MickeyG wrote:Farve just got picked with a minute left with his team trailing.
Nothing new there then.
Did you even see the play? All the stats will tell you is that Favre got picked off, but if you watched it you would know that the ball was tipped. Chester Taylor has to catch that ball. That pick is on Taylor, not Favre, and I'm sure even Taylor himself would tell you that.
But all things considered, I think it's good for the Vikings to lose at least one game in the regular season. Going 16-0 in the regular season only sets a team up for failure in the postseason. You have a much better chance to win a Super Bowl by going anywhere from 12-4 to 15-1.
What about the fumble in the Red returned for a TD the series before?
And how do you know Taylor himself would tell us that? You don't.
poizond13 wrote:I have been very bummed out, sad and shocked for most of the night
Artemis2085 wrote:so I blurt out "I love you Paul!
Atomicpunk18 wrote:You see Black Crowes music has gotten me laid multiple times.
MickeyG wrote:Farve just got picked with a minute left with his team trailing.
Nothing new there then.
Did you even see the play? All the stats will tell you is that Favre got picked off, but if you watched it you would know that the ball was tipped. Chester Taylor has to catch that ball. That pick is on Taylor, not Favre, and I'm sure even Taylor himself would tell you that.
But all things considered, I think it's good for the Vikings to lose at least one game in the regular season. Going 16-0 in the regular season only sets a team up for failure in the postseason. You have a much better chance to win a Super Bowl by going anywhere from 12-4 to 15-1.
What about the fumble in the Red returned for a TD the series before?
And how do you know Taylor himself would tell us that? You don't.
What about the fumble? It looked to me like a great play by the defensive player, but let me guess... somebody here will try to spin it into Favre making a stupid mistake.
How do I know that Taylor himself would say that? I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I would think that almost any player, if he is a stand-up guy and a good teammate, would say that it was on him in that particular scenario. Anybody who saw the play knows it's a ball that he should hang on to. It's not like Favre threw it straight into the hands of the defender like so many people here think that he has a tendency to do.
"We're gonna score 17? OK!!! What is Plaxico playing defense now?"
--Tom Brady
Monsters_of_Rock wrote:
What about the fumble? It looked to me like a great play by the defensive player, but let me guess... somebody here will try to spin it into Favre making a stupid mistake.
How do I know that Taylor himself would say that? I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I would think that almost any player, if he is a stand-up guy and a good teammate, would say that it was on him in that particular scenario. Anybody who saw the play knows it's a ball that he should hang on to. It's not like Favre threw it straight into the hands of the defender like so many people here think that he has a tendency to do.
So whats your excuse about the 100 other times he's done it and is known for?
poizond13 wrote:I have been very bummed out, sad and shocked for most of the night
Artemis2085 wrote:so I blurt out "I love you Paul!
Atomicpunk18 wrote:You see Black Crowes music has gotten me laid multiple times.
UtahRatt wrote:What about the fumble in the Red returned for a TD the series before?
And how do you know Taylor himself would tell us that? You don't.
What about the fumble? It looked to me like a great play by the defensive player, but let me guess... somebody here will try to spin it into Favre making a stupid mistake.
How do I know that Taylor himself would say that? I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I would think that almost any player, if he is a stand-up guy and a good teammate, would say that it was on him in that particular scenario. Anybody who saw the play knows it's a ball that he should hang on to. It's not like Favre threw it straight into the hands of the defender like so many people here think that he has a tendency to do.
The strip was not really on Favre. You can make the case he lost his awareness in panic, but it was a good play and a failing on the line.
However, the int was on BOTH of them - Taylor's got to make that grab, but Favre did make a bad throw.
Monsters_of_Rock wrote:
What about the fumble? It looked to me like a great play by the defensive player, but let me guess... somebody here will try to spin it into Favre making a stupid mistake.
How do I know that Taylor himself would say that? I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I would think that almost any player, if he is a stand-up guy and a good teammate, would say that it was on him in that particular scenario. Anybody who saw the play knows it's a ball that he should hang on to. It's not like Favre threw it straight into the hands of the defender like so many people here think that he has a tendency to do.
