What difference does it make?

[Packerlifer]

Not since ****** & Mussolini teamed up to conquer the world in WW II has so much been so assumed about the Super Bowl success of Batt Faver joining up with the Minnysota Vikqueens. Suddenly Minnysota is "the team to beat." They got their "missing piece." Just like they did with Warren Moon in 1994, Herschel Walker in 1989, Fran Tarkenton in 1972 and probably a half dozen other times when the bandwagon rolled. The fact is this is a union of two of the biggest all time chokers in NFL history. The Queens, a franchise that hasn't been to a Super Bowl in 33 years and has never won in four trips before that has added an aged, damaged quarterback who's spent the last 11 years of his career in a futile attempt to get back to the Super Bowl and repeatedly blowing every and numerous chances to get it done. Watching Faver at his intro press conference yesterday he had that "deer in the headlights" look in his eyes and the demeanor of a man who really didn't believe or know what he was doing there. He's a guy just a couple of months from age 40, who's had recent surgery on an injured tendon in his throwing arm and a torn rotator cuff in the shoulder of his throwing arm, whose offseason conditioning has been playing catch with high school kids and who's missed his new team's entire ota and training camp work. Forget that the offense and its terminology are similar to what he played in Green Bay. You've got to be with a team in its advance prep stages to really fit in and as qb make it go. Has no one noticed that no one else in the NFL was interested in Faver any more? He wouldn't have gotten a second look from any of the other 31 franchises if he had applied. The premise in Minnysota is that FAver will loosen up defenses keying on Adrian Peterson & the premise for FAver is that he won't have to carry the team by passing with that running game. But once defenses find out that FAver can't throw like he used to they'll just fill the box anyway and dare Bratty to beat them throwing. And the more he throws and more his damaged and diminished arm will be aggravted and the interceptions mount and games are lost the luster of this axis will pale. Faver will walk off with $10-12 million of Vikqueens' money, Brad Childress, the desperate coach who made the desperate deal, will be out of a job, The Queens still won't have a championship or a new stadium to keep them in Minnysota and Faver will join Herschel and Warren and Francis and the rest in the lore of Vikqueen frustration. If you thought the breakdown last year in New York was something, I look for Bratt to do it one better this time around.

 

[lambeauharrier]

completely agree with you PL. so annoyed that he's returned though

lets hope Raji flattens his OAP butt

 

[Murgen]

I agree. A damaged arm on a 39 year old QB (who missed training camp again) who choked hard the last 2 years and several times before that. Not a smart move by the Queens. $12M wasted and another DUMB move by the Viqueens. When you get released from the Jets cause NO other team is interested, it's time to retire. The Jets were glad to see him leave after the 3 INT choke job that cost them the playoffs. I know that feeling of the Favre costing you a playoff/championship well. GB put up with that crap because of his history. The Jets were like, "Grab you bags and get the F out."

Add into the fact he is swapping 8 games on turf for 8 games on artificial surface. OUCH!! That damaged arm is going to get more damaged. He obviously was fading hard in NY last year with the jets going 0-6 to finish their dream season with the Favre. Being slammed into turf for a minimum of 10 games is going to be ******* that body. Guess it's time to get out the Vicodin stash. LOL, Ok, that was below the belt, but that is how I feel Favre has treated GB fans be signing with a rival, just to get revenge on the GB org, namely TT.

Add on the fact he has turned into a liar and never meant anything he said about retiring in a GB jersey or staying retired. I just totally changes they way I look at the man.

It's appropriate, a Drama Queen playing for the Queens. Genius

 

[packedhouse01]

I just remember those two game in Chicago and the one in Green Bay when on his last play as a Packer he tried to force a ball when he had other receivers open. His last play as a Packer was in interception (how fitting) and it cost us a trip to the SuperBowl. He cost us a trip to the SuperBowl. He payed like an old man in cold weather. He'll be playing two of the last four games in cold weather.

