Why Im Not Scared Of Brett Favre

[The Shadow]

Dabaddestbear wrote:
pittstang5 wrote:
gbgary wrote:
i heard cutler sucked tonight. lol


Two picks...maybe one...not sure.

He had one pick. Nothing major. The Offense two top weapons did not even play, Forte and Olsen. Plus the Best O-lineman did not play (Orlando Pace). He looked hesitant on some throws but did ok on the very vanilla plays they called while he was in there.

No reason for concern on my end. I look at possession players and see how they are working out. I am never concerned after the first preseason game. The lions look good every preseason, but you see how they turn out. Some teams run VERY vanilla calls on both side of the ball just to see what they need to install. And some teams go into preseason with plays they will run frequently in the regular season, only then the teams have tape on it and they go nowhere..ala Detroit.


Are you familiar with the term 'whistling past the graveyard'?
Here's a few things you SHOULD be concerned about :
1. injuries and a big-money contract have made DT Tommie Harris a shell of his former self. Not much talent inside. Adams, Harrison, and Dvorcek?
Please!
2. the secondary is a mess. Best player Tillman's injury should keep him out for a considerable while, and trying to eventually play corner effectively with a bad back - good luck! The rest of the secondary's play resembles a Chinese firedrill.
3. Still no sign of a pass rush. Defensive ends don't look good.
4. the worst receiving corp in the NFL.
5. the offensive line looks mediocre at best.

"No reason for concern on my end" sure sounds a bit like General Custer's last memo!

[Merlin]

My take?

If you aren't afraid of a Favre lead Vikings team, then why are people saying "well he hasn't done this or that in the past x years" or "his passer rating down field last year was X", I mean seriously? If you aren't afraid, then why are you trying so hard to make your case? I think the reverse may be true and nobody wants to admit it.

Let me be the first to admit it, a Favre lead Vikings team, 40 years old or not, is a hell of a lot more dangerous than the Vikings team that tore us apart in the dome last year. The other factor? The NFC North - the powerhouse conference that it is. There is a lot of reason to be afraid. The Vikings defense doesn't need anymore help stopping our offense. Our offense, HASN'T CHANGED MUCH since Favre left - even the cadence is the same. That alone is a huge cause for concern. The 3-4? Are you serious? We have only seen it run against the Browns with an OL that did not include all of their starters. Do you REALLY think the success we had in ONE preseason game is enough to be all "our defense kicks ass" about it? There will be growing pains with this defense, just like the 4 years of growing pains building a roster. If it works overnight, great, but don't dismiss a guy who SAW THE 3-4 ALL LAST SEASON. You can't conveniently forget that the Patriots, Dolphins, Chargers, 49er's (hybrid), Arizona (hybrid), and the Jets themselves run a 3-4? That makes 7 out of 16 games he played against the 3-4 and he was exposed to it at practice. Is it enough to erase 17 years facing mostly a 4-3? Who knows, but to say "Favre hasn't had success against a 3-4..." as a reason not to be afraid of him isn't taking reality into consideration.

As far as Green Bay is concerned, keep the message board about Green Bay. Brett Favre has not been a Packer for 2 seasons now yet there are more threads on here about him then there are any other subject. I wish him well and success to the point it doesn't affect the Packers. I wonder if all of the haters will be rooting for Favre come the end of the season when we need the Vikings to beat someone for us to get into the playoffs? My guess, probably...

[Bossman641]

I wonder if all of the haters will be rooting for Favre come the end of the season when we need the Vikings to beat someone for us to get into the playoffs? My guess, probably...

Does that really make you a hater or just someone with sense who would like to see the Packers keep playing? If that's the best you can do I'd head back to the drawing board.

[pasquale]

I wonder if all of the haters will be rooting for Favre come the end of the season when we need the Vikings to beat someone for us to get into the playoffs? My guess, probably...

Does that really make you a hater or just someone with sense who would like to see the Packers keep playing? If that's the best you can do I'd head back to the drawing board.

If this was the case, I'd cheer for the Vikes or even the Bears, as would I'm assuming most people. I'm missing your point there, Merlin.

[CaptainKickass]

yet there are more threads on here about him then there are any other subject.

Well, Merlin, It has been a slow offseason, AND we're all victims of habit when it comes to Brent and the offseason drama. We're just so conditioned to respond if he's in the news.

On the other hand -

Instead of pointing out the inadequate quantity of threads actually about the Pack, you could go ahead put your imagination to work on that keyboard in front of you, along with your skill at crafting sentences and occasional paragraphs, and ....oh I don't know.....start some threads that fit your criteria?

I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

.

[gex]

My take?

If you aren't afraid of a Favre lead Vikings team, then why are people saying "well he hasn't done this or that in the past x years" or "his passer rating down field last year was X", I mean seriously? If you aren't afraid, then why are you trying so hard to make your case? I think the reverse may be true and nobody wants to admit it.