So whats your excuse about the 100 other times he's done it and is known for?
$hit happens, same as the 100 times it happened to Montana and Brady.
"We're gonna score 17? OK!!! What is Plaxico playing defense now?"
--Tom Brady
UtahRatt wrote:What about the fumble in the Red returned for a TD the series before?
And how do you know Taylor himself would tell us that? You don't.
What about the fumble? It looked to me like a great play by the defensive player, but let me guess... somebody here will try to spin it into Favre making a stupid mistake.
How do I know that Taylor himself would say that? I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I would think that almost any player, if he is a stand-up guy and a good teammate, would say that it was on him in that particular scenario. Anybody who saw the play knows it's a ball that he should hang on to. It's not like Favre threw it straight into the hands of the defender like so many people here think that he has a tendency to do.
The strip was not really on Favre. You can make the case he lost his awareness in panic, but it was a good play and a failing on the line.
However, the int was on BOTH of them - Taylor's got to make that grab, but Favre did make a bad throw.
How can it be a bad throw when it was in Taylor's hands? That doesn't make sense.
"We're gonna score 17? OK!!! What is Plaxico playing defense now?"
--Tom Brady
Monsters_of_Rock wrote:
How can it be a bad throw when it was in Taylor's hands? That doesn't make sense.
Ok, so what we've learned here today is that you equate good throws with location, regardless of the situation and the timing.
It was supposed to be a screen pass, only, there was no screen.
1. Favre waited just over 2 seconds - a screen usually takes longer to develop.
2. Favre did not wait for the linemen to chase him before dropping it off.
3. Favre did not see a defender right on Taylor's back. When time is of the essence, and it's only 2nd down with 3 to go in Field Goal range, stupid decision and poorly executed on his part - throw it away to stop the clock and save your timeouts, not to a guy who's covered 3 yards behind the line of scrimmage.
Yes, Taylor got his hands on it. As a pro, the rule is, you touch it, you catch it.
That being said, Favre is far from blameless on the play.
Boomer Esiason was doing his normal Monday morning football talk with Sports Radio today. He was asked to name his top 5 QB's of all time.
1. Montana
1a. Brady (If he wins another ring, he'd put him ahead of Joe)
3. Manning
4. Elway
5. Unitas
He said Marino should be in there, somehow, as well.
One of the hosts of another show was asked the same thing a couple of weeks ago and although he didn't give a list, he said that he couldn't put Marino in there because of no rings and Favre would probably be Top Ten, but no way Top Five.
bonedog wrote:I let Facedown get the better of me
bonedog wrote:My first kid will be born when I am 47.
MickeyG wrote:Was it a high throw? Was there too much on it? Was Taylor stretching to catch it?
There's many reasons why it could be a bad throw.
It's supposed to be a "dump pass" not a high zinger but as we know favre isn't a touch passing kind of guy and MOR would make up another excuse no matter what.
poizond13 wrote:I have been very bummed out, sad and shocked for most of the night
Artemis2085 wrote:so I blurt out "I love you Paul!
Atomicpunk18 wrote:You see Black Crowes music has gotten me laid multiple times.
So your statement is incorrect. It didn't happen 100 times for Brady. Brett had that happen 100 times - on 3 separate occasions. Hell, Favre
has 80+ INTs than Montana and Brady combined.
Here's another way to look at it: Brady and Montana each have around 30 INTs per ring, while ol' Brett has more than 300 INTs per ring.
So your statement is incorrect. It didn't happen 100 times for Brady. Brett had that happen 100 times - on 3 separate occasions. Hell, Favre
has 80+ INTs than Montana and Brady combined.
Here's another way to look at it: Brady and Montana each have around 30 INTs per ring, while ol' Brett has more than 300 INTs per ring.
