Haters getting quiet?

no, it means they’re going to wait for a loss or any other peice of bad news, and then they’ll be back. They always come back.

by dsludo on Oct 12, 2009 8:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes

That was gong to be my replay exactly. They are waiting for one bad game by Favre (and, it will come, as it does for all players). Then your 3:1 ratio will seem like nothing, the hate ratio will be 50:1 for the next week at least.

If he plays two bad game sin a row, Vikings fans will start chiming in too.

Write it down. Unfortunately for Favre, stuff he can’t control, the medai fawning, sets him up for this treatment.

by puddnhead on Oct 12, 2009 8:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Completly agree

hard to back up your point when he’s not failing. However, the first time we lose they’ll peak their heads out and I’m pretty sure by game 10 you’ll see them again barking about how Favre can’t finish the whole year strong.

Personally I’m sort of worried they are correct.

by Grime on Oct 12, 2009 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

of course...

but we are getting chances to rest #4 late in the games when the result is already decided
this will keep him ‘fresh’ (like using one of those green bags on your bananas) and it also keeps our #2 guy (#7) interested and engaged. As long as we can continue to be in control of the outcome going into the 4Q, we should see the same thing play out. It doesn’t hurt that we are winning with #4 throwing less than 30 rocks per game.

He may be better rested come game 10 than we think!

I BELIEVE...

by ArizonaVikingsFan on Oct 12, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh I agree with you

And I applaud every time I see him heading to the bench. It tells me two things one that Chilly is taking this seriously and two that Bret is mature enough that he can sit down and not feel like he’s missing out.

Makes me believe that if Favre does start to decline (or is hurt) he’ll be ok with coming out for a bit. Hell I would be completley cool with him only playing half games for the last two games of the season if we’re doing well enough.

by Grime on Oct 14, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

While that's true, can't it also be because we think the Vikings look pretty good?

I mean, I’m going to ride my Viking fan friends like dogs when you guys lose a game, particularly if Favre throws a pick or two in the game, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think you guys are good.

Personally, I don't give a crap about Brett Favre.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 12, 2009 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It can be for a lot of reasons, and yes that would be one of them.

by dsludo on Oct 12, 2009 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha ya

Gotta admit I’ll probably do the same. But the Vikings are good and I always thought they would be this year.

I think these next two weeks for the Vikes fan will be very telling about how things could turn out for them come playoff time.

by packallday555 on Oct 13, 2009 12:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Yep, we’re both nervous and excited about the next 3 weeks, we know what a litmus test it will be. We could lose all 3 and still have hope for the post-season, but we know we’ d be the dark horse. On the other hand, if we take all three….. why, then we’ll have to moderate our enthusiasm, lest we bring on the Curse, lol.

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!

by DCPurple on Oct 13, 2009 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

VBPD

Vikings Bi-Polar Disorder…

I BELIEVE...

by ArizonaVikingsFan on Oct 13, 2009 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes no crowing/crying allowed....

No matter the ourcome….Just keep getting it done…like the Everready Bunny Viking (errrrr Rabbit)….

I would rather be IN the Arena than watching from the stands...That is my life!
* Read Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" if you need further explanation...

by vikingfanfrom afar on Oct 13, 2009 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the standard and it has been expressed by some is a superbowl

Short of that, the guy will be a bum.

by Salty on Oct 12, 2009 8:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

As a self-avowed “hater,” I’m certainly willing to change my tune when the circumstances start to look different. I wasn’t a big fan of Harvin or Favre, but if they keep playing like they have been all season, I’ll be fine with it. Of course, we’re only five games in, mostly against mediocre opponents, so there’s still a long ways to go.

by JasonW on Oct 12, 2009 8:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

circumstances start to look different?

Right now they’re winning. Playing very efficient smart football. Both offense and defense looks solid.

What kind of different are you looking for?

by dsludo on Oct 12, 2009 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

From a supposed "Hater"

I do admit, I am pleastenly suprised, as I stated in the past, my fears have been age and injury. While at this point age has not been a factor, I still have a worry about a repeat of last year, great first half, injured second half and a slide in performance. Now, I do fully expect the Vikes to lose a few games so wont be the one after a loss or two or 3 to say told you so. Only thing I would be talking about is the injury/age aspect.

Tho I would be perplexed as to why I’m a “Hater”. I may not be a “all in” person for one person being signed and still have a gaurded enthusiasm up to this point. But sure as hell can’t be a hater all the years wearing purple and going to the Dome before moving away. But if I am because I dont care for the one signing, no matter what the record, well………wah! Get over it. If those that are pissed cause we supposedly signed the “Mortal” enemy or Packers fans, well, I dont see anyone upset over the fact we have Longwell still on the team, a former Packer and still very good kicker. I did say and still do beleive we would have been better off in the LONG run if we had somehow signed Favre when he was 29, not 39.

"That is the craziest sonofabitch I ever saw, how many more like him do you think are up there?"

by VikesFaninNM on Oct 12, 2009 9:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Now I consider myself a pretty NFL saavy person

but I must have been sick the day Brett Favre was available via free agency or a trade 10 yrs ago.

VikeGuru is a doofus!!

by Unclebillybonz on Oct 12, 2009 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ironically Favre’s last contract with Packers was written in 2000, for ten years, and at the time (I’ve later read) Favre & his agent & the Packers & everyone else weren’t really expecting him to actually play another ten years, they thought maybe he’d be done after 2003.

So, even if somehow Vikings had signed him in 2000, you might have been here posting “we would have been better off in the LONG run if we had somehow signed Favre when he was 25, not 30”

;)

by puddnhead on Oct 12, 2009 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was also against getting Favre due to age/injury, and the next offseason “retired or not” saga.