 

[OHIOFAN]

The more I think about this the more I love it. I think that Favre is going to hurt the Vikings more than he will help them. The Vikes have a great running back, good D, but they also need a QB to be patient and not cost them the game. I know that Brett is thought of as a big play QB and such, but he makes far more bad choices than he does good. I don't think the can resist chucking the ball up for grabs if in his mind a receiver has a chance to make a great catch. The Vikings would have been a better team in the long run by sticking with one of their young QB's, now they might as well ship Jackson and Rosenfelds off and draft someone else to sit on the bench until Brett has had all the attention his ego needs. We all know how Brett does not play well in the dome, this year I look for him to near 25 interceptions. I used to think that he was a class act, now all I see is an actor when he speaks to the public. I am very glad the Packers chose to move on with Rodgers. The Packers can grow together and have time to gell, the Vikings will be in the same boat in 2 more years, if Brett decides to stay unretired that long.:blind:

 

[PackersRS]

I disagree with you guys. My present hate towards brent is well documented, but I don't think getting him was a bad move. Even washed up, he's clearly an upgrade over anything they had. PLAYING BY HIS TERMS WAS A HUGE MISTAKE, AND IT MAY VERY WELL BREAK THEIR LOCKER ROOM CHEMISTRY (considering they had any left). But the actual act of pursuing him and signing him wasn't. OHIOFAN made a very good point about the queens' future, but with Childress job in jeopardy, and with Wilf desperately trying to sell tickets and products to an apathic fan base, they really couldn't afford to think about the future.

 

[mateus]

I disagree with you guys. My present hate towards brent is well documented, but I don't think getting him was a bad move. Even washed up, he's clearly an upgrade over anything they had. PLAYING BY HIS TERMS WAS A HUGE MISTAKE, AND IT MAY VERY WELL BREAK THEIR LOCKER ROOM CHEMISTRY (considering they had any left). But the actual act of pursuing him and signing him wasn't. OHIOFAN made a very good point about the queens' future, but with Childress job in jeopardy, and with Wilf desperately trying to sell tickets and products to an apathic fan base, they really couldn't afford to think about the future.

my thoughts exactly.
its win for the vikes because they get to sell tickets and do get an improvement at QB.
the coin toss is between Brett and the Packers. and I'm liking out chances in all this.

 

[D.Levens]

I disagree with you guys. My present hate towards brent is well documented, but I don't think getting him was a bad move. Even washed up, he's clearly an upgrade over anything they had. PLAYING BY HIS TERMS WAS A HUGE MISTAKE, AND IT MAY VERY WELL BREAK THEIR LOCKER ROOM CHEMISTRY (considering they had any left). But the actual act of pursuing him and signing him wasn't. OHIOFAN made a very good point about the queens' future, but with Childress job in jeopardy, and with Wilf desperately trying to sell tickets and products to an apathic fan base, they really couldn't afford to think about the future.

Yeah, "washed up"....right...:icon_rolleyes:

14-3 for the Packers
8-3 for the Jets (beating an undefeated Tenessee and New England)...before an arm injury on a sh*tty Jet team...

How's Mr. 6-10 doing, anyway?

 

[America]

I disagree with you guys. My present hate towards brent is well documented, but I don't think getting him was a bad move. .

According to the Football Scientist, KC Joyner, over the last three years (2006-2008 ) Favre is the 5th worst QB in the NFL at throwing downfield (throws of 11 yards or more). Note that this time span does not cover his horrendous 2005 season but does include his 2007 renaissance season.

He's old, he can't possibly be in his best possible shape, he's coming off surgery, he led the league in picks last year, and he's one of the worst downfield passers in the league.

I'm really looking forward to the epic failiure that is about to occur.

 

[Green_Bay_Packers]

According to the Football Scientist, KC Joyner, over the last three years (2006-2008 ) Favre is the 5th worst QB in the NFL at throwing downfield (throws of 11 yards or more). Note that this time span does not cover his horrendous 2005 season but does include his 2007 renaissance season.

He's old, he can't possibly be in his best possible shape, he's coming off surgery, he led the league in picks last year, and he's one of the worst downfield passers in the league.

I'm really looking forward to the epic failiure that is about to occur.