You also have to take into consideration the fact that Favre has a lot more pass attempts. You can't just look at total number of INTs with no regard whatsoever being given to how many attempts it took to reach that number. A better way to compare is by INT percentage (how many passes out of every 100 attempts is picked off on average). Favre's number is 3.3, Brady 2.3, and Montana 2.6. So, out of every 100 passes attempted Favre throws 1 more INT than Brady and 0.7 more than Montana. Not really a huge difference when you break it down like that. You might think lower INT percentage = better QB... until you realize that Neil O'Donnell's career INT percentage is 2.1 and Jason Campbell's is 2.2.
Monsters_of_Rock wrote:
How can it be a bad throw when it was in Taylor's hands? That doesn't make sense.
Ok, so what we've learned here today is that you equate good throws with location, regardless of the situation and the timing.
It was supposed to be a screen pass, only, there was no screen.
1. Favre waited just over 2 seconds - a screen usually takes longer to develop.
2. Favre did not wait for the linemen to chase him before dropping it off.
3. Favre did not see a defender right on Taylor's back. When time is of the essence, and it's only 2nd down with 3 to go in Field Goal range, stupid decision and poorly executed on his part - throw it away to stop the clock and save your timeouts, not to a guy who's covered 3 yards behind the line of scrimmage.
Yes, Taylor got his hands on it. As a pro, the rule is, you touch it, you catch it.
That being said, Favre is far from blameless on the play.
Would you say that Favre cost the Vikings a win vs. Pittsburgh?
"We're gonna score 17? OK!!! What is Plaxico playing defense now?"
--Tom Brady
Monsters_of_Rock wrote:
How can it be a bad throw when it was in Taylor's hands? That doesn't make sense.
Ok, so what we've learned here today is that you equate good throws with location, regardless of the situation and the timing.
It was supposed to be a screen pass, only, there was no screen.
1. Favre waited just over 2 seconds - a screen usually takes longer to develop.
2. Favre did not wait for the linemen to chase him before dropping it off.
3. Favre did not see a defender right on Taylor's back. When time is of the essence, and it's only 2nd down with 3 to go in Field Goal range, stupid decision and poorly executed on his part - throw it away to stop the clock and save your timeouts, not to a guy who's covered 3 yards behind the line of scrimmage.
Yes, Taylor got his hands on it. As a pro, the rule is, you touch it, you catch it.
That being said, Favre is far from blameless on the play.
Would you say that Favre cost the Vikings a win vs. Pittsburgh?
Do you think that either Tavaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels would have given the Vikings a better chance to win that game?
Do you think that the Vikings would have a better record so far this season if they had either Tavaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels as their starting QB?
Irrelevant. Both questions.
Dodging my point I see. Thank you, your refusal to answer tells me what I wanted to know. In other words, Brett Favre has made the Vikings a better team than they were before... wouldn't you have to concede at least that much?
"We're gonna score 17? OK!!! What is Plaxico playing defense now?"
--Tom Brady
Monsters_of_Rock wrote:
Two more questions for you...
Do you think that either Tavaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels would have given the Vikings a better chance to win that game?
Do you think that the Vikings would have a better record so far this season if they had either Tavaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels as their starting QB?
Irrelevant. Both questions.
Dodging my point I see. Thank you, your refusal to answer tells me what I wanted to know.
I thought it was obvious, but I forgot who I was talking to, so I'll explain.
The questions are irrelevant because they lost game.
The NFL is about Wins, not chances to win.
The Steelers used the EXACT same plan vs Favre as they would have against the other 2 - stack the box and make them throw.
The Steelers got the exact result they planned for.
The ONLY difference is Favre gave the Vikings a better chance of hurting the Steelers' Pass D #s.
It doesn't change the fact that he made a retarded throw at the end of the game, the kind of throw you'd expect from someone lacking substantial experience like Jackson, and not someone with 17 years experience.
Now, you can make whatever excuses you want (which you will) but it doesn't change the fact that a 17 year veteran, with a penchant for moronic plays at the worst possible time, made a hurried throw to a covered man 3 yards BEHIND the line of scrimmage while in field goal range.
Now matter how many ways you try to apologize and place blame elsewhere, that's a stupid, stupid decision.
Monsters_of_Rock wrote: In other words, Brett Favre has made the Vikings a better team than they were before... wouldn't you have to concede at least that much?
That's still too early to tell.
They are two games better in the record department than they were last year after 6 games.
However, 4 of those wins have come against teams that finished in the bottom 10 last year, including teams 32, 31, 28, 23 who have a combined 5-21 record this year.
Monsters_of_Rock wrote: In other words, Brett Favre has made the Vikings a better team than they were before... wouldn't you have to concede at least that much?
That's still too early to tell.
They are two games better in the record department than they were last year after 6 games.
However, 4 of those wins have come against teams that finished in the bottom 10 last year, including teams 32, 31, 28, 23 who have a combined 5-21 record this year.
The jury is still out.
Fair enough. I think his productivity so far makes it blatantly obvious that they're a better team with him than they were without him, but if you want to wait till later on in the year when it will be even more painful to admit having been wrong, knock yourself out.
"We're gonna score 17? OK!!! What is Plaxico playing defense now?"
--Tom Brady
Monsters_of_Rock wrote: In other words, Brett Favre has made the Vikings a better team than they were before... wouldn't you have to concede at least that much?
That's still too early to tell.
They are two games better in the record department than they were last year after 6 games.
However, 4 of those wins have come against teams that finished in the bottom 10 last year, including teams 32, 31, 28, 23 who have a combined 5-21 record this year.
The jury is still out.
Fair enough. I think his productivity so far makes it blatantly obvious that they're a better team with him than they were without him, but if you want to wait till later on in the year when it will be even more painful to admit having been wrong, knock yourself out.
Sure.
Sounds good.
We'll evaluate his performance after the playoffs, after he's had a chance to go up against the murderer's row of defense in Detroit, Seattle, Chicago, Arizona, Cincinnati and Carolina.
They do close out the season vs the Giants, so that could be a real test, provided both teams are still playing for something and not yanking their guys in the 2nd quarter.
Realistically, we'll wait until after the playoffs to see how he fares.
I think Minnesota is obviously better with Favre than they were without him. He's still a great QB. He's much better than Rosencoptor (not sure about the other guy, I haven't seen enough of him) and I don't think they'd be nearly as good as they are without him. What remains to be seen is if he can take them all the way without melting down like he has more often than not.
bane wrote:I think Minnesota is obviously better with Favre than they were without him. He's still a great QB. He's much better than Rosencoptor (not sure about the other guy, I haven't seen enough of him) and I don't think they'd be nearly as good as they are without him. What remains to be seen is if he can take them all the way without melting down like he has more often than not.
All truth. Favre is light years ahead of Rosenfels and Jackson... an infinite amount of years, even. That still doesn't change the fact that he's not, and never will be, considered a Top 5 QB because of the reckless nature in which he played, costing his teams(s) games and opportunities at (more) championships.
yeah, you could make a case that he's in the Top 5 in the league right now, but even that would get some debate.
Favre is Favre. Currently he's good, with flashes of brilliance but not great. He has been great on occasion, and his body of work puts into HOF territory, but year in year out, he's not on the list all that often. His greatest achievemnet is probably the fact that he never sat out hurt. He's always been a tough SOB. That combined with an incredibly long career puts him into rare company. All that said, I can easily name 5 current QB's I'd take over him. I don't think there'd even be much debate about it.
Monsters_of_Rock wrote:
Fair enough. I think his productivity so far makes it blatantly obvious that they're a better team with him than they were without him, but if you want to wait till later on in the year when it will be even more painful to admit having been wrong, knock yourself out.
I might as well tell you my thoughts on Favre, just to clear things up because you believe me to be a hater.
I don't hate Favre. I like Favre. He's one of my favorite players. I have that luxury because he doesn't play for my team. If he was my team's QB, I'd probably have a love-hate relationship toward him.
Deion Sanders was one of my favorite players> I fully realize he was a complete liability in the run D department because of his aversion to tackling.
Marshall Faulk is my favorite player ever, because he was a multi talented weapon who did everything right.