So far, so good, though. I’ll be happy to admit I’m wrong when the Vikes win the Superbowl w/ Favre at the helm!

by JasonAve6413 on Oct 12, 2009 10:21 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Just curious: was the Patriots signing Moss in 2007 was a bust. Because, you know, they didn’t win the Superbowl?

When you consider there are 32 teams, when all else is equal, our chance of winning the SB is about 3%. Or once in every 32 years.

Now, not all things are equal; we are way above equal, we are a very good team (I think). So what does that put our chances of winning the SB to? Maybe 10 or 15%? Dare we be cocky and say 20%?

Would you seriously bet at the start of the season — real dollars you sweated for — 5 to 1 odds on ANY team winning the superbowl?

If you answered yes to that, then I want to know how much money you put down in Vegas this year on the Superbowl, this year or any prior year Because you would have gotten 10 to 1 odds on any team but Patriots, and that’s the way it is every year. If things are really more predictable than that, you should be cleaning up every year on sports betting.

If you answered no, then I want to hear you explain why you think Fave playing well makes winning the superbowl something we should expect, and consider it a failure to play well if we don’t.

by puddnhead on Oct 12, 2009 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, come now. Your attempt to pin me in a corner with bets is just a silly debate tactic, as is comparing getting a 40 yr old QB to a 30 yr old receiver, along with the respective environments of the two teams. Apples and oranges, man.

Besides, you missed my point entirely. Unlike many fans, I don’t care if I’m wrong or right, I want the Vikes to win the Superbowl. I’d rather be wrong about every position I ever take if it means the Vikes win.

I like TJ. I don’t think TJ could’ve made the pass and last drive of the 49ers game, so Favre gets +1 there. But I also think we were in certain situations in that game b/c Favre can’t run.

I thought signing Favre was a bad idea. There’s no set point in my head as to when I’ll be certain it was a good signing. 9-6 miss the playoffs? 11-5, lose 1st round? Lost the NFC championship game? Have him retire, unretire, retire, and TJ and Sage both leave b/c of the way this year went down, and we spend the next 5 years looking for a QB again? If Favre injures his rotator cuff or starts becoming an interception machine, and TJ comes in and wins the Superbowl, would you think we needed Favre?

You see, I can’t answer your question, because there is no answer – there are too many “ifs.”

by JasonAve6413 on Oct 12, 2009 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good answer

by Grime on Oct 12, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your standard was a superbowl earlier

He’s just one player. That’s part of the reason there are a lot of haters. He’s so popular among players, ex-players and the media that he’s expected to overcome all shortcomings of a team.

The Packers lost to the Giants in the playoffs more because the playmakers didn’t perform and McCarthy called a game that repeatedly failed. The Jets, despite their high dollar O line, let the guy get absolutely crushed repeatedly. I’d guess that most QBs wouldn’t have survived it. Mangini’s play calling was pretty bad too and despite what the haters say, the receiving corps was mediocre.

Remember too that the retire/unretire saga is with marble mouthed, evasive Ted Thompson. That’s the guy who didn’t want to give up a 4th round pick in ‘07 for Randy Moss. Mr. Selfish, Favre offered to take a cut in pay to sign him. By the way, that 4th round pick was used for Allen Barbre – what a F’in idjit. The Packers have been shoving the guy out the door since Ted got there. IF he’s healthy through the season, I wouldn’t be surprised if the saga is relatively short.

by Salty on Oct 12, 2009 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

“The Packers lost to the Giants in the playoffs more because the playmakers didn’t perform and McCarthy called a game that repeatedly failed. The Jets, despite their high dollar O line, let the guy get absolutely crushed repeatedly. I’d guess that most QBs wouldn’t have survived it. Mangini’s play calling was pretty bad too and despite what the haters say, the receiving corps was mediocre.”

Fail!

by packallday555 on Oct 13, 2009 12:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hammer→Nail!

by Salty on Oct 13, 2009 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

wrong

THOMPSON IS A MORON

by 4 where-ever on Oct 13, 2009 9:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

Weird that the only 2 guys to respond to this are notorious Favre lovers….

Grant: 13 carries for 29 yards.
Plax: 11 receptions for 154 yards.

Both of those stat lines had an effect on the game. But were we a running team or a passing team? And did the Giants have a top 2 run defense in the league that year or no?

Plax owned Harris. But ultimately how much did it matter? On avergae our defense gave up 18.2 points in 07’. At the end of regulation we had surrendered 20 to the Giants. Our offense, which was a pass dominant one averaged 28 points a game in 07’. Favre was the most important factor to our team that year and he went 19 of 35 for 230 yards 2 TDs and 2 INTs. And 90 of those 230 came on a play from DD (who was a playmaker for us).

It’s just awesome a lot of you Favre lovers are not willing to admit any of his wrong doings.

by packallday555 on Oct 13, 2009 11:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your little rant supports my points

Nice job Ryan Grant. Nice job defense. You make it sound like there should be some treatise to your silly response.

I’d like to know where I have notoriety? You’re an obvious Favre hater. Go write another love letter to “Arodge.”

by Salty on Oct 14, 2009 7:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

watch the game

just go back and watch the NFC Championship again, Packers and Favre vs the Giants and the cold. JUST WATCH IT!

Favre lost that game for the Packers, plain and frickin simple, its black and white, in front of your face. We won the toss, had number 4 to lead us, and he throws a pop-up to ONE GUY who is covered. EVERYONE else shed their cover and was WIDE OPEN, and yet BRETT FAVRE totally missed the read and threw an easy, lame duck interception.