Let me be the first to admit it, a Favre lead Vikings team, 40 years old or not, is a hell of a lot more dangerous than the Vikings team that tore us apart in the dome last year. The other factor? The NFC North - the powerhouse conference that it is. There is a lot of reason to be afraid. The Vikings defense doesn't need anymore help stopping our offense. Our offense, HASN'T CHANGED MUCH since Favre left - even the cadence is the same. That alone is a huge cause for concern. The 3-4? Are you serious? We have only seen it run against the Browns with an OL that did not include all of their starters. Do you REALLY think the success we had in ONE preseason game is enough to be all "our defense kicks ass" about it? There will be growing pains with this defense, just like the 4 years of growing pains building a roster. If it works overnight, great, but don't dismiss a guy who SAW THE 3-4 ALL LAST SEASON. You can't conveniently forget that the Patriots, Dolphins, Chargers, 49er's (hybrid), Arizona (hybrid), and the Jets themselves run a 3-4? That makes 7 out of 16 games he played against the 3-4 and he was exposed to it at practice. Is it enough to erase 17 years facing mostly a 4-3? Who knows, but to say "Favre hasn't had success against a 3-4..." as a reason not to be afraid of him isn't taking reality into consideration.

As far as Green Bay is concerned, keep the message board about Green Bay. Brett Favre has not been a Packer for 2 seasons now yet there are more threads on here about him then there are any other subject. I wish him well and success to the point it doesn't affect the Packers. I wonder if all of the haters will be rooting for Favre come the end of the season when we need the Vikings to beat someone for us to get into the playoffs? My guess, probably...

[th87]

My take?

If you aren't afraid of a Favre lead Vikings team, then why are people saying "well he hasn't done this or that in the past x years" or "his passer rating down field last year was X", I mean seriously? If you aren't afraid, then why are you trying so hard to make your case? I think the reverse may be true and nobody wants to admit it.

Let me be the first to admit it, a Favre lead Vikings team, 40 years old or not, is a hell of a lot more dangerous than the Vikings team that tore us apart in the dome last year. The other factor? The NFC North - the powerhouse conference that it is. There is a lot of reason to be afraid. The Vikings defense doesn't need anymore help stopping our offense. Our offense, HASN'T CHANGED MUCH since Favre left - even the cadence is the same. That alone is a huge cause for concern. The 3-4? Are you serious? We have only seen it run against the Browns with an OL that did not include all of their starters. Do you REALLY think the success we had in ONE preseason game is enough to be all "our defense kicks ass" about it? There will be growing pains with this defense, just like the 4 years of growing pains building a roster. If it works overnight, great, but don't dismiss a guy who SAW THE 3-4 ALL LAST SEASON. You can't conveniently forget that the Patriots, Dolphins, Chargers, 49er's (hybrid), Arizona (hybrid), and the Jets themselves run a 3-4? That makes 7 out of 16 games he played against the 3-4 and he was exposed to it at practice. Is it enough to erase 17 years facing mostly a 4-3? Who knows, but to say "Favre hasn't had success against a 3-4..." as a reason not to be afraid of him isn't taking reality into consideration.

As far as Green Bay is concerned, keep the message board about Green Bay. Brett Favre has not been a Packer for 2 seasons now yet there are more threads on here about him then there are any other subject. I wish him well and success to the point it doesn't affect the Packers. I wonder if all of the haters will be rooting for Favre come the end of the season when we need the Vikings to beat someone for us to get into the playoffs? My guess, probably...

I actually agree. Favre does make the Vikings better than they were previously. But we've gotten better too, and if we stay healthy, I think we'll be very successful this season.

[hoosier]

The splits (1-10, 11-20, etc.) are a reflection of the length of the throw, though the total yardage credited to Jackson of course includes YAC numbers. On passes that traveled 11-20 yards from LOS he completed 48.5% (16 of 33), on passes 21-30 he was 4 of 8. Not a large sample, admittedly. By comparison, ARod was 55% on 11-20 (59 of 107) and 36% (12 of 33). Jackson's 48.5% for intermediate passes (11-20) is somewhat low, but it's not out of this world low.

I've seen him for three years, and he's just plain bad on deep throws and not very good on medium throws. His positives are his running ability, decent touch on short throws, and solid on the slants, short in/outs, etc. It looks like the coach just stopped giving him the option of throwing deep. Hard to say from 4 completions. Perhaps those guys were wide open. What were his stats his previous years?

He barely played in 2006 so I won't look at those. In '07 he was good in intermediate passing (11-20)--34 of 57, 60%, 88 rating--but was pretty putrid in passes thrown more than 20 yds from LOS: 2 of 36 for 178 yds with 5 picks and 2 tds. Based on stats alone I would say he is limited to throwing short and intermediate, and that he appears to be able to do that successfully. With the Vikings running game I would think that would be enough to keep defenses honest.

[Rastak]

The splits (1-10, 11-20, etc.) are a reflection of the length of the throw, though the total yardage credited to Jackson of course includes YAC numbers. On passes that traveled 11-20 yards from LOS he completed 48.5% (16 of 33), on passes 21-30 he was 4 of 8. Not a large sample, admittedly. By comparison, ARod was 55% on 11-20 (59 of 107) and 36% (12 of 33). Jackson's 48.5% for intermediate passes (11-20) is somewhat low, but it's not out of this world low.

