19 replies to this topic

[nathanKent]

http://www.homeofthe...t-favre-effect/

[The_Jonas]

Brett Favre?

Are the Chiefs not playing this weekend? (NM, just saw you wrote two)

Oh well, I guess Brett does need more exposure. Nobody ever writes about him.

The whole 'high school girl' thing he pulled leaving GB just ruined his image in my eyes forever.

[nathanKent]

The_Jonas, on 09 September 2010 - 06:53 AM, said:

The whole 'high school girl' thing he pulled leaving GB just ruined his image in my eyes forever.

I'd like to think that faced with a similar situation with something I love as much as he loved the Packers, I'd respond better than that.

I also know from personal experience that I wouldn't.

[milkman]

Let me preface what I'm about to say by telling you that I absolutely hated it when Carl Peterson traded for Joe Montana.

In and of itself, the trade would have been a great thing.
I was a Montana fan, and still believe he was the greatest QB I've ever had the pleasure to watch.

But trading for him, without a viable backup plan (and no, Dave Krieg was not a viable backup plan, IMO) and without adressing the future, was a moronic move.

I expected Montana to give the Chiefs 3 years, at best (turned out to be 2) and anyone that expected an older, fragile QB to make it through a season without injury had to be on drugs.

With that in mind, were I a Viking fan, I'd be pissed.

First, I never bought into the good old country boy act.
I've hated Brett Favre for years, almost since the day he replaced Majkowski(sp) as the starter in Green Bay.

Second, Brett Favre is considered a great QB that makes plays that leads his team to comeback wins.
I don't dispute that, but I wonder just how many of those comebacks were necessitated by the fact that he threw an interception that allowed the opposing teams to take the lead to begin with?

And how many of his interceptions allowed opposing teams to take a lead that he wasn't able to lead a comeback from?

Third, when Favre does actually retire, the Vikings are going to be left in the same exact position then as they would find themselves in now, without a QB.

I didn't believe Montana would lead the Chiefs to the SB (though he almost proved me wrong) and I don't believe Favre will lead the Vikings there either.

Montana couldn't do it because he did get injured as I expected he would, and Favre won't do it because, at some point, he will throw another stupid pick that will cost the Vikings a win in the payoffs, just like he did in last year's conference championship.

And when he retires, the Vikings, because they failed to address the QB position long term, will effectively have the window of opportunity slammed shut, just as the Chiefs did when Montana retired.

[milkman]

Deleted, because I'm a dumbass that duplicated.

[BrooklynChiefsFan]

milkman, on 10 September 2010 - 09:03 AM, said:

Let me preface what I'm about to say by telling you that I absolutely hated it when Carl Peterson traded for Joe Montana.

In and of itself, the trade would have been a great thing.
I was a Montana fan, and still believe he was the greatest QB I've ever had the pleasure to watch.

But trading for him, without a viable backup plan (and no, Dave Krieg was not a viable backup plan, IMO) and without adressing the future, was a moronic move.

I expected Montana to give the Chiefs 3 years, at best (turned out to be 2) and anyone that expected an older, fragile QB to make it through a season without injury had to be on drugs.

With that in mind, were I a Viking fan, I'd be pissed.

First, I never bought into the good old country boy act.
I've hated Brett Favre for years, almost since the day he replaced Majkowski(sp) as the starter in Green Bay.

Second, Brett Favre is considered a great QB that makes plays that leads his team to comeback wins.
I don't dispute that, but I wonder just how many of those comebacks were necessitated by the fact that he threw an interception that allowed the opposing teams to take the lead to begin with?

And how many of his interceptions allowed opposing teams to take a lead that he wasn't able to lead a comeback from?

Third, when Favre does actually retire, the Vikings are going to be left in the same exact position then as they would find themselves in now, without a QB.

I didn't believe Montana would lead the Chiefs to the SB (though he almost proved me wrong) and I don't believe Favre will lead the Vikings there either.

Montana couldn't do it because he did get injured as I expected he would, and Favre won't do it because, at some point, he will throw another stupid pick that will cost the Vikings a win in the payoffs, just like he did in last year's conference championship.

