Ya'll Feelin' Me Now???

[Hauschild]

Both would be creepy yes. If I worshiped the packers I would say that is fair to say.

But I dont.

I am a huge fan of the Packers and those who play for them. But I would never turn my back on them to follow a player who plays for one of thier biggest rivals. The only way I can see someone doing that is if they worshipped that player.

Well, I don't worship Brett Favre - I save that aspect of my life for church.

Brett's simply got my attention. It happens. You don't have to understand it, just respect it. I also enjoy watching Green Bay and have since I could understand how to turn on a TV.

I think instead of blasting me for my choice, it's far more productive to accept it. You can't control me and I can't control you. I say we focus on the playoffs and may the best team win.

 

[Hauschild]

I love how he avoids this for the last few days..Wont say hey...I just cant give you that info

Just avoids it..

It isn't worthy of comment, really. You gave me stats, and I gave you the context of the stats. Stats mean absolutely nothing to me unless there is some type of context presented along with the stats. Do your stats indicate sacks and QB pressures? Do they show defensive support? Do they show evidence of a complementing running game or lack thereof? Simple answer: No, they didn't.

Also, Brett's thrown another wrench into the machine with his stellar play the last few weeks, but it goes along with what I've been saying all along - productive QB's need a solid supporting cast in all phases. When a QB gets that - especially Favre - you get production like today. When he doesn't like against Arizona and Carolina, you do not. I think you guys tend to complicate this a tad - it ain't a real difficult concept to understand - but, that's only if you want to.

So, think of this next time you bludgeon us with stats - just provide a bit of context in the makeup of the stats and you'll probably not get a critical response from me. Baffle me with ******** stats, and I'll eat you alive all day long.

 

[lambeauharrier]

It isn't worthy of comment, really. You gave me stats, and I gave you the context of the stats. Stats mean absolutely nothing to me unless there is some type of context presented along with the stats. Do your stats indicate sacks and QB pressures? Do they show defensive support? Do they show evidence of a complementing running game or lack thereof? Simple answer: No, they didn't.

Also, Brett's thrown another wrench into the machine with his stellar play the last few weeks, but it goes along with what I've been saying all along - productive QB's need a solid supporting cast in all phases. When a QB gets that - especially Favre - you get production like today. When he doesn't like against Arizona and Carolina, you do not. I think you guys tend to complicate this a tad - it ain't a real difficult concept to understand - but, that's only if you want to.

So, think of this next time you bludgeon us with stats - just provide a bit of context in the makeup of the stats and you'll probably not get a critical response from me. Baffle me with ******** stats, and I'll eat you alive all day long.

i love how you say this, yet you make numerous threads on how good Brett's stats were in the previous game?

 

[longtimefan]

It isn't worthy of comment, really. You gave me stats, and I gave you the context of the stats. Stats mean absolutely nothing to me unless there is some type of context presented along with the stats. Do your stats indicate sacks and QB pressures? Do they show defensive support? Do they show evidence of a complementing running game or lack thereof? Simple answer: No, they didn't.

Also, Brett's thrown another wrench into the machine with his stellar play the last few weeks, but it goes along with what I've been saying all along - productive QB's need a solid supporting cast in all phases. When a QB gets that - especially Favre - you get production like today. When he doesn't like against Arizona and Carolina, you do not. I think you guys tend to complicate this a tad - it ain't a real difficult concept to understand - but, that's only if you want to.

So, think of this next time you bludgeon us with stats - just provide a bit of context in the makeup of the stats and you'll probably not get a critical response from me. Baffle me with ******** stats, and I'll eat you alive all day long.

Stellar play??????? Carolina and Arizona (23rd in rating)seem to slip your mind?

Yup Bears was a GREAT game as was yesterdays..But again you only know of the good games and dismiss his bad games cuz the match up suck


Dude you told us that Bretts "non slump" was due to the fact that he faced above average pass defenses at the time he played them (another wrench tossed in)

I didnt give you ******** stats I gave you actual temperature, the defense rating he played, the score and Bretts stats for at least 15 games in the month of Decemeber

Then you said that my stats werent good enough because it didnt give the rating of the defense at the time he faced them..

