Aaron was the right choice

[sheepshead]

Well, some might have argued otherwise after what happened last year. Favre did beat the Packers twice last year. However, that now appears to be a bump in the road leading to a number of years of the Packers being an elite team led by an elite quarterback.

oh :-/

[channtheman]

I agree that it may have been Favre's best year statistically, and that he did it by playing within himself as MM begged him to. But I also think all of that happened because Favre no longer had to be the offensive focus. The Vikings got as far as they did because they had a very good defense, Percy Harvin on STs, Adrian Peterson to run the ball, and good receivers. Favre was able to be just a piece of the overall puzzle, rather than the primary part for scoring points. While he played exceptionally well, his value to the Vikings may have been less than his value to the Packers in some of those years when it was Favre and not much more for points. Would the Vikings have gone as far without Favre? Probably not, but I think offensively Peterson may be a more important part than Favre. AFter all, they weren't bad before Favre got there.

The Colts without Manning would be a totally different team, I think. Therefore, I think Manning might be more valuable.

Just my feeling, but I can understand yours as well.

I see what you are saying about the Vikings without Favre last year, but the argument that the Colts without Manning as a good reason for him to win it doesn't make sense to me. Take Brees away from the Saints, are they still a playoff team? How about take Rodgers away from us? Do we still make the playoffs. I still don't think Manning should have won the award last year because if we rule out Favre which is fine (Vikes were a playoff team without him) then why not give it to Brees?

What I think happened was is that the media turned on Favre (like I said, big story but they don't love him anymore) and wanted to spite him and make Manning break one of his records (MVP's). Yeah conspiracy maybe, but there were other deserving QB's for the MVP and I don't recall them even being close in the voting.

[packerbacker1234]

In both losing to the saints - Manning and Favre both threw essentially game ending interceptions to the same guy, and boht were ugly. Favre through across his body on the final drive, Manning threw it right to the defender on a medium in route.

[packerbacker1234]

Also to add on, After the amazing game ender against the 48ers, their offense became all about Favre. He was tossing it almost 40 times a game every game, and suddenly scoring 30+ points all the time. AP's numbers started to dip - they were still really good for any RB, but he had far less carries. He still made occasional plays, but it was most about Favre in them scoring 30+ a game, where in years pat they were lycky to get in the low 20's and hoped their defense held pat.

Without Favre, do the vikings make the playoffs last year? Who knows. Chances are the packers take the division, they lose 2 or 3 more games (the vikings), and they are in tight races with philyl and such for wild card spots. Doubtful they get within one play of the super bowl.

Of course, it's the vikings. As if they will ever get a ring.

[ThunderDan]

Minnesota was the 2008 NFC North Champions without BF and made the playoffs.

[ThunderDan]

In both losing to the saints - Manning and Favre both threw essentially game ending interceptions to the same guy, and boht were ugly. Favre through across his body on the final drive, Manning threw it right to the defender on a medium in route.

So because of this BF deserved the MVP in 2009?

[Packgator]

Rodgers vs Favre (head to head stats)

Games: 4

Record: 2-2

Rodgers: 11 TD, 3 INT, 317 Yards Per Game

Favre: 8 TD, 4 INT, 234 Yards Per Game

[3irty1]

I agree that it may have been Favre's best year statistically, and that he did it by playing within himself as MM begged him to. But I also think all of that happened because Favre no longer had to be the offensive focus. The Vikings got as far as they did because they had a very good defense, Percy Harvin on STs, Adrian Peterson to run the ball, and good receivers. Favre was able to be just a piece of the overall puzzle, rather than the primary part for scoring points. While he played exceptionally well, his value to the Vikings may have been less than his value to the Packers in some of those years when it was Favre and not much more for points. Would the Vikings have gone as far without Favre? Probably not, but I think offensively Peterson may be a more important part than Favre. AFter all, they weren't bad before Favre got there.

The Colts without Manning would be a totally different team, I think. Therefore, I think Manning might be more valuable.

Just my feeling, but I can understand yours as well.

