Pittsburg-Vikings

Hauschild

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
10
Yeah Ziggy was wanting Brett and his 12 million dollar arm trying to bring down a man of his size with two very large escorts at his side. I am sure those guys would love to put a good lick on a guy who has torched them for 334 yards. So surely you didn't expect him to lay his body out for that? The interception was not on him so you sound like you heard INT so right away you grasp at that. We all know nobody in sconny wants Favre to win and we all know people in minny want him to win so lets see how it plays out. Favre had a great game in a defensive struggle I thought. I would bet I watched more of the vikings game than most of you. That Steelers defensive is tough and Favre was moving the ball and gave them a chance. That was a fairly soft pass that him dead in the hands.

Weak argument because we are all aware of how Brett has no problem sacrificing his body for the betterment of his club. If he makes cut blocks on linebackers and cornerbacks and lineman - which is MUCH more dangerous, physically than a tackle - what is wrong with making a simple grab-the-legs-and-pull-down tackle??? I don't think I've ever seen a player injure himself making a tackle coming from behind; the guy being tackled, yeah sometimes, but the tackler has the advantage of preparing accordingly. Remember Big Ben against the Colts a few years back? He had the stones to atone for his mistake and it ended up enabling Pittsburgh to win that game and then the Super Bowl.

Favre chose to Sally-boy his way thru that play and the fumble cost his team at least 3 points. The failure to tackle cost his team an additional 7. That's a swing of at LEAST 10 points.

Favre's pick cost his team at LEAST 3 points and cost his team another 7 - again, another swing of at LEAST 10 points.

So, Favre was directly responsible for at LEAST 20 points that either Minnesota didn't score and Pittsburgh did. That ain't good.
 

Quientus

Oenophile
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
792
Reaction score
23
Location
Denmark, Scandinavia
The thing is, the Packers are more like Brazil than Denmark in soccer. They have a chance everytime, even though they don't look dominant. 2002 was all about Argentina and France. Brazil only qualified for the world cup in the last game, and almost had to go to the qualify round (SA qualifying is like a national championship. the first 4 qualifies for the WC directly, and the 5th goes on to face one North American Nation, before it was the Oceania champion.). They played badly against Turkey, and only won because the Ref was full of ****. (He gave us a penalty, when the faul on Rivaldo was out of the penalty area. It happened at reverse against China, though). Everybody started claiming that Brazil was terrible, had no defense. Turkey went on to be the 3rd place, and we won the World Cup.

Heh ... sorry but that comment made me chuckle quite abit ...

I don't really see the Packers like Brazil (in soccer), sorry ... but the Packers are just not that "dominant" ... - nor do they have the overall talent caliber that Brazil usually always has ...

Incidently there is one time where Denmark actually played like a legitimate WC contender, the quarterfinals against Brazil in 1998 ... That was a very close game ... and had Denmark won that game (lost 2-3) I actually think Denmark would have won the WC that year ...

There are always a handfull of teams (about 10) every year in the NFL that has a legitimate shot at the Super Bowl ... - You can't really say the same in Soccer really ...

That's another thing that I like about the NFL (sadly it's about to be "exponged" ...) is the Drafting system ... - Something that would benefit the Soccer organisation alot in Europe (but it will never happen with the EU rules) ... The drafting system (in part) is also a reason why teams that really "suck" one season can come out and be "great" in the following season ...


- And about tailgating, I'll definitely check it out if the Packers are in the Play-Offs when I get to Green Bay in January ... - Perhaps I can even bring out my Ahman Green shirt (since he seem to be playing again haha)
 
OP
OP
S

Skol guy

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
766
Reaction score
1
Weak argument because we are all aware of how Brett has no problem sacrificing his body for the betterment of his club. If he makes cut blocks on linebackers and cornerbacks and lineman - which is MUCH more dangerous, physically than a tackle - what is wrong with making a simple grab-the-legs-and-pull-down tackle??? I don't think I've ever seen a player injure himself making a tackle coming from behind; the guy being tackled, yeah sometimes, but the tackler has the advantage of preparing accordingly. Remember Big Ben against the Colts a few years back? He had the stones to atone for his mistake and it ended up enabling Pittsburgh to win that game and then the Super Bowl.

Favre chose to Sally-boy his way thru that play and the fumble cost his team at least 3 points. The failure to tackle cost his team an additional 7. That's a swing of at LEAST 10 points.

Favre's pick cost his team at LEAST 3 points and cost his team another 7 - again, another swing of at LEAST 10 points.

So, Favre was directly responsible for at LEAST 20 points that either Minnesota didn't score and Pittsburgh did. That ain't good.
Funny you are the only one who has said that. You sound so convincing. Have you joined that special group behind enemy lines yet? We miss you dearly and we are putting on a strong front without you but some times the Empty feeling of not haveing you by our sides is unbearable as we fight the good fight of "Good and Evil". No seriously I think your time is about up for the day so go wake up daddy so we can have an adult conversation
 
OP
OP
S

Skol guy

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
766
Reaction score
1
on bretts official forum they are saying he had the flu that is why he played bad..Even are saying he played his heart out

what a bunch of crap




ummm yeah the ball got knocked out of his hands on that fumble..

but when its Rodgers its cuz he cant sens epressure

Bunch of effing hypocrites
another Bump with your blameing favre
 
OP
OP
S

Skol guy

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
766
Reaction score
1
I dont think to many people are claiming Brett was to blame for the int

But the fumble? That most defiantly can be put on him for not feleing the pressure..

I said same thing when it happened to him vs the Rams a few years ago in GB when they were going in for a score

The lineman should be blocking, but the q/b needs to feel the pressure
Bump yeah boy did you guys sucker us into picking up favre. That 26-6 TD to INT ratio is embarrassing
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,353
Reaction score
4,083
Location
Milwaukee


Ummm yeah??

I also said this
I did put some blame on him just as it should be...Like blame on the o-l, for not doing their job..Everyone has a part in a loss...

Your rantings were more so pointing to me claiming Brett was responsible for the ENTIRE loss...

Care to show me where I said that?
 
OP
OP
S

Skol guy

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
766
Reaction score
1
Anyway as I pointed out earlier a certain play that was very much the same with the same outcome in the Vikings packers1 game I recalled you blameing the horrible line play for Rodgers fumble as the pocket collapsed but in Favres case you blame the wiley vet, a man who has "Been there,done that" in this league including 16 for your team, all of a sudden forgot how to QB and allowed the pocket to collapse on him? well as long as your being fair and logical
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top