So if your going to poo-poo my stats thats GREAT!!! you can do what ever you want...

But with saying I am wrong, put your own up proof to back up YOUR claim instead of I said so......Its one thing to not agree but its another to say your right only cuz you say so

I think you wont because even if you happen to find them they wont prove you are right...

Because I have already shown for the last 5 years that on average the defenses he faced were average at best..Even shown that when facing BAD and horrible defenses he can still toss up int after int..

Hell just this year alone the Bears, Cards, and NY are all an average defense rating and he went 1-3 vs them and the one he did beat gave up last week and didnt look like they wanted to even get off the plane..

But now we will hear it was all about match ups..

Your a cop out...

 

[longtimefan]

i love how you say this, yet you make numerous threads on how good Brett's stats were in the previous game?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Those only count when Brett wins..

 

[Hauschild]

Rankings are a decent indicator, but again you have to do additional research and break down each match-up if you want more accuracy - think of them as a barometer, I guess, for potential danger lying ahead.

Look, you people are CLEARLY adamant that you do NOT want to be convinced that Brett Favre doesn't suck in certain months, or at all. I simply cannot sit back idly by and allow the haters to peddle their ******** without challenging their transparent arguments - which I've done a decent job of, for the most part.

Here's Brett's bod of work in 2009:

4202 Yards
68.4 Completion Percentage
7.9 Average
33 TD's
7 INT's
34 Sacks (Most since 1999)
107.2 QB Rating (Previous best - 99.5)

I think it could be argued that Brett's moving himself into a new plateau of efficiency and production at the ripe old age of 40. I think the "real" question we all should be arguing is why Brett couldn't reasonably be expected to play another 5 years???

 

[longtimefan]

Rankings are a decent indicator, but again you have to do additional research and break down each match-up if you want more accuracy - think of them as a barometer, I guess, for potential danger lying ahead.

Look, you people are CLEARLY adamant that you do NOT want to be convinced that Brett Favre doesn't suck in certain months, or at all. I simply cannot sit back idly by and allow the haters to peddle their ******** without challenging their transparent arguments - which I've done a decent job of, for the most part.

Here's Brett's bod of work in 2009:

4202 Yards
68.4 Completion Percentage
7.9 Average
33 TD's
7 INT's
34 Sacks (Most since 1999)
107.2 QB Rating (Previous best - 99.5)

I think it could be argued that Brett's moving himself into a new plateau of efficiency and production at the ripe old age of 40. I think the "real" question we all should be arguing is why Brett couldn't reasonably be expected to play another 5 years???

Then do the research!! YOU were the one basing YOUR own logic on STATS ( Defensive ranking at the time they played Brett) were YOUR WORDS

And look how cute you are!! Trying to divert the situation to a different part of Bretts play, which I AGREE he is playing lights out, he is /was on a mvp pace..

But the REAL isue at hand is your sad, pathetic attempt of making a point only based on your BECAUSE I SAID SO attitude

I am going to beat this horse till you provide the stats your trying to push down our throats

Your trun

 

[c_mac]

Well, I don't worship Brett Favre - I save that aspect of my life for church.

Church, eh? Ever read the parts in the Bible about pride and boasting. If not, please do, then read your threads and posts a few times. See if you learn anything.

 

[YoKramer]

Rankings are a decent indicator, but again you have to do additional research and break down each match-up if you want more accuracy - think of them as a barometer, I guess, for potential danger lying ahead.

Look, you people are CLEARLY adamant that you do NOT want to be convinced that Brett Favre doesn't suck in certain months, or at all. I simply cannot sit back idly by and allow the haters to peddle their ******** without challenging their transparent arguments - which I've done a decent job of, for the most part.

Here's Brett's bod of work in 2009:

4202 Yards
68.4 Completion Percentage
7.9 Average
33 TD's
7 INT's
34 Sacks (Most since 1999)
107.2 QB Rating (Previous best - 99.5)

I think it could be argued that Brett's moving himself into a new plateau of efficiency and production at the ripe old age of 40. I think the "real" question we all should be arguing is why Brett couldn't reasonably be expected to play another 5 years???