And when he retires, the Vikings, because they failed to address the QB position long term, will effectively have the window of opportunity slammed shut, just as the Chiefs did when Montana retired.

It's a great point you make, only bolstered by the fact of where GB is sitting today because they did address the QB position in advance of a glaring need. As you mentioned in another thread, we had the chance to get Rodgers as a preemptive move while the offense was still on top. I'd say he would be at the same or better of a spot if he was under Green's wing for a couple of seasons. Hell, we may have even been able to turn the reigns over and traded Trent for something really valuable before he got his bell rung.

All hindsight though, and Herm Edwards would have destroyed this kid's career. now that I think about it. You just can't play whatifs in pro sports.

[milkman]

BrooklynChiefsFan, on 10 September 2010 - 09:24 AM, said:

It's a great point you make, only bolstered by the fact of where GB is sitting today because they did address the QB position in advance of a glaring need. As you mentioned in another thread, we had the chance to get Rodgers as a preemptive move while the offense was still on top. I'd say he would be at the same or better of a spot if he was under Green's wing for a couple of seasons. Hell, we may have even been able to turn the reigns over and traded Trent for something really valuable before he got his bell rung.

All hindsight though, and Herm Edwards would have destroyed this kid's career. now that I think about it. You just can't play whatifs in pro sports.

I think one can reasonably speculate (what if?) that Rogers would not have been destroyed by Herman f**king Edwards.

He would have had two years under the tutelage of Al Saunders and Terry Shea, learning behind Trent Green.

He put up huge numbers last year playing behind a line that was as bad as the Chiefs O-Line with Herman f**king Edwards (50 sacks last year).

The one positive I can take away from passing on Rogers in that draft is that it's also very likely that the Chiefs, with Rogers at QB, would probably be still trotting Herman f**king Edwards out to the sidelines today.

[NOLA]

Shifting gears for a moment...

I don't know how much was apparent on TV last night, but live and in person, Favre looked every bit of 40 last night. He was clearly afraid of contact (never seen someone run away from a handoff that fast), and it was apparent that he and/or the coaches has instructed his line to hold to keep him clean (2nd and 30, anyone?). Also, he walked in and out of the huddle with a visible limp. I would be very surprised if Favre's streak lasts through this season. I also believe he will hold the Vikings' offense back. His few throws were off-target, and his decision-making poor. If the the Vikings wanted to be a running team that plays good defense, they could've saved the money and stuck with Tavaris.

[penguin]

NOLA, on 10 September 2010 - 10:12 AM, said:

Shifting gears for a moment...

I don't know how much was apparent on TV last night, but live and in person, Favre looked every bit of 40 last night. He was clearly afraid of contact (never seen someone run away from a handoff that fast), and it was apparent that he and/or the coaches has instructed his line to hold to keep him clean (2nd and 30, anyone?). Also, he walked in and out of the huddle with a visible limp. I would be very surprised if Favre's streak lasts through this season. I also believe he will hold the Vikings' offense back. His few throws were off-target, and his decision-making poor. If the the Vikings wanted to be a running team that plays good defense, they could've saved the money and stuck with Tavaris.

With the new positioning of the official behind the QB there are going to be more holding calls now.

[NOLA]

penguin, on 10 September 2010 - 10:18 AM, said:

With the new positioning of the official behind the QB there are going to be more holding calls now.

Yeah, and with a 40-year-old QB with a bum wheel there are going to be more holding calls now.

[Soda Popinski]

NOLA, on 10 September 2010 - 10:12 AM, said:

Shifting gears for a moment...

I don't know how much was apparent on TV last night, but live and in person, Favre looked every bit of 40 last night. He was clearly afraid of contact (never seen someone run away from a handoff that fast), and it was apparent that he and/or the coaches has instructed his line to hold to keep him clean (2nd and 30, anyone?). Also, he walked in and out of the huddle with a visible limp. I would be very surprised if Favre's streak lasts through this season. I also believe he will hold the Vikings' offense back. His few throws were off-target, and his decision-making poor. If the the Vikings wanted to be a running team that plays good defense, they could've saved the money and stuck with Tavaris.

Yeah he's a grandpa now! Crazy. I remember several years ago when he was still with GB saying "damn he's old, bout time to hang it up". That was five or six years ago. Since then, he's gone on to play for the Jets, and now Minnesota for the second year. He's just old now. I can't see him lasting the whole season. He's a tough guy, and still has the ability to lead them to a lot of wins, but this HAS to be it for him.

[The_Jonas]

nathanKent, on 09 September 2010 - 05:17 PM, said:

I'd like to think that faced with a similar situation with something I love as much as he loved the Packers, I'd respond better than that.

I also know from personal experience that I wouldn't.

So if you dump a girl and she starts dating someone else, you ask her to take you back.. and if she doesn't you go after her best friend? Cos that's what it reminds me of. Petty high school crap.

Let's not act like the Packers ran him off. That's not what happened. Brett always likes to put his coaches in situations where they must acknowledge that he's bigger than the team. When Mike wouldn't do that by bringing Brett back and sticking Rogers back on the bench automatically, Brett's feelers got hurt.

It's just weak sauce man. Sissy crap.

[HG]

The_Jonas, on 10 September 2010 - 12:57 PM, said:

So if you dump a girl and she starts dating someone else, you ask her to take you back.. and if she doesn't you go after her best friend?

The key here is if her best friend is hotter then she is.

[NOLA]

The_Jonas, on 10 September 2010 - 12:57 PM, said:

So if you dump a girl and she starts dating someone else, you ask her to take you back.. and if she doesn't you go after her best friend? Cos that's what it reminds me of. Petty high school crap.

Let's not act like the Packers ran him off. That's not what happened. Brett always likes to put his coaches in situations where they must acknowledge that he's bigger than the team. When Mike wouldn't do that by bringing Brett back and sticking Rogers back on the bench automatically, Brett's feelers got hurt.

It's just weak sauce man. Sissy crap.

I think what nK is trying to say is that he doesn't deny that Favre's action are juvenile, petty, and stupid, but there before the grace of God goes himself.

I'll be honest (and you will not be surprised): I don't always behave in the most mature fashion myself. It's why I don't judge Favre too much about all of this. I'm not going to deny the validity of your criticism of him, though.

[nathanKent]

NOLA, on 10 September 2010 - 02:22 PM, said:

I think what nK is trying to say is that he doesn't deny that Favre's action are juvenile, petty, and stupid, but there before the grace of God goes himself.

I'll be honest (and you will not be surprised): I don't always behave in the most mature fashion myself. It's why I don't judge Favre too much about all of this. I'm not going to deny the validity of your criticism of him, though.

This.

I've had my moments too, mostly involving bands. It's hard to watch the end of something you poured that much sweat in to. I haven't always acted admirably in those situations.

Breakups with girlfriends, on the other hand.... nah.

[Nov262]

The_Jonas, on 10 September 2010 - 12:57 PM, said:

Brett's feelers got hurt.

We all know about the ankle ....... and the hips and the shoulder.

But golly, now his feelers? That's just too much for the old guy to handle. If the lights go out in the dome, how will he ever find his way back to the huddle?

[GatorSVT]

nathanKent, on 09 September 2010 - 12:36 AM, said:

http://www.homeofthe...t-favre-effect/

What was that you were saying about sexual deviancy?



Click me!

[nathanKent]

GatorSVT, on 13 September 2010 - 05:37 PM, said:

What was that you were saying about sexual deviancy?



Click me!

Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not. Either way, it's a far cry from rape.

[NOLA]

GatorSVT, on 13 September 2010 - 05:37 PM, said:

What was that you were saying about sexual deviancy?



Click me!

I posted this once already, but...

Um... does anyone have her BlackBerry number?

[Zig]

nathanKent, on 13 September 2010 - 05:49 PM, said:

Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not. Either way, it's a far cry from rape.

I don't really buy it. But either way that AJ dude is a d-bag.

the user comments were hilarious though. "he meant to send them to Suzy Kolber but they got intercepted'