I've seen him for three years, and he's just plain bad on deep throws and not very good on medium throws. His positives are his running ability, decent touch on short throws, and solid on the slants, short in/outs, etc. It looks like the coach just stopped giving him the option of throwing deep. Hard to say from 4 completions. Perhaps those guys were wide open. What were his stats his previous years?

He barely played in 2006 so I won't look at those. In '07 he was good in intermediate passing (11-20)--34 of 57, 60%, 88 rating--but was pretty putrid in passes thrown more than 20 yds from LOS: 2 of 36 for 178 yds with 5 picks and 2 tds. Based on stats alone I would say he is limited to throwing short and intermediate, and that he appears to be able to do that successfully. With the Vikings running game I would think that would be enough to keep defenses honest.

I've watched every snap he's taken as a pro and this guy lacks in several areas. I honestly don't think he has what it takes to be an average NFL starter.

[MOBB DEEP]

My take?

If you aren't afraid of a Favre lead Vikings team, then why are people saying "well he hasn't done this or that in the past x years" or "his passer rating down field last year was X", I mean seriously? If you aren't afraid, then why are you trying so hard to make your case? I think the reverse may be true and nobody wants to admit it.

Let me be the first to admit it, a Favre lead Vikings team, 40 years old or not, is a hell of a lot more dangerous than the Vikings team that tore us apart in the dome last year. The other factor? The NFC North - the powerhouse conference that it is. There is a lot of reason to be afraid. The Vikings defense doesn't need anymore help stopping our offense. Our offense, HASN'T CHANGED MUCH since Favre left - even the cadence is the same. That alone is a huge cause for concern. The 3-4? Are you serious? We have only seen it run against the Browns with an OL that did not include all of their starters. Do you REALLY think the success we had in ONE preseason game is enough to be all "our defense kicks ass" about it? There will be growing pains with this defense, just like the 4 years of growing pains building a roster. If it works overnight, great, but don't dismiss a guy who SAW THE 3-4 ALL LAST SEASON. You can't conveniently forget that the Patriots, Dolphins, Chargers, 49er's (hybrid), Arizona (hybrid), and the Jets themselves run a 3-4? That makes 7 out of 16 games he played against the 3-4 and he was exposed to it at practice. Is it enough to erase 17 years facing mostly a 4-3? Who knows, but to say "Favre hasn't had success against a 3-4..." as a reason not to be afraid of him isn't taking reality into consideration.

As far as Green Bay is concerned, keep the message board about Green Bay. Brett Favre has not been a Packer for 2 seasons now yet there are more threads on here about him then there are any other subject. I wish him well and success to the point it doesn't affect the Packers. I wonder if all of the haters will be rooting for Favre come the end of the season when we need the Vikings to beat someone for us to get into the playoffs? My guess, probably...

good points merl

[Chevelle2]

http://espn.go.com/chicago/story?id=4408497

His skills are deteriorating

It's fairly common knowledge Favre led the NFL in interceptions with 22 last season. But it was when they occurred that proved to be even more costly for the Jets. Favre struggled when it mattered most: when losing, on third down and in the second half.

Some examples of Favre's inadequacy in 2008 (minimum 200 attempts):

# Seven interceptions in the fourth quarter (only Marc Bulger was worse).

# Nine interceptions on third down (only Jay Cutler was worse).

# A 79.3 quarterback rating in the second half (23 quarterbacks were better).

# A 66.8 quarterback rating when losing (24 quarterbacks were better).

Some might say Favre has a better arm than the last crop of Vikings quarterbacks. That might true, but the passes aren't as accurate as they used to be.

Favre's completion percentage to targets 20 yards or more downfield was just 22.8 in 2008. That's a drop of more than 16 percent from the previous season. He also threw 10 interceptions and just five touchdowns on those long throws.

[Chevelle2]

Here is a couple more stats to chew on

Favre has gone .500 in his last 80 starts.

Over 100 interceptions since 2004

The reason I am posting these is not because Im "scared." I see nothing wrong with posting my opinion as to why he won't do well, just like others are posting why they think he will do well. The evidence just keeps piling up against the guy...

[mraynrand]

Favre will have some good games - possibly some great games. Like at TN and NE last year. But he's also going to have some dogs, especially on the heels of a week where he takes a major beating. Old NFL bodies just cannot recover that quickly, and in NFL terms, Favre is a geezer. I hope the Packers get him on the heels of one of those beatings and then proceed to thrash the living shit out of that gray, decrepit, 'living corpse.'

[Chevelle2]

Umm.....oops?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/08/20/partial-tear-in-favres-cuff-likely-to-worsen/

[Fritz]

Favre will have some good games - possibly some great games. Like at TN and NE last year. But he's also going to have some dogs, especially on the heels of a week where he takes a major beating. Old NFL bodies just cannot recover that quickly, and in NFL terms, Favre is a geezer. I hope the Packers get him on the heels of one of those beatings and then proceed to thrash the living shit out of that gray, decrepit, 'living corpse.'

This is my thinking as well. It'll be fun to read the screaming "I TOLD YOU SO's" after Favre throws for 220 yards and 3 td's in a game, and the opposing "HAH's" when he throws for 140 yards and 3 picks.