Here’s your Hateraide. It tastes delicious. Now, honestly, he’s playing really well, why do you care if he’s infallible or not?

by PackaCracka on Oct 14, 2009 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beavis

Enjoy your hateraide.

I’ve never even argued that he’s infallible. I pointed out that he was fallible. He’s one guy and when McCarthy is defecating in his pants and the running game is WORTHLESS – no, WORSE THAN WORTHLESS and the defense keeps giving up big plays, only dopes think that its up to one guy to overcome all the choking that went on. Your interpretation of route running is what would be expected of Beavis. Everybody was open right? And what was Driver’s route? You’re not as bad as the kid, packallday, but your revisionist history is written while drunk on your precious and tasty hateraide.

by Salty on Oct 14, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again you are wrong

Notice the receivers who are open. Notice favre throwing to a totally shadowed receiver. Do you know anything about football? or you just spew nasty garbage about peoples age who you know NOTHING about.

Read about how the Giants run D was impenetrable. It doesn’t matter if we couldn’t run, when the great #4 was asked to win the game he couldn’t. He threw a frisbee and walked off the field

by PackaCracka on Oct 14, 2009 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How old are you?

You don’t really respond to McCarthy FAILING or the defense FAILING or the running game FAILING and you post a picture that doesn’t prove anything. How much do you know about football that you imagine a single player has to carry the entire team. One play isn’t conclusive of anything.

by Salty on Oct 14, 2009 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How much do you know about football that you imagine a single player has to carry the entire team.

Oh I see. So when Favre does something bad then it’s not him but rather whole team..right. But the 07’ season was all about him, and he won us 13 games, and this and that. And that’s fine, because frankly a lot of it was Favre. Though it certainly helped that our defense was 6th in scoring. But just as Favre got most of the credit when we won, he should get most of the credit when we lose. Favre got the ball in a game that was essentially 0-0. If he led us on a scoring drive we won and were going to a SB, but he didn’t do this. To be frank, he choked, like he did a lot in the playoff games for us. (And no Vikings fans, I’m not trying to imply anything in saying that. The circumstances now are much better as you guys will likely be playing in the dome for most of the postseason.)

by packallday555 on Oct 16, 2009 1:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's a clue

when you introduce a fabricated argument with a “so” its probably not much of an argument. Over at Acme Romper Room, Favre wasn’t all that special in ’07. It was the receivers, the defense, the play calling and lots and lots of “luck.”

You’re still isolating a single play and ignoring the massive FAILURE by McCarthy, the rest of the coaching staff and many of the players.

by Salty on Oct 16, 2009 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that almost sounds tantrumish.

by iseepurplepeople on Oct 16, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Over at Acme Romper Room, Favre wasn’t all that special in ’07. It was the receivers, the defense, the play calling and lots and lots of "luck."

\

Ok? Are we over at “Acme Romper Room?” I am telling you that I acknowledge that a lot of our 07’ success was because of Favre. But as I said above, just as he got most of the credit for wins, he also should take most of the credit for our losses.

when you introduce a fabricated argument with a "so" its probably not much of an argument.

This statement tells me that I am right and that you really had nothing to say. You seem to make these kind of statements a lot when you realize that your wrong.

You’re still isolating a single play and ignoring the massive FAILURE by McCarthy, the rest of the coaching staff and many of the players.

No I’m really not. I listed above all the things that you have argued about and I recognize they had an affect on the game but the biggest reason was Favre.

Like I stated above, we went to overtime. At this point you can throw all the stats out the window. At that point did it matter that our running game was non-exsistent? Nope. Did it matter that Plax owned Harris? Nope. All that mattered was that we had the ball to start overtime and all we needed the “greatest Qb of all time” to do was lead us on a drive in which we scored some points. He couldn’t do this and as a result of his INT that he threw deep in our own territory, we lost that game.

by packallday555 on Oct 16, 2009 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are one dingy kid

I don’t even want to know why you imagine you have to blame Favre for something he isn’t responsible for because others give him a lot of credit. What the hell is that about?

The statement I made saves me time of having to explain to you what a straw man argument is. I helped you by pointing out that the “so” that you use before inventing something is a giveaway. How in the world would anyone think that somehow makes the argument correct. There is a reason its called a logical fallacy.

Your odd logic that Favre was completely responsible for the loss would apply well to the fabulous Rodgers. Use it on him. And if McCarthy wasn’t dreadful along with the rest of his failed coaching staff, the game would have never come down to relying constantly on one guy to save their bacon. If your precious Driver ran the wrong route which is possible what then?

by Salty on Oct 16, 2009 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You simply

have nothing to say

by PackaCracka on Oct 16, 2009 11:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your odd logic that Favre was completely responsible for the loss would apply well to the fabulous Rodgers. Use it on him. And if McCarthy wasn’t dreadful along with the rest of his failed coaching staff, the game would have never come down to relying constantly on one guy to save their bacon. If your precious Driver ran the wrong route which is possible what then?

My argument has never been that it was ALL Favre’s fault. I pointed out earlier some other things that had some effect on our loss. I do however, believe of all the problems we had, that Favre’s problems were the greatest.

Like I have already told you, what happened in regulation really didn’t matter because when overtime starts the score is essentially 0-0. It’s virtually a new game. But Favre couldn’t get it done in ot. He threw a pick on the first play.