I cant agree more, bring on the season

 

[PackersRS]

According to the Football Scientist, KC Joyner, over the last three years (2006-2008 ) Favre is the 5th worst QB in the NFL at throwing downfield (throws of 11 yards or more). Note that this time span does not cover his horrendous 2005 season but does include his 2007 renaissance season.

He's old, he can't possibly be in his best possible shape, he's coming off surgery, he led the league in picks last year, and he's one of the worst downfield passers in the league.

I'm really looking forward to the epic failiure that is about to occur.

Yes, that's all true... But even then, he's better than Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels

 

[America]

Yes, that's all true... But even then, he's better than Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels

You'd have to explain to me what you mean by "better". He threw more picks and had a lower passer rating than the Viking QBs last year and won fewer games. And you think Favre will be better this year than he was last year? Based on what?

Here's the thing: The Vikings didn't get Favre so he could hand the ball off to Peterson; they got Favre because they think he'll give them a passing game. More passes = less runs so they've just made their best offensive player a smaller part of their offense.

IMO, the Vikings just took a step backwards at that position and I predict that before Christmas rolls around there'll be a lot of people agreeing with me.

 

[mateus]

Yeah, "washed up"....right...:icon_rolleyes:

14-3 for the Packers
8-3 for the Jets (beating an undefeated Tenessee and New England)...before an arm injury on a sh*tty Jet team...

How's Mr. 6-10 doing, anyway?

still throwing for 4000+ yards and predicted to be a top 5 fantasy QB by ESPN, but hey hate and negativity can't be beaten by logic.

 

[D.Levens]

You'd have to explain to me what you mean by "better". He threw more picks and had a lower passer rating than the Viking QBs last year and won fewer games. And you think Favre will be better this year than he was last year? Based on what?

Here's the thing: The Vikings didn't get Favre so he could hand the ball off to Peterson; they got Favre because they think he'll give them a passing game. More passes = less runs so they've just made their best offensive player a smaller part of their offense.

IMO, the Vikings just took a step backwards at that position and I predict that before Christmas rolls around there'll be a lot of people agreeing with me.

Based on 14-4 two years ago and taking a 4-12 Jets team to 9-7 with a bad wing....

I don't what your "football scientist" has to say (what the hell is a football scientist anyway, just some ******* who never played the game and doesn't know wtf he's talking about?) That sounds about right for you.

I'd like to hear you rationale for getting rid of Favre after a 14-3 season?

Something lame, like the train has left the station..or another ******* rationalization by Tedson and MM?

You are funny, and it's going to be fun rubbing your nose in it when Favre whips your ***** 2x this year and Thom P. Tedson is fired at the end of the year...oh yeah!

 

[mateus]

Based on 14-4 two years ago and taking a 4-12 Jets team to 9-7 with a bad wing....

I don't what your "football scientist" has to say (what the hell is a football scientist anyway, just some ******* who never played the game and doesn't know wtf he's talking about?) That sounds about right for you.

I'd like to hear you rationale for getting rid of Favre after a 14-3 season?

Something lame, like the train has left the station..or another ******* rationalization by Tedson and MM?

You are funny, and it's going to be fun rubbing your nose in it when Favre whips your ***** 2x this year and Thom P. Tedson is fired at the end of the year...oh yeah!

well to tell you the truth it was a smart sports decision.

look at the facts, yes he was 14-4 two years ago and brought a losing jets team a winning record. but he also cost us a shot at the super bowl and costed the jets a shot at the playoffs. therefore he failed as a leader to both teams.

hes also a soon to be 40 year old player, how many 40 year olds do you know can still play and perform at such a high level? and with that being said compare that number to the number of 30 year olds, 25 years olds and so on and so forth. you will find more successful players at the younger ages than 40. Brett Favre aside, thats a scary thought when you know your games, season, playoffs and superbowl chances reside on the shoulders of what is known as an avoidable risk.

lets put the age and the winning records together: its an absolute miracle in sports that he can pull off that kind of performance and be at such a late point in his career. that is a true testament to his talent as a QB, a football player and a sports athlete in general! but the daunting question remains: for how long?

like it or not, sports is a business, its about winning and losing one thing and one thing alone: money. Brett could no doubt carry teams to championships but how many times and for how long?

lets face it, GB could have said 2 years ago: Brett is our man and were going with him, and what if he decided to stay retired after that? uh oh...do we trust Rodgers? no! Brett is our man! but...Brett retired...****...we need a new QB...trade for one? where? who? how much? and the questions would have gone on and on and on. instead they did the correct thing any business would do. they let their veteran have his song and dance and when that vet said: thanks guys but i'm done, they did the responsible and honourable thing and said: you sure?

Brett's answer the first time around: yea i am.

and so the franchise moved on and like any other business promoted somebody and began shaping that somebody to take his place. they were done with the risk, done with the questions and decided that they had to make some money out of this.

looking at it this way, if one of your superior's at work retired, they promoted you and trained you for the job, gave you the new office with the bay view window, tapped you on the shoulder and said: son, its on you now. you would feel proud and confident wouldnt you?

now say that superior, who retired, comes back and says: i lost it all gambling, i need my job back. your telling me that you would step down and say "take it"? your telling me as the boss of a business who is in it to make money and whose only real worry is the bottom line is going to turn around and tell you "he needs it, were going to send you back down for another year in that cubicle of yours"?

if your saying yes, than please warn me of any businesses you intend to run because i want to avoid buying or investing any stocks you may be selling.

 

[Hauschild]

Favre signed - after training camp - just as I had predicted.

And, I think it unwise to write him off.

This is going to be an exciting season!!!

 

[America]

I don't what your "football scientist" has to say (what the hell is a football scientist anyway, just some ******* who never played the game and doesn't know wtf he's talking about?) That sounds about right for you.

I'd like to hear you rationale for getting rid of Favre after a 14-3 season?

!

1) It was a 14-4 season, not 14-3.
2) I love it when people celebrate ignorance as a good thing. "I don't know what the Football Scientist has to say".

3) You'd like to know the rationale for getting rid of Favre after a 14-4 season? Simple. The Packers felt that the team deserved a quarterback who could make a full-time committment to the team. Additionally, his late season fades had not gone unnoticed by the brass or his teammates, most of whom wanted to see Rodgers get his chance. And third, ultimately the team decided that they'd be a better team with Aaron Rodgers than they would with Favre.

4) I love how you give Favre all the credit for taking the Jets from 4-12 to 9-7, totally ignoring the contributions of others. And you apparently don't recall that the season before that the Jets were 10-6 and in the playoffs and that the 4-12 season was riddled with injuries. So in a very real sense, Favre helped a 10-6 team achieve a 9-7 record. You gloss over his season ending fade. You gloss over the fact that his teammates weren't entirely happy with his "I'll just chuck it up" attitude because they felt it was unfair to them.

5) Facts: He'll be 40. He's coming off injury and surgery. He led the league in interceptions (again). He missed all the OTAs and minicamp and most of training camp. He's statistically one of the worst downfield passers in the NFL. He's statistically the most turnover prone QB in the league. He's had terrible fades at the end of the last 5 seasons.

We're going to squash this bug in a serious and permanent way and I'm going to love every minute of it as both he and the Vikings suffer through a season of Hell.

 

[Philtration]

You'd have to explain to me what you mean by "better". He threw more picks and had a lower passer rating than the Viking QBs last year and won fewer games. And you think Favre will be better this year than he was last year? Based on what?

Here's the thing: The Vikings didn't get Favre so he could hand the ball off to Peterson; they got Favre because they think he'll give them a passing game. More passes = less runs so they've just made their best offensive player a smaller part of their offense.

IMO, the Vikings just took a step backwards at that position and I predict that before Christmas rolls around there'll be a lot of people agreeing with me.

Not to mention that he is coming off of shoulder surgery.
This is a stupid move by both the Vikings and Favre.

I agree with you right now.

 

[OHIOFAN]

They got rid of Favre after a 14-4 season b/c quite possibly they realized that he had taken them as far as he was EVER going to again. Brett had a great season,he was getting older, the team had a lot of chips fall their way that amounted to wins. The main reason at that point was that the team needed to grow with its young QB. When Brett flip flopped year after year about retiring it was becoming a distraction. Brett was not sure he wanted to be there, Rodgers was there and chomping at the bit to play and Rodgers was putting in the time needed to keep getting better. The QB is the leader of the offense as we all know, if he is not sure he wants to play anymore that sends a bad message to the rest of the team. Rodgers had made a lot of improvements in learning the offense and getting stronger and reducing his body fat. Rodgers wanted to be there and showing it by his actions. At the point that Brett retired, it was obvious that if given a true QB competition Rodgers had a great chance of beating him out. Brett would not compete when given the chance making out that he felt he earned the job (likely knowing that deep down Rodgers would keep with him step for step). Brett retired and then later unretired, played for the Jets, then said he had nothing left and retired, then unretired and now plays for the Vikings. He has said so much crap that I don't think he even knows when he is telling the truth. According to Brett he is now playing b/c he had a change of heart b/c his daughter was crying and wanted him to win another Super Bowl and then Childress BY CHANCE called him around the time all this was going down. Mr. Favre forgott to mention that while he was "retired" he was still reading the playbook that the Vikings had given him. This whole soap opera seems planned from the get go. I mean, he was not a part of the team, but yet they gave him a playbook to study. I wonder if Kitna still has the Lions playbook just in case his time in Big D does not work out. I hope Brett gets humbled this year and sets the NFL record for pics in a season.

 

[PackersRS]

They got rid of Favre after a 14-4 season b/c quite possibly they realized that he had taken them as far as he was EVER going to again.

Not true. They called him and asked him to come back, with the condition that he would tell them before the draft if he would come or not. He then retired. He got the itch to play and asked them if they wanted him back, and THEN they said (MM) they'd moved on. What's in discussion is that if his annual attempt to be wooed was a bluff or not. In evidence of all the lies said by him inumerous times, and the actions he has commited, I would say it was, and when they called his bluff, he saw it wasn't gonna go the way he wanted, and called back. But by then it was too late.
-
The thing is, this is a professional sport, and a team sport. Going amateur ways won't lead you anywhere. I doubt it was for perfomance reasons they chose to not take him back. It was because he wanted to play GM. And teams that have those kinds of locker room problems NEVER win it.

 

[Packerlifer]

The Packers were 14-4 in 2007, not Faver. Unless you're willing to say that Favre was 4-12 in 2005, 8-8 in 2006, or is 0-5 in his last 5 playoff starts. It's true he had a great year in '07 but the team was lifted as much or more by the play of the defense & special teams that season and by the emergence of Ryan Grant in the second half. Who do you think did more to win the Seattle playoff game; Grant or Favre? It's also not exactly true that the Packers kicked Faver out. But they did have a much younger and ready Aaron Rodgers they needed to get on the field and Favre had had more than an ample career to add to his records and laurels. But if Favre had given a clear and early commitment to playing another year they would have taken him back. But he retired. Remember that big teary-eyed show he put on at the Packers' headquarters in March of '08. He waffled afterward but never said anything definite about coming back until four months later, almost on the eve of training camp. By then the Packers had "moved on." He wasn't traded until he tried to crash the camp and forced the issue. And that's where his obsession with avenging himself on the Packers and denying the march of time began.

 

[Packerlifer]

Faver is an upgrade "for the Vikings" over Tarvvaris Jackson & John David Booty but I'm not sure all that much over what Sage Rosenfels might have given them with the chance & support.
Basically all the Queens have done here is what they did last season with Gus Frerotte except that the name is bigger and the record from the past more impressive.
Combined last year the Vikings qb's passed for 3,217 yds., 22 td's, 17 ints., & a 59.1% completion percentage. Instead of splitting those stats between two they'll be similar but just combined in one this year.
And let's not forget the Queens were just a total swing of only 7 pts. from having 10-6 be 6-10 instead.

 

[Crapgame]

OK, I was born and raised in Minesota (not Minnysota) my family originates from Wisconsin. Yes I grew up a Viking fan but never hated the Packers, quite the opposite. I moved to California 20 years ago and and have become a huge Charger fan. I will always be a Viking fan and have rooted for the Packers on a regular basis and took great satisfaction in seeing them win the Super Bowl, hell the Vikings stunk at the time, at least somebody from our division won the big one. But living in California and watching the nonstop coverage of Brett Favre (not FAvre) has gotten rather old. But I have never herd such a bunch of crybabies as some of the Cheesehead fans, move on, he gave you 16 great years, the last time I checked he is still entitled to make a living. Some of the BOZO's who are crying, let's say you work for the local milk company for 16 years and suddenly their is no more OVERTIME or their is new management and want to go in a "diferent direction", what are you going to do? Pack you bags and go home and call it a day? Probably not. You will go down the road to other milk company for employment. It is a game, dam he is from Mississippi not Green Bay. It is also rather silly to comapre all this to WWII. All the BS aside, the Vikings are a better team with Brett Favre. Put the shoe on the other foot, let's say the packers did not have a franchise quaterback for all those years and they had a chance to land a hall of fame quaterback, would this same discussion be going on?" NO. Deal with it. Are the Vikings (not Viqueens) the team to beat? Probably not. I must admit it is comical to read some of the post's some Packer fans put on these forums, almost as good as listening to Jim Rome. One guy was mentioned in our local paper from Wisconsin who is the ripe old age of 22, what does he know about all of this? Pretty pathetic. Enough said. Good luck to all the Packer and Vikings fans, hope San Diego will meet one of you two for the big one.

 

[OHIOFAN]

I agree with danz15's post 100% . And Crapgame, the difference between Favre who has made more money than he will ever be able to spend in his life and the local worker at a "milk company" is that Favre "works" or "plays" for fun, and the local milk worker has to work to keep their house and eat. Favre did not have to keep playing; to him it is now about revenge and to try and show that the Packers were good for so long strictly because of him. He is acting like a spoiled grey headed little boy, I think many Packers fans have lost regard for him, but that is ok, he has more than enough reguard for himself to go around. :frustrated:

 

[PackersRS]

People seem to just not realize that we Packers fans wanted him back last year; and the team also wanted to hear from him before committing to Aaron Rodgers. If Brett said "Ok, I'm in" in March 2008, there would have been no problem. It's not like TT or MM suddenly shut the door upon him. That's why fans are so pissed off about him playing for a division rival, because he could have handled things in a more respectful way and everyone would be fine. By trying to jump into training camp last year, he was clearly putting himself over the team and that's unacceptable, be him the best ever or an unknown rookie.
If the Packers just refused to take him back on March 2008, then he could even be playing for the Bears and everyone should respect his decision.

In the end, I think Brett just made us cheeseheads dream for years playing football like a fan of the game; it was never like he was giving a passing game clinic, he was always having fun and making big plays and big dumb choices. More TDs than anyone, more INTs than anyone. But we all felt that emotion every time he pumped his arm, not knowing what to expect. He was by no means similar to the "surgical accuracy" of Micheal Jordan, his playing was all heart and little head. He made us dream and we forgave his big on field mistakes, because that's Favre, take or leave. From that kind of person, I was expecting a little bit more attachment to the green and gold. That's why I (and I guess many other fans) am so pissed off about it.

Wow. That's almost exactly what I think. But, for me, it doesn't matter if TT or MM or whoever did he wrong, and if that's why he's playing for the queens. I have ZERO problem with him thrashing TT or MM, or the Board, and even wanting to get revenge. ZERO problem. Just don't do it playing for an arch-rival. If they were the only team wanting him, then don't play. Retire. Do it like you said you would on that interview with Peter King (who, BTW, has abandoned that ship, after being the captain during the whole thing last year).
-
To sum it up, it's not WHY he's playing, it's not WHEN he's playing, it's not who he's playing AGAINST. It's who he's playing FOR.