I agree with that bolded part but you can't have the year Favre had last year without being the offensive focus. He was by far the most important cog to that offense. The Vikings did make the playoffs the year before without him but they definitely didn't belong there. It was something of a perfect storm season where everything that could bounce their way did and that was good enough for 9 or 10 wins.

[gbgary]

Aaron was the right choice!

certainly was. he hit the ground running. no serious growing pains. no learning curve. Packer fans have been blessed. it's up to tt to keep talent around him though or it will all be for not. so far so good. some good luck along the way wouldn't hurt also.

[Patler]

I see what you are saying about the Vikings without Favre last year, but the argument that the Colts without Manning as a good reason for him to win it doesn't make sense to me. Take Brees away from the Saints, are they still a playoff team? How about take Rodgers away from us? Do we still make the playoffs. I still don't think Manning should have won the award last year because if we rule out Favre which is fine (Vikes were a playoff team without him) then why not give it to Brees?

What I think happened was is that the media turned on Favre (like I said, big story but they don't love him anymore) and wanted to spite him and make Manning break one of his records (MVP's). Yeah conspiracy maybe, but there were other deserving QB's for the MVP and I don't recall them even being close in the voting.

I wasn't saying Manning deserved it over Brees, just saying he deserved it over Favre. Deciding between Manning and Brees would have been difficult. Personally, I might have voted for Brees, but it would have been tough. Not sure who else I would have had high on my list last year.

I can't accept any conspiracy theory among the media to spite Favre by voting for Manning. Far too many individuals would have to be on board to rig the voting. The vast majority have no direct dealings with any of the players other than the ones on the team they cover. What reason would the vast majority have to do it?

[channtheman]

I wasn't saying Manning deserved it over Brees, just saying he deserved it over Favre. Deciding between Manning and Brees would have been difficult. Personally, I might have voted for Brees, but it would have been tough. Not sure who else I would have had high on my list last year.

I can't accept any conspiracy theory among the media to spite Favre by voting for Manning. Far too many individuals would have to be on board to rig the voting. The vast majority have no direct dealings with any of the players other than the ones on the team they cover. What reason would the vast majority have to do it?

My apologies for confusing that (in regards to Manning winning over Brees).

Yeah just my own little conspiracy thrown in there. No real reason for it and obviously no proof. I looked up the voting yesterday evening and without going back I think the results were 37 votes Manning, 7 for Brees, and then just a couple for Favre and Rivers. I suppose a lot of people picked Manning over Brees barely, but I don't know why. I think how the Super Bowl played out helps my argument that Brees should have gotten it over Manning.

[Patler]

Well, some might have argued otherwise after what happened last year. Favre did beat the Packers twice last year. However, that now appears to be a bump in the road leading to a number of years of the Packers being an elite team led by an elite quarterback.

Sorry in advance Joe. I'm not addressing this at you specifically, just using your post as an example. I'm probably guilty of it myself sometimes.

This phraseology, used also by the national media, has really gotten to me the last two years. Favre didn't beat the Packers. The Vikings beat the Packers. This year, the Packers didn't beat Favre, they beat the Vikings. A lot more went into the Packer losses last year and wins this year than just Brett Favre. Yet, the Packers are always addressed collectively, and pitted against an individual, Favre.

This reminds me of a comment from a Packer a few years ago when Favre left GB. I don't even remember who it was, if he was even named. Basically he said maybe now people would realize that there are other very good players in GB, and that the Packers are not just Brett Favre. That same perception has permeated the media treatment of the Vikings. Favre beat the Packers, the Packers beat Favre, Favre wants a Super Bowl in the worst way; Favre, Favre, Favre.

Then we as fans wonder sometime why certain players seem to put themselves above their teams!

[sheepshead]

Ok, I dont mean to be a pain here. But is this post about the 2005 draft? Like should TT have taken him or someone else? Or Rodgers or Favre? Because I think it was clear early on that Rodgers was our QB of the future. So was there some consideration with some that TT was going to dump Rodgers for Favre? Because I dont think that was ever a consideration.