Your last sentence shows me that you really have nothing to say. The question you imposed is purely speculation. Kind of seems like your trying to imply something in order to take some of the blame off of Favre.

by packallday555 on Oct 17, 2009 6:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

I wouldn’t even say I’m a Favre hater I just can’t stand that all of you Favre lovers can never admit that the guy did anything wrong. If you watched the game it was obvious Favre lost us the game. We really can throw all the regulation numbers and stats out the window, along with the score. We got the ball in OT, and Favre, who was supposed to lead us on another one of those game-winning drives we were all accustomed to seeing, threw a pick on the first play.

by packallday555 on Oct 16, 2009 1:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There isn't much doubt about you being a hater

One of the giveaways is repeating the fake stories as absolutely true.

I asked you where I had notoreity and you shuffled away. I’d like for you to point out all the people who claim the guy never does anything wrong. Its obvious that there was massive FAILURE in the game, but that one play somehow erases all that.

by Salty on Oct 16, 2009 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

huh?

by iseepurplepeople on Oct 16, 2009 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

One of the giveaways is repeating the fake stories as absolutely true.

What fake story did I list there? Did we not get the ball to start off overtime? Did Favre not throw a pick on the first play of overtime? Tell me where my story isn’t true, and be specific.

I’d like for you to point out all the people who claim the guy never does anything wrong. Its obvious that there was massive FAILURE in the game, but that one play somehow erases all that.

Um you? Every time I have ever argued against Favre you have been then to tell me that he never did any run, and his struggles were always blamed on something or somebody else. Favre, for the last 9 years has played poorly in cold weather. I pointed this out earlier, and trust me I am not the first to do so. I actually have seen many Vikes fan post statistics showing his cold weather struggles. And like I told you so many times before, if you don’t believe me just go and look at his stats in cold weather games.

You just spout out a bunch of non-sense when your run and it’s not fooling anybody.

by packallday555 on Oct 16, 2009 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

One of your fables

was that he had an invitation to take as long as he wanted to decide on his retirement. Somehow the Wisconsin media has an exact opposite opinion.

I’m not sure what you mean by never did “any run” but i’ve never made the guy out as perfect. That’s another dishonest arguing technique.

Your regurgitation of play in cold statistics included playing with a torn biceps tendon. How stupid does a person have to be to think that wasn’t a factor? There are literally hundreds of other variables involved yet you cling to the notion that your correlation is proof of something. Did you make any effort to educate yourself on why correlation doesn’t imply causation? How about something as simple as wikipedia? I can’t believe you’re still clinging to a notion that your “stats” prove something.

by Salty on Oct 16, 2009 9:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My god

was that he had an invitation to take as long as he wanted to decide on his retirement. Somehow the Wisconsin media has an exact opposite opinion.

Well the national media seemed to have a different take then the Wisconsin media I guess.

And if there was a deadline then why would MM, TT, and Murphy all publically encourage Favre to take more time to make his decision? Would that make any sense if they did have a deadline on his decision?

Your regurgitation of play in cold statistics included playing with a torn biceps tendon. How stupid does a person have to be to think that wasn’t a factor?

Haha this was just 1 year of the other 5 years I looked at. And I even told you that we can throw the 08’ season out of the argument because of this injury.

Of course there are a bunch of other variables but all the ones you tried to argue were all ridiculous. First, it was that we had no receivers, which is ridiculous. And even if we didn’t then why did Favre manage to play well in the warm weather games with those same “bad” receivers? Your other argument was that the o-line was bad, which like the receivers argument is ridiculous. From 96’ to 05’ we had probably a top 3 o-line in the league year in and year out. In 05’ it wasn’t as good but it was still solid. And the o-line was good in 06’, and very good in 07’.

All you do is talk. You simply spout out information about pretty much everything but football. This isn’t english class. I don’t care about logical fallacies or causation doesn’t imply correlation. Look at the stats. Look at the game results. Favre has CONSISTENLY played poor in cold weather games for the last decade. Sure, their are other factors in that but the fact that he has consistently underperformed in cold weather games is telling.

by packallday555 on Oct 17, 2009 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well I hate to get in the middle of a couple havine a blow but...

To blame one person for a failure in a team sport is silly. If Favre plays poorly in cold weather your coach has to take that into account and work around it. Shallow plays draws, whatever it takes to keep the ball inside and try and get your running game started.

So if you state that Favre lost the game for you then I agree. But I also think you could say the same thing for your coach for not calling the correct plays with a player he knows exceptionally well.

Favre has choked in the past but he has also won a crap load of games in the fourth. Whether he chokes because it’s a big game, to cold, or because in the playoffs everyone is going full tilt I truly can’t say I havn’t seen all of the games he’s played in (Personally, although I respected him I sure did hate his levi wearing butt)

As for this argument it’s a moot point the original argument has long ago disolved into a nebulous can you prove he’s bad can you prove he’s good. Because of this logic really starts to play very little of a part and mostly its just conjecture and how you feel about him.

I didn’t like Favre coming here, I have had years of therapy for all the times he’s come into our house and tore it down around us, and all the times the Pack have flung him in our face. BUT he’s doing well now and until he falls he’s a damn site better than what we got.

Don’t hate – relate!

by Grime on Oct 20, 2009 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Almost perfect...

Wranglers™, not LEVIS™

I BELIEVE...

On the improbable Vikings win against the Ravens...
" OH MY HOLY BALLSACK " - IABerserker1

by ArizonaVikingsFan on Oct 20, 2009 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

+10

If Favre plays poorly in cold weather your coach has to take that into account and work around it.

That’s exactly it… a truly great coach molds a team into a whole that’s greater than the sum of the parts, and compensating for weaknesses is his job, just as much as maximizing strengths.