However, my favorite RB (I distinguish between Running Backs and Football player - AP is a running back, LT is [was] a football player. Just like there are QBs and football players. Peyton Manning = QB. Favre = Football player.) ever is Emmit Smith. Do I believe he was better than Barry Sanders ? In terms of physical god given ability, not a chance. However, in terms of effectiveness, using the gifts and football smarts, he was head and shoulders above him. People always said 'give Barry that line and..." And what ? He often bounced things outside, not out of need, but out of desire. So what good would holes do ? Plus, he played in a run n shoot which required more dbs and spread the field, giving him bigger running lanes. So to me, the line comment is not valid on account of their very different running styles. If Sanders was an up the middle type, then it would be a fair assessment to talk about lines.
Now, back to Favre. I am a Falcons Fan. To this day, I hope Jerry Glanville and Ken Herock are exiled from the NFL forever for trading him to GB for what ended up being Tony Smith.
Especially during Favre's early years when the Falcons ran the Run N Shoot. What better QB ? June Jones brought in Jeff George and he did a decent job one year which only made the "damn, imagine if they had kept Favre" wishes stronger.
While perfectly happy with Matt Ryan (so far - he still makes some dumb mistakes), damn it if I hadn't wished they'd hung on to Favre instead of going through the likes of Chris Miller, Jeff George, Bobby hebert, Chris Chandler, Joey Harrington.
I didn't mind Vick. In spite of his incompetence as a QB, he was fun to watch. Besides, I doubt I'll ever see the Falcons win a SB so why not enjoy the product on the field right ?
So, in closing, would I rather Favre NOW instead of Ryan ? No.
Would I have rather had Favre instead of Vick ? To be honest, that's a toss up but had the Falcons kept Favre, there'd have been no Vick in Atlanta, hence the toss up.
Now, here is the key part. And it is not indicative of a hatred of Favre, but rather, an appreciation for THEIR abilities. Present QBs I'd rather see in Atlanta over Favre:
Brady
Peyton Manning
Historically (keeping in mind I am referring ONLY to as far back as I have been following the sport with an understanding of it ie not when I was 5 years old and watching, but not understanding the complexities.):
thejuggernaut wrote:Now, back to Favre. I am a Falcons Fan. To this day, I hope Jerry Glanville and Ken Herock are exiled from the NFL forever for trading him to GB for what ended up being Tony Smith.
We have a knack for cheering for rivals in the same conference / divison.
thejuggernaut wrote:Bobby Hebert
Throw Bobby Throw! He's my favorite player of the late 80s / early 90s but only because he was the QB on those awesome Saints "Dome Patrol" teams.
thejuggernaut wrote:Present QBs I'd rather see in Atlanta over Favre:
thejuggernaut wrote:Now, back to Favre. I am a Falcons Fan. To this day, I hope Jerry Glanville and Ken Herock are exiled from the NFL forever for trading him to GB for what ended up being Tony Smith.
We have a knack for cheering for rivals in the same conference / divison.
thejuggernaut wrote:Bobby Hebert
Throw Bobby Throw! He's my favorite player of the late 80s / early 90s but only because he was the QB on those awesome Saints "Dome Patrol" teams.
thejuggernaut wrote:Present QBs I'd rather see in Atlanta over Favre:
Brady
Peyton Manning
No Drew Brees? No Phillip Rivers?
Not yet. Neither has proven more than squat. Not even Big Ben. Big Ben has the rings, but has the same penchant for stupid mistakes Favre has. Only, Ben has an elite D to bail his ass out.
Not yet. Neither has proven more than squat. Not even Big Ben. Big Ben has the rings, but has the same penchant for stupid mistakes Favre has. Only, Ben has an elite D to bail his ass out.
For the record, I'd take both right now simply for the aspect of going forward. The entire history of the league has proven that drafting a QB can be a very sketchy proposition, and right now Brees is playing at just a notch below Manning / Brady.
So would I. Both of them are beginning to look like the real deal. I don't think either of those guys will approach Manning territory, but I don't think anybody else will either. That guy may be the best to ever play the game. Schaub is looking pretty good these days too. If he can get through a season without breaking it'll up his stock considerably. Same goes for Palmer.
