receiver helps the passing game. That's good for a change in score. If people think Favre made Rice, wait until Favre is gone. I'll take any bet that thinks Rice isn't going to be a top tier receiver without Favre.

So yeah, they had more yards and more points. Favre played a big part in that, but opposing teams also felt the need to play a different game against the Vikings and that leads to more points scored against them too.


Say what you will, Just like I thought the Jets got better with a lot of their additions (and they are one of the NFL's top teams with Favre gone), I think the Vikings are similar. Tavaris is better than 2 years ago. Sage is better than Ferotte. Favre is a year older. I'm not saying Favre doesn't make them better. I'm saying they'd be a nasty team without Favre. They were before him and have made moves to get better with him. They're good. The yard/point jump from 2008 to 2009 doesn't prove anything, same way you guys didn't prove Favre made the Jets what they were 2 years ago.

But why with a team that could have run the ball just as effectively with basically the same people in 2009 changed their whole offensive strategy from the previous years? Was BF such a horrible hander-offer that the Vikings moved to the pass? Did Childress all of a sudden say, "this year I think I will pass more?"

The Vikings shifted from a 53% run team in 07/08 to a 46% run team in 2009. The most obvious change in the team was BF coming over. Childress trusted BF to run a more aggressive offense. If Childress had the same trust in TJack he would have opened up the offense in 2007 and 2008.

[RashanGary]

Yes, Favre is that much better than Tavaris Jackson and Gus Ferrotte of 2008. Other than Sidney Rice coming back off injury and breaking out as a superstar, Favre is the big difference between the two teams. Well, Percy's special teams too.

Just the improved ST's and Sidney Rice being back is worth something. Let's say 4 points per game.

And then there is Favre. For as much as he helped with yardage and points, teams then started to play the Vikings differently (needing to score more points to win).

It was agreed upon by a Viking fan earlier in this thread that without Favre, the Vikings would be more of a smashmouth run team. They might not be as good, but they're still good at that style of football. They would still be a force.


We just have to agree to disagree. I think the Vikings team is good without Favre and better with him. You think they're cruddy without him and great with him. The only way we find out is if he retires or goes down for a period of time during the season. How they play without him will be the proof. Until that happens, I just think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong. That's where it has to end I think.

[pbmax]

Is the power still out in the Fort? I took a shot at Chuck Cecil in the Favre thread and Bretsky is nowhere to be seen. I wonder if he bought a new Router recently?

Speaking of which, did Bretsky and Fritz endorse the drafting of Sergio Kindle?













Favre.

[Scott Campbell]

Speaking of which, did Bretsky and Fritz endorse the drafting of Sergio Kindle?

If they did, I'm going to be pissed that I didn't bet the under on the head injury.

[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.

But the offensive stats and scoring stats from above were for 2007, 2008 and 2009.

There is a trickle down effect. Without Favre, as Viking fans will tell you, they ran the ball a lot more. The result was less yards and less points, but teams also didn't feel the need to try to score quick, so offenses played more to the Vikings defensive strength. The result was winning the division by winning a lot of close, grind'em out games lead by AP and a defense that ranked near the top in every category. Insert Favre and offenses play the Vikings different. The Vikings score more, so teams press harder to score fast and both scores go up.

And don't forget, Percy really helped their ST's. That changes scores in many ways. Sidney Rice got healthy and broke out as one of the NFL's top receivers. Having not great receivers and adding a great receiver helps the passing game. That's good for a change in score. If people think Favre made Rice, wait until Favre is gone. I'll take any bet that thinks Rice isn't going to be a top tier receiver without Favre.

So yeah, they had more yards and more points. Favre played a big part in that, but opposing teams also felt the need to play a different game against the Vikings and that leads to more points scored against them too.


Say what you will, Just like I thought the Jets got better with a lot of their additions (and they are one of the NFL's top teams with Favre gone), I think the Vikings are similar. Tavaris is better than 2 years ago. Sage is better than Ferotte. Favre is a year older. I'm not saying Favre doesn't make them better. I'm saying they'd be a nasty team without Favre. They were before him and have made moves to get better with him. They're good. The yard/point jump from 2008 to 2009 doesn't prove anything, same way you guys didn't prove Favre made the Jets what they were 2 years ago.

I don't think so.

Few reasons.

1. Teams found out they can pass on the vikings last year. The packers proved it, as did almost every other team with a good QB. So, teams should score a bit more points on them, since they really didn't improve much in that are this offseason.

2. Rb's have a short shelf life. What is this, year 4 for AP? He only has a couple left in him. If he had to carry the load this year, chances are he is worn down for the playoffs, suffers an injury, or will pretty much be done for his career. RB's last longer when they have a passing offense. AP should be thanking favre, because he may have added a season to AP's career.

3. Sidney Rice wont have a great year without Favre, for the simple fact they don't actually have a competent QB. I am not saying Rice isn't good, I am saying they need someone who can get him the ball. Just look at Moss in oakland. He didn't initially give up on that franchise, but they never gave him a good QB either. No matter how good you are as a WR, you still need someone to get the ball to you.

4. The packers were "right there" last year, and that was with at eam that was vastly better than the year prior. What i mean to say is, the vikings did go 10-6, adn got bounced early in the playoffs. It's clear they are not going to win a SB that way.

5. The vikings won a lot of close games, and with the quality of their opponents this year, more money would be on the other really good teams pulling out the close ones, not the vikes.

I am not saying without favre the vikings suck, I am saying without them they aren't serious contendors. They are an average team with a great pass rusher and a great RB. They wont be going much of anywhere. 9-7, 10-6, is the ceiling, with most likely a first round exit.

[channtheman]

....... the Vikings quarterback tells USA TODAY. "I mean, my heart ... it was broken."

One of the all time greatest moments in sports.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyLJk-xT8Eo

Bert, somewhere deep down, I STILL LOVE YOU!

[MOBB DEEP]

....... the Vikings quarterback tells USA TODAY. "I mean, my heart ... it was broken."

One of the all time greatest moments in sports.

SCOTT DA GREAT!

[MOBB DEEP]

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.

But the offensive stats and scoring stats from above were for 2007, 2008 and 2009.

There is a trickle down effect. Without Favre, as Viking fans will tell you, they ran the ball a lot more. The result was less yards and less points, but teams also didn't feel the need to try to score quick, so offenses played more to the Vikings defensive strength. The result was winning the division by winning a lot of close, grind'em out games lead by AP and a defense that ranked near the top in every category. Insert Favre and offenses play the Vikings different. The Vikings score more, so teams press harder to score fast and both scores go up.

And don't forget, Percy really helped their ST's. That changes scores in many ways. Sidney Rice got healthy and broke out as one of the NFL's top receivers. Having not great receivers and adding a great receiver helps the passing game. That's good for a change in score. If people think Favre made Rice, wait until Favre is gone. I'll take any bet that thinks Rice isn't going to be a top tier receiver without Favre.

So yeah, they had more yards and more points. Favre played a big part in that, but opposing teams also felt the need to play a different game against the Vikings and that leads to more points scored against them too.


Say what you will, Just like I thought the Jets got better with a lot of their additions (and they are one of the NFL's top teams with Favre gone), I think the Vikings are similar. Tavaris is better than 2 years ago. Sage is better than Ferotte. Favre is a year older. I'm not saying Favre doesn't make them better. I'm saying they'd be a nasty team without Favre. They were before him and have made moves to get better with him. They're good. The yard/point jump from 2008 to 2009 doesn't prove anything, same way you guys didn't prove Favre made the Jets what they were 2 years ago.

I don't think so.

Few reasons.

1. Teams found out they can pass on the vikings last year. The packers proved it, as did almost every other team with a good QB. So, teams should score a bit more points on them, since they really didn't improve much in that are this offseason.

2. Rb's have a short shelf life. What is this, year 4 for AP? He only has a couple left in him. If he had to carry the load this year, chances are he is worn down for the playoffs, suffers an injury, or will pretty much be done for his career. RB's last longer when they have a passing offense. AP should be thanking favre, because he may have added a season to AP's career.

3. Sidney Rice wont have a great year without Favre, for the simple fact they don't actually have a competent QB. I am not saying Rice isn't good, I am saying they need someone who can get him the ball. Just look at Moss in oakland. He didn't initially give up on that franchise, but they never gave him a good QB either. No matter how good you are as a WR, you still need someone to get the ball to you.

4. The packers were "right there" last year, and that was with at eam that was vastly better than the year prior. What i mean to say is, the vikings did go 10-6, adn got bounced early in the playoffs. It's clear they are not going to win a SB that way.

5. The vikings won a lot of close games, and with the quality of their opponents this year, more money would be on the other really good teams pulling out the close ones, not the vikes.

I am not saying without favre the vikings suck, I am saying without them they aren't serious contendors. They are an average team with a great pass rusher and a great RB. They wont be going much of anywhere. 9-7, 10-6, is the ceiling, with most likely a first round exit.

good post

[Fritz]

Speaking of which, did Bretsky and Fritz endorse the drafting of Sergio Kindle?

If they did, I'm going to be pissed that I didn't bet the under on the head injury.

No, we were not both on that bandwagon. You can rest easy.