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!

by DCPurple on Oct 22, 2009 10:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just give up

He fucking owned you, hard.

by RipHimToShreds on Oct 19, 2009 1:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that’s right packallday. if you don’t agree with some you are a hater.

by iseepurplepeople on Oct 16, 2009 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Standards

I’m thinking NFC Championship….. we should be able to get that far, with a bit of luck and the team playing acceptably. If everyone’s firing on all cylinders, the offense gelled, we may take it all. It’s possible. Nothing’s a lock in the NFL, but it’s possible, maybe even probable.

But here’s the thing; was the Favre acquisition worth it. Sure, it’s worth it if you just look at in a vacuum. When you consider it in terms of the talent we didn’t pursue, arguably because Chilly & Speilman thought Favre was a likely possibility down the road, then this question is going to crop up. We thrashed on months ago, with lots of bitterness on all sides. Pennington, Cutler, Cassel, and Garcia, were all passed on. Not saying that we would have had a guaranteed win in the negotiation sweepstakes, but we didn’t put forth the effort, either.

Favre’s a great QB, but he’s not a long-term solution. Pennington would have been with us for at least 5 years, Cutler or Cassel for a generation, Garcia would have been another stop-gap. Was it worth passing on all that other talent, for the talent that is Brett Favre?

I’ll letcha know my opinion on it after the Super Bowl, because frankly, even an NFC championship doesn’t do it for me if we’re hunting a #1 QB in the draft next year and Favre is either gone or not up to the level he’s playing at right now. Same will apply the year after, because as good as the man is… he’s not the future of the Minnesota Vikings, he’s our NOW.

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!

by DCPurple on Oct 13, 2009 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pennington’s career may be over. Cutler came at a very high price. I forget what was paid, but it was significant. Cassell, I forget. Garcia – is he even on a team?

by Salty on Oct 13, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Garcia is with the Eagles again. He didn’t sign with them until McNabb had gone down so he was certainly available.

by zebano on Oct 21, 2009 8:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed - my standard is also NFC championship

By that point, we are playing great teams for sure, and the “Any GIven Sunday Rule” goes into effect. It will require some luck (to supplement ability) to go past there.

by puddnhead on Oct 13, 2009 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We could have the best team in the league,

and the odds are still against us winning the super bowl. There are just too many good teams and too many vagaries of chance in any game. All you can ask of a good team is that they put you in a position to compete for it and then hope things go your way (or at least not too much against you).

I think this team will do that (put us in the position), but the odds are always against any individual team. So, unfortunately, with the expectations for this team (which is to win the super bowl), anything else will be considered a ‘failure’, and it is likely the haters will get their chance eventually.

by Migrant lurker on Oct 12, 2009 11:22 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Currently

We average a little over 31 points per game and give up 18. Damn…..I do like those numbers.

A side note: Remember Cutler supporters saying he lost only because of his defense? Well that exact same defense is currently only allowing a little under 9 points per game. Maybe it was Cutler’s INT happy ways that strung out his defense to dry now that Orton is playing the ball control game.

by Jepp The Viking on Oct 12, 2009 12:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I was curious as well

…there would always be about 3:1 ration of hateful remarks, mostly by Packers fans…

After the Monday night game I went over to the Acme Packing Co and put up this poll asking them about, basically, how they felt about their old QB.

As you can see most of them still view him favorably, so that kind of surprised me. While the haters will leave a lot of hateful remarks it’s good to remember they are in the minority.

Fire Childress!

by dwarg on Oct 12, 2009 2:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

A very vocal minority

by Salty on Oct 12, 2009 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's all it's taken, for thousands of years

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!

by DCPurple on Oct 13, 2009 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No worries

I was prepared for Sage Rosenfels. I figured Favre would be back to his old self for at least a few games, and that Sage could be enough afterward, although I really doubted that for a few days when he was less than confident about his own arm.

In these past 2 games, Favre seems to have regained total faith in his arm, and he’s played like it.

I think the reasonable Packer fans are rooting for Favre (as some of us root for Daunte to revive his career without beating the Vikings) and are glad to have Rodgers and put the blame, if any, on Ted Thompson.

by KC Viking on Oct 12, 2009 3:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of Sage

Has anyone noticed that he’s around Favre in all the video highlights or the sideline shots in the game. Even in print pieces, I see Sage quoted as to his conversations with him. I know not everybody believes it, but I believe that SR and TJ are both learning. I really like that they let TJ throw the ball in garbage time.

by Salty on Oct 12, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I notice the same thing

Sage is Always by Favre’s side when he is on the sideline, sadly I never see TJ there though. He probably is too good and can’t learn anything from an old has been like Brett….{sarcasm}. I see sage wanting, and hopefully is, learning from the old master.

I believe all Viking fans must be masochistic!!

by BSUvikFAN on Oct 12, 2009 7:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In the past 2 games

playcalling finally opened up to throws over 10 yards and the use of 1st and 2nd down throws. He wouldn’t be here if he weren’t confident in the ol’ gun.

by jshep on Oct 12, 2009 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some say...

…he would have been here for the $, respect, media attention, and possible vengeance vs. Ted Thompson, all selfishly, even if he wasn’t helping the team.

I agree that he wanted to be sure he was 100% before coming back, though.

by KC Viking on Oct 12, 2009 10:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duh

Favre says this is the best team he’s ever been with. He instantly becomes the biggest liar ever. Packers 96? Wow.

by Welzy on Oct 12, 2009 6:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Hey look!

