JS-"VIKES HAVE OUTPERFORMED PACK IN OFFSEASON TOO"

[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]

Re: JS-"VIKES HAVE OUTPERFORMED PACK IN OFFSEASON TOO&q

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".

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".

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.

[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".

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.

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:

[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:

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"