Yay a one man Brett Favre army

 

[tfrentz]

Sometime I just wish some people would just go away

 

[Hauschild]

Sometime I just wish some people would just go away

Yeah, that's what ****** and Stalin used to think until they began to act on their thoughts.

C'mon, people - grow up!

 

[SCpackerfan]

C'MON MAN!!! How are you gonna tell someone else to grow up when your the one posting all about how great brent is in a PACKER forum.Everything you post stirs up controversey and now its just getting flat out annoying. Everytime I get on this forum there is another thread about "how right you are" and how you "told us so," or how "great of a season brent is having." I feel pretty confident when I say that the people on this forum could give two ***** about how brent is doing.If any1 needs to grow up its YOU!

 

[longtimefan]

I would take Haus very serious, always have up until the its wrong cuz I said so attitude..

He does have a ego issue though...

But if he would just back up his cuz I said so stuff then I could take him serious once again

 

[A-Rod_is_God]

Hauschild and Quientus are one in the same

 

[Hauschild]

I'm too logical not to commend myself when I pick up on trends or be critical of myself when I miss one. I have no problem doing either, as it is most efficient.

Brett Favre's numbers in 2009 have exceeded my conservative expectations, mainly because Sydney Rice turned into a difference maker. I was initially worried about the O-line (pass blocking improved, but run-blocking is atrocious) and the receiving corps, but by week #4, I had a good feel for how it would all unfold, and I was right that Brett Favre would make a HUGE difference to the Minnesota offense taking Minnesota from #17 in 2008 to #5 in 2009.

I told you guys Green Bay didn't match up well with Minnesota and 2 out of 2 times I was correct.

I also told you guys Brett Favre will win the MVP in 2009 because his case is the most compelling. We'll wait to see how this one unfolds.

 

[Hauschild]

Hauschild and Quientus are one in the same

No, Quentius is at another level in terms of intelligence and thought. I'm a blue-collar thinker that keeps it simple.

 

[longtimefan]

No, Quentius is at another level in terms of intelligence and thought. I'm a blue-collar thinker that keeps it simple.

Yup so simple that you cant and wont back up claims other than I said so

 

[Hauschild]

Yup so simple that you cant and wont back up claims other than I said so

Brett's backed up my claims this season. He's won the battle, and is fighting like the ****ens to win the war. Our hats off to him - he deserves it. The 12.5 million Brett earned in 2009 was probably the most well-spent and most-deserved chunk of cash in the history of capitalism - or close.

Only time and a lot of broken hearts will tell how this story ends.

 

[longtimefan]

I have Hauschild

on ignore now

place is so much better

 

[KilrB]

I have Hauschild

on ignore now

place is so much better

Good call!

Cleaning house is so easy!

If anyone else wants to haul the garbage out click here: http://www.packerforum.com/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=3334

 

[Hauschild]

Good call!

Cleaning house is so easy!

If anyone else wants to haul the garbage out click here: http://www.packerforum.com/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=3334

Good Lord, what's next? Sending somebody out to bust up my kneecaps???

Classic.

 

[Forget Favre]

Good call!

Cleaning house is so easy!

If anyone else wants to haul the garbage out click here: http://www.packerforum.com/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=3334

Yes yes yes!
Thank you very very much for this!
And I'll take child off ignore when, not if, the Viqueens lose in the playoffs.
Would be interesting to see what he'll say. That is, if he comes back here.

 

[angryguy77]

Good Lord, what's next? Sending somebody out to bust up my kneecaps???

Classic.

Dont be made House. Like I said in another thread, unless you say "TT is god and Mcburger is his prophet", your opinion wont matter.

 

[Hauschild]

Dont be made House. Like I said in another thread, unless you say "TT is god and Mcburger is his prophet", your opinion wont matter.

No kidding. :happy0005:

I particularly enjoy how even the veteran forum members choose to run for the hills instead of standing and fighting. Kinda makes a guy wonder just how much [or little] they really "believe" in what they write, ya know?

 

[SCpackerfan]

Im pretty sure everyone here believes what they are writing, or else they probably wouldnt write it. They are just sick of your brent claims over and over and over again.