Theres one now.
I wonder if Welzy thought that same way when Favre said that his last Packer team, tho very young, was a very talented team. Most chuckled a bit saying “Thats our lovable Brett”
My how things have changed!

by stratoscaster on Oct 12, 2009 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duh

He didn’t say it was the best team ever. The 96 team had its holes too.

by Salty on Oct 12, 2009 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

vs. '96 Packers

I can see why this might be the best team Favre has played on:

AP > no 1,000 yd back
Williams Wall > Santana Dotson and Gilbert Brown (and not a great year for either considering that Reggie White was demanding a double-team every down).
GB only had 5 Pro Bowlers that year. JA, the Williamses, Winfield and AP were PBers last year, and this year Favre, Hutch, McKinnie, Greenway, EJ Henderson, a WR and/or a returner could be strong possibilities for a total of 6-7+.
The post-op Favre is aging better than most wines.

by KC Viking on Oct 12, 2009 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know...

We had the best defense in the NFL that year and the 4th best offense. Your defense isn’t the best in the league and I’m not sure that your offense is top 5.

Gilbert Brown was very, very good that year. Teams couldn’t pass on us either with White coming off the edges and our secondary full of ball hawks.

We had a very good team that year. It might be a little premature for Favre to say this is the best team he has ever played on.

Allen, AP, K Williams, and Hutch are all probably locks for the Pro Bowl. A WR won’t make it I’m sorry. McKinnie likely won’t, there are just too many LT that are better then him. I also don’t think Greenway will make it. Henderson and Favre both have a good chance at making it.

by packallday555 on Oct 13, 2009 12:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did he say it was the best team he ever played on?

You seem to struggle a lot with basic facts.

by Salty on Oct 13, 2009 7:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

Not even gonna get into it with you. Arguing with people who seem to think they are God’s great gift to Earth usually doesn’t go anywhere…

by packallday555 on Oct 13, 2009 11:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How hard would it be to post what he said?

Of course you’re going to call names and run away. You just got owned. You made shit up AGAIN and got called on it. Here’s a novel idea to you: maybe you lose arguments because you are wrong.

by Salty on Oct 14, 2009 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Favre

Brett Favre turned 40 years old on Saturday. On Sunday, Favre did something he never has done before, leading a team to a 5-0 start.

Favre spoke to reporters about the 2009 Minnesota Vikings.

“This is the best team I’ve ever been on,” said Favre.

SHHHHHHHHHHH

by PackaCracka on Oct 14, 2009 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry forgot

to give credit to post, that was Channel3000.com’s article regarding Favre saying the 2009 Vikings are the best team he’s ever played on.

Link : http://www.channel3000.com/sports/21272013/detail.html

by PackaCracka on Oct 14, 2009 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol at "channel 3000"

by Salty on Oct 14, 2009 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hahaha really?

Guess I wasn’t wrong after all huh? So you ask me how hard it would be to just simply go and find the quote. Now I didn’t go and find it because in your mind you CANNOT be wrong, and I don’t like getting into arguments with people that think that way.

But PackaCracka finds a link, and posts it, which shows what Favre REALLY said. Then you try and question the link by saying “lol at channel 3000” trying to make it seem less credible. Buddy, your not fooling anybody, your wrong.

by packallday555 on Oct 16, 2009 1:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You were completely wrong

You dishonestly represented what he said. Your deletion completely altered the meaning. “Channel 3000” isn’t correct either. If there were actual copy editors, they would have used an ellipsis to show the deletion, rather than printing it as a complete sentence. If there were actual journalists, they wouldn’t represent the statement as accurate in the first place.

You say I’m wrong, yet you must know by know that your statement was dishonest. What would grandpa say about that?

by Salty on Oct 16, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha there you go again

What would grandpa say about that?

Haha again, trying to take attention away from the subject because you have realized your wrong.

I really could care less about all the bs you said above about the statement being “inaccurate”. I saw the clip of Favre saying what he did. And I then heard the statement again today on the radio. I’ve got all the proof I need already. Again all your bs isn’t fooling anybody.

by packallday555 on Oct 16, 2009 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What would your grandpa say?

Now you admit to being dishonest? Cutting off half the sentence and jumping around shouting about it is bizarre. Its no different than outright fabricating something. If you heard him say the full statement what sort of person would argue that the edited statement has meaning? The two clearly have two different meanings yet you continue to argue that chopping off half the sentence is “proof.”

Again, I help you and explain how to do something honestly and you don’t care about it.

by Salty on Oct 16, 2009 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

Again man, talk, talk, talk. Your bs isn’t fooling anybody. Favre saying “this is the best team I have ever been on” was on the news, like I personally heard him say those exact words with my own two ears. I then heard the clip played on the radio. Then PackaCracka provides a link, also showing him saying the statement. Your NOT footling anybody. Your wrong, I know it sucks but accept it. Your wasting your time spouting out information.

by packallday555 on Oct 17, 2009 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How old are you Beavis?

“I think physically and from a talent level, this is the best team I’ve ever been on.”

Who cares if whiny, crying babies cut off his quote and give it without any context? Do you think the qualifiers alter the meaning at all? Damn, Slackers just can’t dry their eyes and get over it. You’ve got the fabulous Arodge. Buy a jersey. Write him a fan letter. Put up another poster in your room.

You can invent stories about Favre and call names all day long at Acme romper room.

by Salty on Oct 14, 2009 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Um

You were wrong. You lost the argument. Why keep hurting your image? Who cares if my avatar is Beavis? You sound like a butt-head anyway.

He said the words. hahaha @ you

by PackaCracka on Oct 14, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

Your quotation isn’t accurate. The dishonest editing completely changes the meaning. I get that it doesn’t matter what he said, you and the Acme romper room crowd want to stomp your feet and call names. Knock yourself out.

Apparently you care that your avatar is Beavis because you chose it.

by Salty on Oct 14, 2009 6:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Get over yourself

I know you think you are much more intelligent then everybody else you talk to but that’s not the case. You asked for a link. You got one, and it proved you wrong. That’s it.

by packallday555 on Oct 16, 2009 1:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I gave the acual quote - you don't like it

The meaning is changed by the edit. That’s honesty more than intelligence. You’re able to post on the internet. I’m sure you know that representing the statement as declaring this team to be superior to the ’96 team is inaccurate and dishonest. Grow up.

by Salty on Oct 16, 2009 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

what part of ‘best team’ don’t you get? i always thought best meant that there were none better. the man himself says he’s never played on a team with more talent. was this cryptic favre speak that only true believers comprehend?

by iseepurplepeople on Oct 16, 2009 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha don't even try iseepurple

Salty is far more intelligent then you and I combined. And probably everyone else who has commented on this thread. He is God’s great gift to Earth and he knows all.

But thank you for pointing out that he said ‘best team’ and most ‘talented team’. Salty just cannot accept this.

by packallday555 on Oct 16, 2009 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There you go with that god's gift shit again

I can’t accept new meanings for words because you’re still emotionally wounded? That’s not my job.

by Salty on Oct 16, 2009 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

It’s just how I feel. It’s obvious in the way you talk, and present yourself. You feel your far superior to everyone else you talk to, especially if that person is a “kid”.

by packallday555 on Oct 17, 2009 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not even gonna get into it with you. Arguing with people who seem to think they are God’s great gift to Earth usually doesn’t go anywhere…

by packallday555 on Oct 13, 2009 11:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the season isn't over yet...

Remember that our run defense has been number one or near number one for the past for years and nothin has changed.

Wait ’til the end of the year and see where the team ranks (when AP actually gets the ball)

The Vikings=$600 Million
The Metrodome=$55 Million
Adrian Peterson=Priceless

by 4 AP Jerseys on Oct 13, 2009 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

I’m sure you have watched all of the Vikes games and I have too. Are you really going to tell me that your run defense looks like the same one of the last three years?

Ben Leber was actually quoted in the Star Tribune saying that they had to put 8 in the box to stop the Lions run game. Lewis, Grant, and Jackson all averaged 4+ ypc against you guys. The total rushing yards against may look low but that is largely due to teams getting behind and having to pass.

I’m not saying your defense isn’t good. You guys have a very good defense and we had a very, very good one in 96’. The strength of your defense is the run defense. The strength of our 96’ defense was our pass defense. We ranked 1st in this category. We also ranked 4th in run defense. You guys will probably be somewhere in the middle of the pack in pass defense ranks at the end of year and to compensate for that your run defense would have to rank first.

I just don’t know if you can compare a SB winning team to a 5-0 team. You guys could end up to be better then our team but we’ll have to wait and see.

by packallday555 on Oct 13, 2009 11:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Breakdown

well, the offense has scored the 3rd most points per game without taking advantage of blowouts to score more garbage time points.

The defense is sitting at 9th and includes 14 points of pure garbage time with our second units on. So if you factor those out, that gives us 15.2 points per game for 4th in the league..not too bad huh?

by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 13, 2009 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

There is no denying that the ’96 Packers ranked higher offensively and defensively than the current Vikings do now; however, there are a few elements on this team which were not on the ’96 Packers. I do think that the passing D numbers could possibly get better just by virtue of their next 2-3 opponents not throwing on most downs, but they may do just that. We shall see. At this point, it is too early since the poor quality of opponents has left the Vikings both overrated and underrated in different categories.

I don’t think Harvin will be a PBer purely on his production at WR, but as a WR/RET. Darius Reynaud also ranks 2nd in punt returns according to something else I read on here, so I can’t rule him out, even as a long shot if he can keep this up or slightly improve on that.

by KC Viking on Oct 13, 2009 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

haters are hiding

But where will they go if Green Bay can’t handle the lions. If I was Mcarthy and TT I would be studing the Lions film and not worrying about the outcome on Nov 1st. By the way I wll be in the Twin Cities on Halloween and was wondering if anyone knows the name of the Pancake place in Eden Praire where the Vikes have breakfast. My daughter and I would like to go there.

THOMPSON IS A MORON

by 4 where-ever on Oct 13, 2009 9:08 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

things are going pretty much how i thought they would

that scares me. favre’s passing is trending up, ap’s runs are trending down. we’re undefeated and looking real good. not great yet but give another 5 to 7 weeks and we’ll be peaking.

not much to ‘hate’ on right now is there? i never thought we’d come out and tank from opening day. we’re too good.

is it worth it? only a superbowl says yes. why?

in chili’s first year he cleaned house and we went 6-10 but the building blocks were laid mostly on defense.

in chili’s second year we continued the good work on defense and began laying the building blocks on offense and went 8-8 with a raw but improving qb.

in year 3 we saw our first big gaines and glimpses into what we can be. the defense became very good and the offense hiccuped but we still managed to go 10-6 with playoff loss.

here i diverge. if we had continued with our (in my opinion) proper team development. we should have been expected to win at least 10 regular season games and 1 playoff game. that would have been improvement and since we have improved steadily since 06 there’s really no reason to think otherwise. what if this and what if that aside, it is reasonable to expect a trend to continue that has been consistent over 3 years.

that’s worse case in my opinion. 10-6 again with a win in the playoffs would have been a worse case scenario had we stayed the course. we have too much talent even at backup spots for us to realistically do any worse. realistically i would have expected us to get a first round bye which means 1 playoff win would put us in the nfc championship game. i would have been satisfied with a season like that from our relatively young team.

i don’t feel that prediction is in any way unreasonable.

now add favre.

if we, reasonably (not gauranteed but not far fetched either), could have made it to the nfc championship game without favre. what would be considered success for us now? what should we be ‘satisfied’ with?

a superbowl, nothing less. how can i say that? expecting one guy to win us a superbowl? no stop that! that’s not what i’m saying. if we had the talent without favre to arguably reach the nfc championship game and we do reach it with him and lose, what is the gain? nothing. we could have done it without him and we wasted a year of experience for our other guys who really need it.

what about if we win and go to the superbowl and lose? i’d be okay with that if i were a steelers fan or patriots or something. at least then it’s still relevant. but we’re the vikings. making it to the superbowl and losing isn’t acceptable.

you can make posts about people who disagree with your opinion and call them names and be derogetory if you like, it is a (relatively) free country. but then why would you wonder why your naysayers aren’t prevalent?

i was and still am vocal about not wanting favre on this team. 5-0 start or otherwise i still think we’ll come to regret it. that doesn’t make me any more or less of a viking fan. frankly i’m just tired of hearing about the guy. we’ve gone from being ‘the vikings’ to being ‘brett favre and the vikings’. sorry, my team shouldn’t get second billing.

but this is exactly what i thought would happen so i’m not surprised. hopefully that trend doesn’t continue.

by iseepurplepeople on Oct 16, 2009 4:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed, Mostly...

That’s pretty much how my ‘improvement math’ works out too, although an NFC championship game, even if we lose, is nothing to sneer at. Still, that’s the minimum, and I think Chilly has that bet pretty much covered. Yes, there are NFC teams that scare me still… the Saints, the Falcons, the Giants, in that order, but I think we can take at least 2 out of 3 of them. With the Favre-factor, maybe all three.

Yesterday’s game against the Ravens revealed some major weaknesses though, and that will need to be shored up. Also, injuries can easily be the difference between a great season, and a floundering one. Winfield and Harvin both out, and AP needed to be checked carefully, doesn’t make me jump for joy.

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!

by DCPurple on Oct 19, 2009 6:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you’re right on the injuries as we saw against baltimore, but even then i still think we could recover unless we had seattle-like injury problems.

as of right now, injuries or no injuries, the saints will shred our defense. can we win a shootout with them? maybe over the next several weeks but not in the playoffs.

we have to do something if we hope to be able to beat the saints.

by iseepurplepeople on Oct 20, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

as of right now, injuries or no injuries, the saints will shred our defense. can we win a shootout with them? maybe over the next several weeks but not in the playoffs.

we have to do something if we hope to be able to beat the saints.

So I’m not trying to stir up the pot but this statement really is kind of true. If you guys have a weakness it is your secondary. Your excellent d-line covers up a lot of their struggles but as you guys have seen the last two weeks even the d-line hasn’t been enough.

I thought the Giants vs. Saints game would be a good indicator of how you guys would do against the Saints because your defense is a lot like theirs. Excellent d-lines, good LB corps, and an average secondary that benefits from a great pass rush. The Saints o-line was able to slow that Giants pass rush and as a result Brees went for 370 and 4 TDs.

It will likely be a shootout if you guys play but the Saints aren’t the team you want to get into a shootout with. As of now it would look like your two teams will end up playing each other in the NFC Championship and I think it would be a great game.

Also curious as to why Paymah replaced Winfield as opposed to Allen. I remember someone saying that it looked like Allen was going to be the nickel back ahead of Sapp and Paymah. I never followed up on this though to see if he indeed did win that job or not. Was he hurt?

by packallday555 on Oct 21, 2009 12:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We might be ok....

Agreed, the secondary is the biggest issue and we have to take care of it… but we might be ok, too. I wouldn’t count the Vikings out, even with issues in the secondary because we ain’t the Lions, nor the Redskins. When we face the Saints, they better bring it big, and I bet they know that.

I just watched the game again tonight, and as aggravating as the end was, I realized something else, too; the Vikings kicked ass and names for 3.5 quarters.

Seriously, we owned those redheads and took the wood to them for most of the game, things didn’t turn around til about 8:30 mark of the 4th quarter. Then our D collapsed and they had the stick. And used it.

Ok, so I know we have to make sure this doesn’t happen again. I totally agree with that. I totally understand that we have to play all 4 quarters (and maybe a 5th once in a while) if we want to be serious about taking it all the way. Ok, so, that being acknowledged… we DOMINATED that game for the first 51:30 minutes. DOMINATED one of the best teams in the NFL.

Our D didn’t fall apart because Winfield was out, Winfield left halfway through the 2nd quarter. The D stood up, pass and run, for 30 more minutes of regulation time after that!

To me, the guys just looked tired at the end, and I don’t understand that, but there it was. We need to not let that happen any more, sure sure, but really…. we’re not looking at a Viking team on the ragged edge of dissolution. We’re looking at a Viking team that needs to tweak things up, because that first 51:30 of regulation play, MEANS something.

The Baltimore Ravens almost won… that and 2 bucks will buy you a cup of plain coffee at Starbucks. The only reason they almost won is because the Vikings D collapsed. They didn’t come close because they were the better team. They came close because the Vikings almost lost the game.

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!

by DCPurple on Oct 22, 2009 10:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where have the Packer Fans Gone???

After attending the burn your FAVRE memorabilia bon fires, most Packer fans came to realize that those number four jerseys were the only threads they owned! Now they all search their attics for their old Reggie White jerseys and thus have no time to comment on the Vikings amazing, incredibly succesfull season of VICTORY and Awesomeness!!!

"I wish you all the best!!! Losing is always tough especially when your teams sucks as much as it does!"

by VQUASIMOTOV on Oct 20, 2009 5:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs