# Brett Favre is now a Viking!



## RACJ2

Pending a physical, Brett Favre is scheduled to sign a contract with the Minnesota Vikings on Tuesday says Fanhouse's own Calvin Watkins in an exclusive report.

The deal is supposed to be valued anywhere from $10 to $12 million and could have Favre in practice by this afternoon and seeing game action by Friday night.

Favre Article
YouTube


----------



## joshjr

I for one cant wait. I will watch both Vikings vs Packers games for sure. Screw the Packers after they treated him like trash but wanted to be picky about who he could go play with.


----------



## Fontano

joshjr said:


> I for one cant wait. I will watch both Vikings vs Packers games for sure. Screw the Packers after they treated him like trash but wanted to be picky about who he could go play with.


"Screw the Packers after they treated him like trash " huh?

I am no Packer lover, but honestly, there is plenty of blame on all sides of that one.

The Packers had a viable 2nd string, future replacement for the Hall Of Fame QB. But Brett couldn't make up his mind on what he wanted to do, and sat and waited and waited and waited. The BUISNESS of the team has to continue, so it eventually got to a point that they made a decision.

As for being picky where he went, he was still under contract if I remember correctly. So them most certainly could have a say on where he goes. Not very different from an employer (outside of sports) having in your contract, that you can't go work for a competitor for a period of X years.

--------

As for the subject, of him going to the Vikings.
Certainly now makes the North Division an interesting place.


----------



## joshjr

Fontano said:


> "Screw the Packers after they treated him like trash " huh?
> 
> I am no Packer lover, but honestly, there is plenty of blame on all sides of that one.
> 
> The Packers had a viable 2nd string, future replacement for the Hall Of Fame QB. But Brett couldn't make up his mind on what he wanted to do, and sat and waited and waited and waited. The BUISNESS of the team has to continue, so it eventually got to a point that they made a decision.
> 
> As for being picky where he went, he was still under contract if I remember correctly. So them most certainly could have a say on where he goes. Not very different from an employer (outside of sports) having in your contract, that you can't go work for a competitor for a period of X years.
> 
> --------
> 
> As for the subject, of him going to the Vikings.
> Certainly now makes the North Division an interesting place.


Well I think it just didnt make sence to not have him play there. I mean what did the Packers go 13-3 that season and then they didnt want him back? Did they really feel Aaron Rogers was gonna do better? NO!!! Also if the guy is not wanted there then why not let him go anywhere he wants.

Im not a Packers fan either but if the Colts did that to Peyton Manning then I would react the same way.  There is no excuse for the way they did him. Once he decided to come back they should of accepted him with open arms and went for another good season ride that might of lead to the Super Bowl. I dont think anyone in their right mind thought Rogers was gonna lead them there last year. Wont happen this year either and yes you can quote me on that!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Fontano said:


> "Screw the Packers after they treated him like trash " huh?
> 
> I am no Packer lover, but honestly, there is plenty of blame on all sides of that one.


Agree - It's amazing how many uninformed people there are on this matter.

It's not the first time he's done this to the Packers.

With numerous polls taken at the time, there were plenty of people who said Screw Brett for being a selfish, waffling decisionmaker who seemed ot enjoy taking the world for a ride.

No NFL team would wait 6-7 months to put their draft, trade, and other important decisions on hold...and then...while the person who thinks they deserve having a team take them back and everything remain constant....and despite those decisions and changes needing to be done... just sits back and lets the team speculate on their return.

Get real.

Favre alienated *alot* of people in a situation where he could have left the game with dignity and as a deeply-respected player. He burned alot of bridges along the way. More people than not think the Packers (and their current QB for that matter) handled things in a respectful and classy way.

I am a Packers fan, and was a Favre fan too - I've met him, his (late) father, his mother, and his wife. They are nice people - but in the end - he blew it. NO player has the right to think they are above the game or the team. The world doesn't revolve around any players every little whim.

Teams have a responsibility to the players to mpve forward with *committed * and signed players.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Will it ever end?


----------



## dave29

Stuart Sweet said:


> Will it ever end?


Maybe in a few years:lol:

I'm glad he signed with the Vikes, this will make the Division a lot more competitive now.


----------



## dave29

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Agree - It's amazing how many uninformed people there are on this matter.
> 
> It's not the first time he's done this to the Packers.
> 
> With numerous polls taken at the time, there were plenty of people who said Screw Brett for being a selfish, waffling decisionmaker who seemed ot enjoy taking the world for a ride.
> 
> No NFL team would wait 6-7 months to put their draft, trade, and other important decisions on hold...and then...while the person who thinks they deserve having a team take them back and everything remain constant....and despite those decisions and changes needing to be done... just sits back and lets the team speculate on their return.
> 
> Get real.
> 
> Favre alienated *alot* of people in a situation where he could have left the game with dignity and as a deeply-respected player. He burned alot of bridges along the way. More people than not think the Packers (and their current QB for that matter) handled things in a respectful and classy way.
> 
> I am a Packers fan, and was a Favre fan too - I've met him, his (late) father, his mother, and his wife. They are nice people - but in the end - he blew it. NO player has the right to think they are above the game or the team. The world doesn't revolve around any players every little whim.
> 
> Teams have a responsibility to the players to mpve forward with *committed * and signed players.


I agree as well. I am a Brett Favre fan, but the Pack had to do what they had to do, and they moved on. They couldn't wait forever.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

It always seemed to me like we would never have the full story... but I assumed both Favre and the Packers were at fault for the problem.

I have to blame Favre because he didn't have to retire with the "I'm done, be with my family, etc. etc." retirement with tears speech before then coming back a few months and claiming the Packers forced him out.

Revisionist history makes me think both sides were at faut, and it doesn't surprise me.

Also, I think Rodgers will be fine... the defense let the Packers down last season. Rodgers had pretty good numbers, especially for his first full season of being a starter.

I also have lost respect for the Vikings with the way they have dangled the carrot and toyed/messed with their own QBs. Granted, they probably didn't have hall-of-fame QBs on staff... but they picked/traded for the ones they have, and then effectively undermined them with the courtship of Favre... and had Favre not signed, those existing QBs would be blamed if they didn't "man up" even though clearly the team already indicated lack of confidence in them.

It'd be like if you have a girlfriend but you constantly advertise how you're looking for a better girlfriend... then are surprised when your security-blanket girlfriend gets pissed.


----------



## joshjr

dave29 said:


> I agree as well. I am a Brett Favre fan, but the Pack had to do what they had to do, and they moved on. They couldn't wait forever.


I dont disagree with that but I just think when Favre said he was coming back they had to say okay who gives us the best chance to win. Isnt it all about winning in the NFL?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

joshjr said:


> I dont disagree with that but I just think when Favre said he was coming back they had to say okay who gives us the best chance to win. Isnt it all about winning in the NFL?


It used to be with Brett....now it's all about him and wanting to play until....

well....

until....


----------



## joshjr

Stewart Vernon said:


> It'd be like if you have a girlfriend but you constantly advertise how you're looking for a better girlfriend... then are surprised when your security-blanket girlfriend gets pissed.


I would agree with that. I had hoped Favre would sign with them just to see the Vikings beat GB but was suprised it took till after the first preseason game.


----------



## RACJ2

I still like Brett. I think he wants to retire, but his desire to play comes back each season. He'll probably finally retire for good when a team chooses not to resign him at the end of a season.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RACJ2 said:


> I still like Brett. I think he wants to retire, but his desire to play comes back each season. He'll probably finally retire for good when a team chooses not to resign him at the end of a season.


That's already happened twice....hasn't stopped him.

See Post #11....that's the future.


----------



## dave29

RACJ2 said:


> I still like Brett. I think he wants to retire, but his desire to play comes back each season. He'll probably finally retire for good when a team chooses not to resign him at the end of a season.


I just wonder how long he will get away with missing training camps before all the teams start to catch on to his trickery:lol:


----------



## RACJ2

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's already happened twice....hasn't stopped him.
> 
> See Post #11....that's the future.


I think the Jets actually wanted him to come back, but he decided to retire. I did see your post #11 and did get a laugh out of it.



dave29 said:


> I just wonder how long he will get away with missing training camps before all the teams start to catch on to his trickery:lol:


He's not the first to do it! Look at LaDainian Tomlinson preseason records for the last few years.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Somebody's been seen Driving Miss Daisy....


----------



## narrod

Stuart Sweet said:


> Will it ever end?


That's what Peyton Manning keeps asking. He can't break his record if Brett never retires. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

narrod said:


> That's what Peyton Manning keeps asking. He can't break his record if Brett never retires. :lol:


He's gotta play about 5-6 years beyond Brett's retirement to beat those records...assuming he stays healthy himself.


----------



## RobertE




----------



## hdtvfan0001




----------



## Sah

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It used to be with Brett....now it's all about him and wanting to play until....
> 
> well....
> 
> until....


:lol:

The guy could have gone down as one of the most beloved Packer players of all time, but no chance of that now. Most die hard Packer fans we know (ourselves included) think very little of him at this point after all of his childish antics. What a ridiculous and sad way to play out the end of a great career...


----------



## cadet502

Here's hoping his arm falls off.



.


----------



## Fluthy

GO VIKINGS!!!!


----------



## mazter

YAWN!!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

NickFluth said:


> GO VIKINGS!!!!


Don't make us do this....again......


----------



## hdtvfan0001

NickFluth said:


> GO VIKINGS!!!!


...or this....


----------



## Fab55

I, for one, can not WAIT to see the Viking in Miami this year for the superbowl! We all know they won't be the first team to buy their way in....


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Fab55 said:


> I, for one, can not WAIT to see the Viking in Miami this year for the superbowl! We all know they won't be the first team to buy their way in....


I don't think so....


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Fab55 said:


> I, for one, can not WAIT to see the Viking in Miami this year for the superbowl! We all know they won't be the first team to buy their way in....


Not likely....he's looking a little rough around the edges after his brief "retirement"....

*(Yes...there are hundreds more of these....)*


----------



## Sah

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not likely....he's looking a little rough around the edges after his brief "retirement"....
> 
> *(Yes...there are hundreds more of these....)*


:rolling:

Keep 'em coming!


----------



## bobukcat

hdtvfan0001 said:


>


Now THAT is frickin hillarious!!! He used to be one of my favorite players but I just want him to go away now!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Sah said:


> :rolling:
> 
> Keep 'em coming!





bobukcat said:


> Now THAT is frickin hillarious!!! He used to be one of my favorite players but I just want him to go away now!


Just a few more...but note...

I have 2 good friends in Minneapolis myself, and they both told me pretty much the same thing - they are in shock that this ever came down, and suspect its all about selling tickets there - for a number of games last seasons, there were as many Packer and Bear fans in the dome as Vikings fans.

Even Madden said on Monday Night football in 2007 "How embarrassing it must be to be a Vikings fan and look around and see more fans for the other team in your own stadium."

Hey - if it brings some more fan support in Minnesota...good for them....but in the mean time....


----------



## kittie2171

what does he have to prove?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

kittie2171 said:


> what does he have to prove?


That he can get past the 1st step in any "12 Step Program" (denial)?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm not a Favre-defender, though I enjoy watching him play... so I readily admit there have been things he hasn't handled well, including his "I am definitely done... no, wait" statements.

But all that said, I have the biggest problem with the teams (last year and this year) courting and enabling him.

I can understand how hard it might be to retire from something he is good at and enjoys when he is still very young and feels like he can do it... and while I understand all the business elements and wanting to win... I just don't think the existing QBs on the roster have been treated fairly during all this.


----------



## fluffybear

I'll be looking forward to see the reception he gets when the Vikes play in Green Bay.


----------



## Game Fan

Another reason I'm glad I canceled Sunday Ticket this year.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm not a Favre-defender, though I enjoy watching him play... so I readily admit there have been things he hasn't handled well, including his "I am definitely done... no, wait" statements.
> 
> But all that said, I have the biggest problem with the teams (last year and this year) courting and enabling him.
> 
> I can understand how hard it might be to retire from something he is good at and enjoys when he is still very young and feels like he can do it... and while I understand all the business elements and wanting to win... I just don't think the existing QBs on the roster have been treated fairly during all this.


That's actually one of the most level-headed and sense-making perspectives of the whole ordeal to date that I've seen anywhere.

What are you...a trouble maker? :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's actually one of the most level-headed and sense-making perspectives of the whole ordeal to date that I've seen anywhere.
> 
> What are you...a trouble maker? :lol::lol::lol:


Probably 

I'm partially echoing a discussion I heard on ESPN with Cris Carter & Mark GuywhoslastnameIwonteventrytospell...


----------



## Steve Mehs

This is getting sickening. Favre has always been a self absorbed egomaniac, and one of the biggest ones ever to play the game, but now he's just a media whore. I honestly do believe the guy is not right in the head and has some type of metal problem where he needs to be the focus of attention at all times. He did a complete disservice to the Jets last year. And while they didn't make it far, it was so nice seeing Pennington lead Miami into a turnaround season and get into the playoffs. 

So now the two questions, how much will has-been Favre sell Packer plays to his new team for? And what team will he be on next year?


----------



## Shades228

I can understand GB fans hating him now. There's a loyalty aspect of this that fans have and players do if paid enough.

With that said though the guy is going to make 10-12 mil this year. I'm sorry but as much as a die hard Bears fan that I am if someone said "For one year you will root for this team and here's 12 mil". Well I'd just have to buy a lot of jerseys the next year with that "blood money". 

He can still perform better then most QB's in the NFL and he's getting the chance to be on a team that has the ability to really be a contender this year. 

So if your a GB fan you can have your hatred because the only thing worse then this would be Wisconsin to stop making cheese, your truck to break down, your wife cheat on you and take the dog. I can understand it. However given the option I don't think anyone would ever turn that offer down.


----------



## vikefan

I had a feeling all along back in march or whenever that was he would show up after training camp and sometime before the season starts. It will happen again next year as well. I hope the Vikings win it all this year and I believe that Favre will retire for good. Not unless he wants to do like Elway. Go Vikings!!!!!!!!!


----------



## braven

Game Fan said:


> Another reason I'm glad I canceled Sunday Ticket this year.


Another reason I'm happy I have the Sunday Ticket this year.


----------



## RACJ2

If Brett stays healthy, he is a difference maker. With the Jets last year, they went from 4 & 12 in 2007 to 9 & 7 in 2008. And until he hurt his shoulder, they were 8 & 3, then they lost 4 of their last 5 games. 

I know there are a lot of Packer fans that hate him now. If you listened to his press conference yesterday, the days in Green Bay are still very special to him. Once he does actually leave football, your attitudes may change. Lets see how many "Green & Gold" jerseys we see, when he is inducted into the HOF.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RACJ2 said:


> If Brett stays healthy, he is a difference maker. With the Jets last year, they went from 4 & 12 in 2007 to 9 & 7 in 2008. And until he hurt his shoulder, they were 8 & 3, then they lost 4 of their last 5 games.
> 
> I know there are a lot of Packer fans that hate him now. If you listened to his press conference yesterday, the days in Green Bay are still very special to him. Once he does actually leave football, your attitudes may change. Lets see how many "Green & Gold" jerseys we see, when he is inducted into the HOF.


I think "hate" is a strong term to describe the mood.

Only time will tell how he even survives the season.

I have heard and read "traitor" thrown around..but that's just emotional rhetoric by a few.

Being pretty close to following this all...about 50% of the folks could care less and have moved on, and the other 30% feel Brett has been foolish in his handling on this (but very little anger involved), while 20% feel the Packers handled things poorly. This is based on a number of "polls" conducted in Packerland.

In any case....most folks have moved on, and still look kindly to his legacy in Green Bay.


----------



## steve053

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I think "hate" is a strong term to describe the mood.
> 
> Only time will tell how he even survives the season.
> 
> I have heard and read "traitor" thrown around..but that's just emotional rhetoric by a few.
> 
> Being pretty close to following this all...about 50% of the folks could care less and have moved on, and the other 30% feel Brett has been foolish in his handling on this (but very little anger involved), while 20% feel the Packers handled things poorly. This is based on a number of "polls" conducted in Packerland.
> 
> In any case....most folks have moved on, and still look kindly to his legacy in Green Bay.


I'd say most agreeed with the above up until this week.

A lot are feeling a little tired of the "retirement" saga, since he just retired again *LAST MONTH*. Most of the talk radio around Milwaukee is closer to 50% - 60% having Brett being foolish about the whole thing. There's still a vocal core of TT haters and BF fans.

Here's hoping that the Vikes continue their Super Bowl winning streak.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

steve053 said:


> Here's hoping that the Vikes continue their Super Bowl winning streak.


So this pretty much covers it?


----------



## steve053

RACJ2 said:


> If Brett stays healthy, he is a difference maker. With the Jets last year, they went from 4 & 12 in 2007 to 9 & 7 in 2008. And until he hurt his shoulder, they were 8 & 3, then they lost 4 of their last 5 games.


It'll be interesting to see how he fares. Last year he was working out with a trainer prior to "arriving" for the Packer Fan Appreciation scrimage. With his surgery and subsequent recouperation this Summer, I don't know how much conditioning he was able to do, or will be able to do in the few weeks before the season begins.

Part of his Iron Man persona is due to his body being able to heal at an accelerated pace (as well as mental grit/determination); but he's almost 40! There's a reason the majority of NFL players are in their 20's and early 30's, and not late 30's or 40's.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

steve053 said:


> It'll be interesting to see how he fares. Last year he was working out with a trainer prior to "arriving" for the Packer Fan Appreciation scrimage. With his surgery and subsequent recouperation this Summer, I don't know how much conditioning he was able to do, or will be able to do in the few weeks before the season begins.
> 
> Part of his Iron Man persona is due to his body being able to heal at an accelerated pace (as well as mental grit/determination); but he's almost 40! There's a reason the majority of NFL players are in their 20's and early 30's, and not late 30's or 40's.


He's about the age of the average coach on many teams (not the head coach, but the others).

He's one good lick away from retirement again...and its been that way for a couple years now. Perhaps Oct 5th or Nov 11th will be new retirement dates.


----------



## Sixto

The guy has talent and he got offered $25M to give it another shot. Yep, he changed his mind again. Good luck to him, while he still might be able to play at an elite level, and has a team interested, before he's too old to do anything special for the rest of his life. The game is better with him in 2009.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Here's the latest (8/20/09) results from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal Newpapaer online poll on the subject - to share the *most recent *opinions...

*OK, how do you feel about Brett Favre now?*

*indifferent *(31%)

*still love him *(23%)

*can't stand him* (47%)

*Total Responses*: *22759*

As I stated earlier, more than half the folks either haven't changed their minds on him or still like him....47% have soured on old Brett. 

Obviously, there are some burned bridges there.


----------



## RACJ2

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Here's the latest (8/20/09) results from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal Newpapaer online poll on the subject - to share the *most recent *opinions...
> 
> *OK, how do you feel about Brett Favre now?*
> *indifferent *(31%)
> *still love him *(23%)
> *can't stand him* (47%)
> *Total Responses*: *22759*


After your comment the other day that hate is too strong of a word, I was thinking about changing it in my prior post. Now that the poll shows 47% "Can't stand him" that's awfully close to the definition of hate - _to dislike intensely or passionately_



RACJ2 said:


> I know there are a lot of Packer fans that hate him now. If you listened to his press conference yesterday, the days in Green Bay are still very special to him. Once he does actually leave football, your attitudes may change. Lets see how many "Green & Gold" jerseys we see, when he is inducted into the HOF.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RACJ2 said:


> After your comment the other day that hate is too strong of a word, I was thinking about changing it in my prior post. Now that the poll shows 47% "Can't stand him" that's awfully close to the definition of hate - _to dislike intensely or passionately_


...or can't stand to hear about him anymore....


----------



## Steve Mehs

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Here's the latest (8/20/09) results from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal Newpapaer online poll on the subject - to share the *most recent *opinions...
> 
> *OK, how do you feel about Brett Favre now?*


Brett who?


----------



## RACJ2

Steve Mehs said:


> Brett who?


I don't think people were asking "Brett who?" last night. I've always liked the emotion and passion he has for the game and showed again last night.

He looked great, finding the open receiver and throwing some laser passes. Although I have to admit, being in the ideal situation helps him. Playing most games in a dome, nmakes it easier to be accurate. And having a lot of top notch players around him, starting with the protection he got from his offensive line is big. The Vikings look like a tough team to beat this year.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

If that interception he clearly had in the end zone (1st Quarter) would not have been overturned by a horrendous official's call (that even both national announcers said was blown)....the outcome of the game would have been considerably different.

Brett had a good game that was amplified by a number of questionable calls and the hype of the national media.

Funny thing is that at game time, there were still face-value game tickets available....not even the Minnesota fans were as hyped as the media would have led people to believe. Brett is more of a fad than anything else there right now.


----------



## vurbano

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If that interception he clearly had in the end zone (1st Quarter) would not have been overturned by a horrendous official's call (that even both national announcers said was blown)....the outcome of the game would have been considerably different.
> 
> Brett had a good game that was amplified by a number of questionable calls and the hype of the national media.
> 
> Funny thing is that at game time, there were still face-value game tickets available....not even the Minnesota fans were as hyped as the media would have led people to believe. Brett is more of a fad than anything else there right now.


:nono2: Holy crap on a stick!!! and the whistle should have been blown when Peterson had been stopped too before the ball was ripped away. Harvin had a face mask on a kick return that wasnt called either, all the announcers talked about was that great tackle on him. So Stop crying. The Pack was dominated in EVERY phase of the game. sacks, fumbles pinning the pack down on special teams, letting a 40 year old man light them up, you name it and the Vikes killed em. They chose their poison by stopping Peterson and Favre made them pay. Rogers got his passing yards but that was about it. Many times it was a jail break to sack Rogers.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

vurbano said:


> The Pack was dominated in EVERY phase of the game.


Not really....Aaron Rodgers actually had a much better game, both statistically in yards (almost 400 and a career high), and by the fact that he did it under more durress...and despite all those obstacles, they only lost by 1 score.

The only reason Favre had a good game was that the refs blew that one call that changed the outcome and momentum (take away that score and you have a tie game and the Packers have the ball the other direction), and he had 1/2 hour to complete several of his passes (holding on a number of those, by the way...I replayed it in slow mo, and it clearly shows the left side of the line was holding all night long).

Almost makes one wonder if the outcome had been pre-determined....

I have a signed Favre photo and helmet here, met he and his dad twice, and historically have been a fan since he came to Green Bay - but this guy is clearly being coddled by the national media these days.

The fair-weather fans (the few) in Minnesota are almost comical to watch, as these exact same folks booed him out of the dome for over 16 years through 2007.


----------



## vurbano

I failed to mention Rodgers' interception total, Favre's was ZERO


----------



## vurbano

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not really....Aaron Rodgers actually had a much better game, both statistically in yards (almost 400 and a career high), and by the fact that he did it under more durress...and despite all those obstacles, they only lost by 1 score.
> 
> The only reason Favre had a good game was that the refs blew that one call that changed the outcome and momentum (take away that score and you have a tie game and the Packers have the ball the other direction), and he had 1/2 hour to complete several of his passes (holding on a number of those, by the way...I replayed it in slow mo, and it clearly shows the left side of the line was holding all night long).


A better game? How? by handing the ball over to the Vikes? Perhaps by taking a safety? perhaps by fumbling? or throwing interceptions? Id take Favres performance over Rodgers anyday. YOU CAN NOT WIN TURNING THE BALL OVER!!!! You really are truely ignorant about this game arent you? The reason Favre had a great game was the Packers commited to stopping Peterson and The Vikes defense made the Pack O line look like the girl scouts.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

vurbano said:


> I failed to mention Rodgers' interception total, Favre's was ZERO


Nope..you just failed (to make a valid point).


----------



## hdtvfan0001

vurbano said:


> A better game? How? by handing the ball over to the Vikes?


Yeah...Adrian Peterson's handoff to the Packer's linebacker was indeed a superstar move on his part alright. 

The game was an officiating and media sham....

Favre won't last the season, and his retirement will begin 11/1/09.


----------



## vurbano

Perhaps you could educate us all on the superiority? http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009100500/2009/REG4/[email protected]#tab:analyze


----------



## hdtvfan0001

vurbano said:


> Perhaps you could educate us all on the superiority? http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009100500/2009/REG4/[email protected]#tab:analyze


I haven't seen anything that fake since Voom had their fake HD channels.


----------



## vurbano

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Yeah...Adrian Peterson's handoff to the Packer's linebacker was indeed a superstar move on his part alright.
> 
> The game was an officiating and media sham....
> 
> Favre won't last the season, and his retirement will begin 11/1/09.


3TD's no fumbles no turnovers for Favre
2TD's a lot of yards between the 20"s, 1 fumble, 1 saftey and one interception and a lack of leadership getting stuffed at the goal line. Choking in the redzone.

But Yet Rodgers had a better game? And the Packers got screwed?:lol:

man it takes eitehr a lot of nerve to come up with that one.


----------



## vurbano

Im not a fan of either team and I saw a whoopin last night. Without the strip of Peterson it would have been 40-17 IMO. The game was over by the half anyway.


----------



## vurbano

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It takes more ignorance to make a case that a game which is clearly laced with game-deciding mistakes covers up the penalties and poor play of the Vikings.
> 
> You can give a high school QB 10 seconds and he'll complete 60% of his passes. The only difference is even high school refs know how to spot and call a holding penalty, which didn't happen last night.
> 
> The fact that two *national-announcers *confirmed the same play as a bad call in the 1st Quarter - then the Vikings lose and whine in their beer.
> 
> You did actually see the game, right?


Apparently I saw more than you did.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

vurbano said:


> man it takes eitehr a lot of nerve or a lot of ignorance to come up with that one.


It takes more ignorance to make a case that a game which is clearly laced with game-deciding officials' mistakes that also cover up the penalties, and all around poor running game of the Vikings.

You can give a high school QB 10 seconds and he'll complete 60% of his passes. The only difference is even high school refs know how to spot and call a holding penalty, which didn't happen last night.

The fact that two *national-announcers *confirmed the same play as a bad call in the 1st Quarter - then the Vikings lose and whine in their beer. At least ESPN got it right.

You did actually see the game, right? Just checking...it was getting hard to tell.


----------



## vurbano

Theres a penalty that can be called on nearly every play of every NFL game. Get over it.


----------



## RACJ2

I think both QB's did a nice job in that game. Favre was 27/31 for 271 YDS, 3 TD's with a 135.3 passer rating. Rodgers was 26/37 for 384 YDS, 2 TD's and 1 Int with a 110.6 passer rating. I think the Packers made the right move going with Rogers. Favre made the right move for him, playing most games indoors and having great players surround him. 

On the comments about blown calls, that happens all the time. I play the coulda', woulda', shoulda' game with my team as well. And what could hurt even more is if the NFL were to release a statement today that the interference was a blown call. Getting it right a day later doesn't change the outcome. Unfortunately, the only thing that really counts is the final score.


----------



## sigma1914

A bad call in the 1st quarter changed the game? I don't think so. And Rogers stats are grossly misleading...he racked up passing yards because they had to throw to catch up from being dominated. I'm no Viking fan, but they dominated.


----------



## vurbano

Jared Allen owned that Packers Lineman last night.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RACJ2 said:


> I think both QB's did a nice job in that game. Favre was 27/31 for 271 YDS, 3 TD's with a 135.3 passer rating. Rodgers was 26/37 for 384 YDS, 2 TD's and 1 Int with a 110.6 passer rating. I think the Packers made the right move going with Rogers. Favre made the right move for him, playing most games indoors and having great players surround him.


That's the absolute right view....but you sure spoil it for the fair-weather Favre Vikings fans....:lol: 


> On the comments about blown calls, that happens all the time. I play the coulda', woulda', shoulda' game with my team as well. And what could hurt even more is if the NFL were to release a statement today that the interference was a blown call. Getting it right a day later doesn't change the outcome. Unfortunately, the only thing that really counts is the final score.


All true....but I agree that they should at least admit it was a blown call. It's been done in 2 college games already this year, as well as one NFL game.

I think it at least demonstrates that officials are human and make mistakes, rather than have fans falsely believe those things don't happen.

Nice summary.


----------



## vurbano

RACJ2 said:


> I think both QB's did a nice job in that game. Favre was 27/31 for 271 YDS, 3 TD's with a 135.3 passer rating. Rodgers was 26/37 for 384 YDS, 2 TD's and 1 Int with a 110.6 passer rating.


When you add in the interception, the fumble, the safety, the sacks, Im sorry the passer rating is NOT the only gauge of performance. It was a dismal overall performance for Rodgers. Without those turnovers it would have been closer. he ruined the Packs chances to win last night and Favre jumped on it and performed perfectly.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> A bad call in the 1st quarter changed the game? I don't think so. And Rogers stats are grossly misleading...he racked up passing yards because they had to throw to catch up from being dominated. I'm no Viking fan, but they dominated.


Since the game was decided by one touchdown, that score indeed changed the outcome - yes. It would have correctly removed 7 points from the Vikings, given the Packers the ball on their 20 yard line.

A game changer indeed...the score, the momentum, etc. Football is a game of momentum, and that one would have been a biggie.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

vurbano said:


> It was a dismal overall performance for Rodgers. Without those turnovers it would have been closer. he ruined the Packs chances to win last night and Favre jumped on it and performed perfectly.


Funny....not one national sports channel said that - they all said the opposite. Almost 400 yards against "the great Vikings defense" and lost by only one touchdown?

!rolling!rolling!rolling


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Since the game was decided by one touchdown, that score indeed changed the outcome - yes. It would have correctly removed 7 points from the Vikings, given the Packers the ball on their 20 yard line.
> 
> A game changer indeed...the score, the momentum, etc. Football is a game of momentum, and that one would have been a biggie.


And football games aren't defined by 1 call in the 1st Q. One play in the 1st Q should never determine a game. Who's to say Rogers doesn't throw a pick 6 the next play?


----------



## ebaltz

sigma1914 said:


> A bad call in the 1st quarter changed the game? I don't think so. And Rogers stats are grossly misleading...he racked up passing yards because they had to throw to catch up from being dominated. I'm no Viking fan, but they dominated.


The measure of a QB is (in order of importance):

1. Did you win?
2. Did you turn the ball over?
3. Did you take sacks
4. Completion %
5. Touchdowns
6. See #1
7. Yards

Based on that you can see that Favre won hands down in every category, save the last and least meaningful one.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> And football games aren't defined by 1 call in the 1st Q. One play in the 1st Q should never determine a game. Who's to say Rogers doesn't throw a pick 6 the next play?


Yes...games are decided on one play, one call all the time. 

When they happen often changes the momentum and outcome of a game - and its nothing new.

Last year's Superbowl was decided on one call that happened to be at the end of the game (incorrectly, by the way - and I despise Arizona, so no loyalty there). There were 3 others during the game that led to possession changes, any one of which could have determine the outcome.

Fact is....until a game is done, most fans don't look at those things....but changes in possession in any game, when prompted by poor officiating, can indeed make the game turn out differently. It happens all the time.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

ebaltz said:


> The measure of a QB is (in order of importance):
> 
> 1. Did you win?
> 2. Did you turn the ball over?
> 3. Did you take sacks
> 4. Completion %
> 5. Touchdowns
> 6. See #1
> 7. Yards
> 
> Based on that you can see that Favre won hands down in every category, save the last and least meaningful one.


Maybe YOUR measurement....

That's not to say Brett didn't have a good game. But having seen him play for 17 years...it was not in the top 50 of his best.

Numbers can lie - ask any accountant.

RACJ2 summarized the results more rationally in his earlier post.


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Funny....not one national sports channel said that - they all said the opposite. Almost 400 yards against "the great Vikings defense" and lost by only one touchdown?
> 
> !rolling!rolling!rolling


He racked up passing yards because they had to throw to catch up from being dominated. He had 96 yards and 68 yards on his last 2 drives! The Vikes weren't playing regular defense. Plus 72 yards on a 3rd Q drive which resulted in 0 points.

That's 232 yards vs. a prevent D when you have to pass every play, & 72 yards on a drive for nothing. Yeah, impressive.


----------



## vurbano

EIGHT sacks. 4.5 by Jared who also forced a fumble and a safety. There is no way you can win with that kind of performance. The Pack has HUGE problems on the O Line


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Yes...games are decided on one play, one call all the time.
> 
> When they happen often changes the momentum and outcome of a game - and its nothing new.
> 
> Last year's Superbowl was decided on one call that happened to be at the end of the game (incorrectly, by the way - and I despise Arizona, so no loyalty there). There were 3 others during the game that led to possession changes, any one of which could have determine the outcome.
> 
> Fact is....until a game is done, most fans don't look at those things....but changes in possession in any game, when prompted by poor officiating, can indeed make the game turn out differently. It happens all the time.


I said, "football games aren't defined by 1 call in the *1st Q*" Games can and are decided by 1 play in the end.


----------



## vurbano

sigma1914 said:


> He racked up passing yards because they had to throw to catch up from being dominated. He had 96 yards and 68 yards on his last 2 drives! The Vikes weren't playing regular defense. Plus 72 yards on a 3rd Q drive which resulted in 0 points.
> 
> That's 232 yards vs. a prevent D when you have to pass every play, & 72 yards on a drive for nothing. Yeah, impressive.


Bingo. At least some are NFL educated enough to see that. It happens often.


----------



## Smthkd

Sorry hdtvfan0001 but the guys are right. Farve had the better game, the Viking controlled the momentum, Rogers did play well but his O-Line sucked last night (8 allowed sacks! WOW). The ref did a great job last night, no excuses! Farve just prove to be the better player last night. GB focused too much on stopping Peterson and they underestimated Farve's ability to throw the ball. Oh how fast a team forget about the legend they groomed. The Vikings put the hammer down on the Packs and they paid the price for their ignorance!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

vurbano said:


> Bingo. At least some are NFL educated enough to see that. It happens often.


Unfortunately for you....its me. 

Now where is that ignore list button...or there it is....say goodby....


----------



## steve053

sigma1914 said:


> He racked up passing yards because they had to throw to catch up from being dominated. He had 96 yards and 68 yards on his last 2 drives! The Vikes weren't playing regular defense. Plus 72 yards on a 3rd Q drive which resulted in 0 points.
> 
> That's 232 yards vs. a prevent D when you have to pass every play, & 72 yards on a drive for nothing. Yeah, impressive.


If you consider that:

- the starting O-LT missed the game due to injury
- a rookie with ZERO NFL playing time was inserted as left tackle late in the game due to injury of the back-up LT
- that the starting R-OT is a seive
- that the Jordy Nelson TD came on a blitz when everyone in the stadium knew they were going to pass

Yeah that's pretty impressive.

Brett had a very good game and made some incredibly accurate throws - without anyone in his face. But I've seen too many games where Favre was in the same position as Rodgers (i.e. every Dallas home game, the last year under Sherman) and rather than take the sack he chucked it up for any and all (cause you know he's a 'gun slinger').


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Smthkd said:


> Sorry hdtvfan0001 but the guys are right. Farve had the better game, the Viking controlled the momentum, Rogers did play well but his O-Line sucked last night (8 allowed sacks! WOW).


The officials controlled the momentum. No flags the entire first half on the Vikings...give me a break. The calls were so lopsided it was unreal. The Vikings line was holding all night long and didn't get a single call. I invite you to re-view the game in slow motion and watch their line in action. They put on a "how to hold" clinic. Its pretty obvious, yet nothing was called whatsoever. That allowed Favre to have the time that he did.

The O line for GB has sucked all season - the left tackle out has been out for 2 games already, and 3 others on the line have been shifted into new positions. Yup - they sucked. Embarrasing performance on *their* part.

Rodgers still got almost 400 yards and all those completions against the "mighty" Vikings defense *despite all that*. Favre just had to sit in his rocker and throw the ball up with waaaaaaay too much time to do so. Like I said before, even a high school QB could make many of those throws.

*Rodgers had the better game - more yards and more completions while under far more pressure all night. More talent shown.

Adrian Peterson did little.

Favre did just enough so that his team won the game.*

That's a more accurate way of portraying things.


----------



## sigma1914

You're in total denial over how misleading Rogers stats were. 

First, it was 1 bad call. Then, it was injuries. Next, it was no calls for GB. And I thought Cowboys fans were naive. :lol:


----------



## steve053

sigma1914 said:


> You're in total denial over how misleading Rogers stats were.


So because Rodgers had a bad O-Line, a very good D-Line rushing at him, was under pressure to score as his team was behind - that translates to 'misleading stats'? 

Using the same analgy - a team that is ahead in score, hands the ball off to the RB to kill the clock, has the opposing D stack the box as they are expecting a run, and the RB still manages to put up a great average per run would translate to 'misleading stats'.

Few QB's would have put up the same numbers as Rodgers under the same circumstances. Great athlets perform under pressure. Exceptional athlets find a way to win. Rodgers still has to find a way to win - but his stats weren't misleading, they were quite remarkable considering the circumstances.


----------



## vurbano

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Since the game was decided by one touchdown, that score indeed changed the outcome - yes. It would have correctly removed 7 points from the Vikings, given the Packers the ball on their 20 yard line.
> 
> A game changer indeed...the score, the momentum, etc. Football is a game of momentum, and that one would have been a biggie.


The pack was given a first down on a deflected pass "caught" by jennings that was clearly aided by the ground yet the officials ruled it a catch at 12:09 in the 2nd quarter. Stop your crying, its ok cause he ended that drive a couple plays later in an INTERCEPTION


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> You're in total denial over how misleading Rogers stats were.


Be careful what you ask for - here are the stats and rankings from NFL.com...
Deny away...Rodgers is clearly the better QB:

*NFL CATEGORY (AS OF 10/6/09)*

*Total Passing Yards*
*Aaron Rodgers* 1098 - NFL RANK *6*
Brett Favre 837 - NFL Rank 19

*Average Yards per Completed Pass*
*Aaron Rodgers *8.6 - NFL RANK *2*
Brett Favre 6.7 - NFL Rank 19

*Interceptions*
*Brett Favre *8 - NFL Rank *26*
Aaron Rodgers 6 - NFL RANK 27

Rodgers numbers have been solid and improved every single game, and that with a crappy offensive line, no less.

Rodgers is on track for his 2nd consecutive 4000 yard season in his first 2 years as a starting QB. Feel free to research how many others in history have ever done that.


----------



## vurbano

steve053 said:


> So because Rodgers had a bad O-Line, a very good D-Line rushing at him, was under pressure to score as his team was behind - that translates to 'misleading stats'?


They were misleading because he was playing from behind and not running the ball. Sure he had a lot of yards but he turned the ball over at the end of those drives. He did NOT have a good game. That is the misleading part of the stats. You can ohh and awww all you want at his 70 yards of passing in a drive but when he ends it with a fumble, a sack or an interception the yardage is misleading get all the yardage you want, but a QB's job is to win the game and that is done by NOT turning the ball over in the redzone.


----------



## vurbano

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Be careful what you ask for - here are the stats and rankings from NFL.com...
> Deny away...Rodgers is clearly the better QB:
> 
> *NFL CATEGORY (AS OF 10/6/09)*
> 
> *Total Passing Yards*
> *Aaron Rodgers* 1098 - NFL RANK *6*
> Brett Favre 837 - NFL Rank 19
> 
> *Average Yards per Completed Pass*
> *Aaron Rodgers *8.6 - NFL RANK *2*
> Brett Favre 6.7 - NFL Rank 19
> 
> *Interceptions*
> *Brett Favre *8 - NFL Rank *26*
> Aaron Rodgers 6 - NFL RANK 27
> 
> Rodgers numbers have been solid and improved every single game, and that with a crappy offensive line, no less.
> 
> Rodgers is on track for his 2nd consecutive 4000 yard season in his first 2 years as a starting QB. Feel free to research how many others in history have ever done that.


Is that why he ended his first drive in a fumble? because he is "better" too bad he was only better between the 20's. A Qb's job is to win ball games not stats. Compare the two on that BASIS and RODGERS IS A LOSER.


----------



## RACJ2

vurbano said:


> When you add in the interception, the fumble, the safety, the sacks, Im sorry the passer rating is NOT the only gauge of performance. It was a dismal overall performance for Rodgers. Without those turnovers it would have been closer. he ruined the Packs chances to win last night and Favre jumped on it and performed perfectly.


I think if you swapped QB's in that game last night, the end result would have been the same, a Vikings win. Rogers didn't have the protection or weapons that Favre had. So its not all his fault. And I'm not a Packers fan, more of a Favre fan, because of his passion for the game and ability to make things happen.


----------



## vurbano

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Maybe YOUR measurement....


Show me a QB with great stats that doesnt win and Ill show you one thats a backup


----------



## vurbano

2 things are very evident from last nights game.

1. The Packers Defense does not want to see see Brett and Adrian or that Vikes pass blocking Oline again. They may play pass coverage next time but they will just get run over by Petersen. Pick your poison

2. The Packers Oline wants no part of the Vikings defensive line again.

3. Oops I forgot Al Harris is washed up. Brett owned him last night.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RACJ2 said:


> I think if you swapped QB's in that game last night, the end result would have been the same, a Vikings win. Rogers didn't have the protection or weapons that Favre had. So its not all his fault. And I'm not a Packers fan, more of a Favre fan, because of his passion for the game and ability to make things happen.


Nice to see your realistic and level-headed view of things. 

Another funny anecdote is that the Jets fans up to and including Game 5 last year were saying the very same things about Favre. Then the bubble bust and reality set in. Fair weather fans are a hoot.


----------



## Shades228

vurbano said:


> Show me a QB with great stats that doesnt win and Ill show you one thats a backup


Dan Marino is the biggest name that comes to mind.

Drew Brees, Ben Rothlesburger, Tom Brady this changes year to year but here's this years.

Now that's not your point but the bottom line is QB is important but the W and L column is more important.

Rex Grossman went to a Superbowl but no one would want him to start on their team right now.

The winner had a better game and that's the bottom line. You can ask Aaron Rodgers if he was happy about the game and I think you know the answer you'll get.


----------



## vurbano

Since HDTV is crying and making excuses. Percy Harvin was clearly faced masked and his head turned at 3:14 in the 2nd quarter on the kickoff after the 14-14 score when tackled. No mention of it by the announcers. Oh but it didnt matter brett lit the Pack up on the drive for a TD anyway! Oh wait, thats the interference call HDTV doesnt like. Guess what HD? There was an offsides as well on that play so it DOESNT MATTER!!!! The offsides would have negated the interception anyway.

Did you watch the game?


----------



## sigma1914

steve053 said:


> So because Rodgers had a bad O-Line, a very good D-Line rushing at him, was under pressure to score as his team was behind - that translates to 'misleading stats'?
> 
> Using the same analgy - a team that is ahead in score, hands the ball off to the RB to kill the clock, has the opposing D stack the box as they are expecting a run, and the RB still manages to put up a great average per run would translate to 'misleading stats'.


Not the same analogy at all. If I were to say a RB had 20 caries for 120 yards and 2 TDs, then most would say, "WOW, nice game, he dominated with 6 yards per carry." But, then I tell them one of his TDs was a 90 yard run on 4th & 1 when he broke out. So, he had 19 other caries for 30 yards.* Stats can be misleading!*



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Be careful what you ask for - here are the stats and rankings from NFL.com...
> Deny away...Rodgers is clearly the better QB:
> 
> *NFL CATEGORY (AS OF 10/6/09)*
> 
> *Total Passing Yards*
> *Aaron Rodgers* 1098 - NFL RANK *6*
> Brett Favre 837 - NFL Rank 19
> 
> *Average Yards per Completed Pass*
> *Aaron Rodgers *8.6 - NFL RANK *2*
> Brett Favre 6.7 - NFL Rank 19
> 
> *Interceptions*
> *Brett Favre *8 - NFL Rank *26*
> Aaron Rodgers 6 - NFL RANK 27
> 
> Rodgers numbers have been solid and improved every single game, and that with a crappy offensive line, no less.
> 
> Rodgers is on track for his 2nd consecutive 4000 yard season in his first 2 years as a starting QB. Feel free to research how many others in history have ever done that.


hdtvfan...I was *not* arguing his seasonal stats vs. Favre or any QB. It was all about when & how (see above) he got his yards. I was saying that he racked up yards because he had to throw the ball since they were down 2 TDs. Minnesota went to a less pressure defense (besides the DL) to _try_ & not give up big plays. When they brought heat, they got burned by Nelson. You kept saying how great his stats were last night...I showed you how misleading the stats were, but you can't accept it.

Rogers isn't bad, but Favre's not bad either. Neither is a Manning, Ryan, or Flacco. :lol: (QBs on teams I like)


----------



## vurbano

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If that interception he clearly had in the end zone (1st Quarter) would not have been overturned by a horrendous official's call (that even both national announcers said was blown)....the outcome of the game would have been considerably different.


there was defensive offsides on #55 of GB that play that was declined!!!!!!!! no interception either way. GET OVER IT!!!!!! and it was in the 2nd quarter. There was no interception in the endzone in the 1st quarter. Did you even watch it? GB got whipped.


----------



## sigma1914

vurbano said:


> Since HDTV is crying and making excuses. Percy Harvin was clearly faced masked and his head turned at 3:14 in the 2nd quarter on the kickoff after the 14-14 score when tackled. No mention of it by the announcers. Oh but it didnt matter brett lit the Pack up on the drive for a TD anyway!* Oh wait, thats the interference call HDTV doesnt like. Guess what HD? There was an offsides as well on that play so it DOESNT MATTER!!!! The offsides would have negated the interception anyway.
> *
> Did you watch the game?


That's right, there was 2 fouls...offsides, too.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> * Stats can be misleading!*


I stated that early on too - agree - but showed those to make my point.


> Rogers isn't bad. Neither is a Manning, Ryan, or Flacco. :lol:


Yup those guys are all good too.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> That's right, there was 2 fouls...offsides, too.


Actually - the offsides on that play was on the Viking Defense...

The other "invisible" penalty was called on the Packers for interference. The replay *clearly *showed no such thing happened, and both of the announcers were quick to state it was a *horrible* call, and would otherwise have had a major impact to the momentum of the game against the Vikings (not to mention chalk up a Favre interception, take 7 points off the scoreboard seconds later, and give the ball to the Packers on their 20 yeard line instead. Yup...a game changer - they don't always have to happen at the end of a game either.


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually - the offsides on that play was on the Viking Defense...
> 
> The other "invisible" penalty was called on the Packers for interference. The replay *clearly *showed no such thing happened, and both of the announcers were quick to state it was a *horrible* call, and would otherwise have had a major impact to the momentum of the game against the Vikings (not to mention chalk up a Favre interception, take 7 points off the scoreboard seconds later, and give the ball to the Packers on their 20 yeard line instead. Yup...a game changer - they don't always have to happen at the end of a game either.


When? I rereading play-by-play?


----------



## vurbano

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually - the offsides on that play was on the Viking Defense...
> 
> .


no it wasnt, the vikings were on offense on that play.Its impossible for Brett to throw an interception on a play when his defense is on the field


----------



## RACJ2

vurbano said:


> Since HDTV is crying and making excuses. Percy Harvin was clearly faced masked and his head turned at 3:14 in the 2nd quarter on the kickoff after the 14-14 score when tackled. No mention of it by the announcers. Oh but it didnt matter brett lit the Pack up on the drive for a TD anyway! Oh wait, thats the interference call HDTV doesnt like. Guess what HD? There was an offsides as well on that play so it DOESNT MATTER!!!! The offsides would have negated the interception anyway.
> 
> Did you watch the game?


I actually watched the game, but until you mentioned that, I forgot about the offsides call. So it wouldn't have made much of a difference had they not called interference, maybe a yard or so in where they spotted the ball.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> When? I rereading play-by-play?


Play back the recording of the announcers in the game if you can - there were 2 flags thrown, whereby play was stopped afterwards, and "offsetting penalties" forced it back to a 1st and goal on the one.

Each team was called for a different penality (the Packers invisible interference was theirs), and since it was the larger of the two called, that one was enforced.

Going back to the real topic here....yes, Brett had a good game, but even he surely knows he dodged a bullet to win this one. I haven't seen him that antsy and full of worry in the 4Q of a game on the sidelines since Superbowl XXXI (in person).


----------



## vurbano

Im sitting here watching it on my tivoHD. Give me the time mark HDTVFAN0001. We all want to review this great offense against GB which is just being made up by YOU


----------



## vurbano

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Play back the recording of the announcers in the game if you can - there were 2 flags thrown, whereby play was stopped afterwards, and "offsetting penalties" forced it back to a 1st and goal on the one.
> 
> Going back to the real topic here....yes, Brett had a good game, but even he surely knows he dodged a bullet to win this one. I haven't seen him that antsy and full of worry in the 4Q of a game on the sidelines since Superbowl XXXI (in person).


I did it occurs at :33 left in the 2nd half. 2 fouls on the defense. first one declined:hurah: then another penalty on the TD following that.


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually - the offsides on that play was on the Viking Defense...
> 
> The other "invisible" penalty was called on the Packers for interference. The replay *clearly *showed no such thing happened, and both of the announcers were quick to state it was a *horrible* call, and would otherwise have had a major impact to the momentum of the game against the Vikings (not to mention chalk up a Favre interception, take 7 points off the scoreboard seconds later, and give the ball to the Packers on their 20 yeard line instead. Yup...a game changer - they don't always have to happen at the end of a game either.


Incorrect, it was the Pack:


> 38) 4-B.Favre pass short middle intended for 18-S.Rice INTERCEPTED by 21-C.Woodson at GB -8. Touchback. PENALTY on GB-21-C.Woodson, Defensive Pass Interference, 2 yards, enforced at GB 3 - No Play. Penalty on GB-55-D.Bishop, Defensive Offside, declined.


----------



## vurbano

sigma1914 said:


> Incorrect, it was the Pack:


yup offsides like I said on #55. Face it HDTV it making stuff up


----------



## sigma1914

Here's the source GB committed both penalties: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009100500/2009/REG4/[email protected]#tab:analyze


----------



## vurbano

heck I got it right here on my tivo


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> Here's the source GB committed both penalties: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009100500/2009/REG4/[email protected]#tab:analyze


That's now what is on they announced in the booth on THAT play.

There was an offsides called on Green Bay on the *next* play.

In any case....now that we've had some fun on the Tuesdya Morning Quarterbacking...

Bottom line - Brett won.

Doesn't make him the better QB last night, but indeed he won.


----------



## vurbano

This is the man that asked ME if I watched the game?


----------



## vurbano

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's now what is on the recording announced in the booth on THAT play.
> 
> There was an offsides called on Green Bay on the *next* play.


Nope #51 on the next play, #55 on the interception play. sorry charlie. Listen to the officials they are very loud and clear, not the announcers.


----------



## RACJ2

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's now what is on the recording announced in the booth on THAT play.
> 
> There was an offsides called on Green Bay on the *next* play.


I was curious and just went back and looked at it. There were 2 fouls on GB on that play, interference and offsides on 55. If you have it recorded, its at the 1.5 hr mark.


----------



## vurbano

"there are 2 fouls on the defense offsides #55 that penalty is declined, also pass interference defense #21, that foul occured in the endzone........." with :33 left in the 2nd quarter


----------



## vurbano

then on the TD an apenalty on #51 defense with :30 left in the 2nd quarter


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RACJ2 said:


> I was curious and just went back and looked at it. There were 2 fouls on GB on that play, interference and offsides on 55. If you have it recorded, its at the 1.5 hr mark.


Not sure we're talking about the same play here - the one where there was a potential interception....???

Again...*trying to get back to topic the thread theme on Brett*...thanks for the entertainment and discussion previously.


----------



## sigma1914

I feel like I'm arguing (in fun) with local Cowboy fans here in DFW. LOL

No offense, anyone.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

vurbano said:


> Nope #51 on the next play, #55 on the interception play. *sorry charlie*. Listen to the officials they are very loud and clear, not the announcers.


The next time you insist on childish name calling, I will report your post to the Mods - there are strick rules on that here.

Consider yourself warned.

If you can't conduct yourslef in an adult conversation...then perhaps go someplace else.


----------



## vurbano

BTW neither penalty affected yardage as the snap was taken from about the 3 yard line.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> I feel like I'm arguing (in fun) with local Cowboy fans here in DFW. LOL
> 
> No offense, anyone.


You mean there still are cowboy fans? 

Ok perhaps this will help...

Brett Favre is now a Viking!
Brett Favre is now a Viking!
Brett Favre is now a Viking!
Brett Favre is now a Viking!
Brett Favre is now a Viking!
Brett Favre is now a Viking!
Brett Favre is now a Viking!
Brett Favre is now a Viking!


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not sure we're talking about the same play here - the one where there was a potential interception....???
> 
> Again...*trying to get back to topic the thread theme on Brett*...thanks for the entertainment and discussion previously.


This was the play. "38) 4-B.Favre pass short middle intended for 18-S.Rice *INTERCEPTED by 21-C.Woodson at GB -8. Touchback.* PENALTY on GB-21-C.Woodson, *Defensive Pass Interference*, 2 yards, enforced at GB 3 - No Play. Penalty on GB-55-D.Bishop, *Defensive Offside*, declined."


----------



## vurbano

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The next time you insist on childish name calling, I will report your post to the Mods - there are strick rules on that here.
> 
> Consider yourself warned.
> 
> If you can't conduct yourslef in an adult conversation...then perhaps go someplace else.


good grief, someone doesnt like being wrong do they?
My sincerest apologies for calling you charles.


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You mean there still are cowboy fans?


Sadly, yes. They're slowly realizing I was right in that Romo is overrated, Wade Phillips is a joke, and Garrett isn't an offensive genius.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> This was the play. "38) 4-B.Favre pass short middle intended for 18-S.Rice *INTERCEPTED by 21-C.Woodson at GB -8. Touchback.* PENALTY on GB-21-C.Woodson, *Defensive Pass Interference*, 2 yards, enforced at GB 3 - No Play. Penalty on GB-55-D.Bishop, *Defensive Offside*, declined."


OK.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> Sadly, yes. They're slowly realizing I was right in that Romo is overrated, Wade Phillips is a joke, and Garrett isn't an offensive genius.


I've actually admired them for many years....but not since the current ownership has been there. At one time, they were one of the classiest organizations in the NFL.

Like Favre...one player does not a team make...so there are more issues than Romo. He's not even at the top of their list.

The coaches....hmmm...that is fodder for its own thread.


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I've actually admired them for many years....but not since the current ownership has been there. At one time, they were one of the classiest organizations in the NFL.
> 
> Like Favre...one player does not a team make...so there are more issues than Romo. He's not even at the top of their list.
> 
> The coaches....hmmm...that is fodder for its own thread.


Jerry Jones is like Al Davis...a control freak of his team & it's taking it's toll. I can't stand Dallas or N.E.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> Jerry Jones is like Al Davis...a control freak of his team & it's taking it's toll. I can't stand Dallas or N.E.


It was particularly "entertaining" during the Jerry and Jimmy years.


----------



## RACJ2

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not sure we're talking about the same play here - the one where there was a potential interception....???
> 
> Again...*trying to get back to topic the thread theme on Brett*...thanks for the entertainment and discussion previously.


Yes, it was on the play where it GB intercepted the pass, just before the half. They called interference and offsides on GB.


----------



## vurbano

I sencerely apologize HDTV. Threatening PM's are really not necessary.


----------



## RACJ2

vurbano said:


> BTW neither penalty affected yardage as the snap was taken from about the 3 yard line.


Ok, if your going to get technical, the ball was on the 3 and the interference put it on the 1. Offsides is half the distance to the goal line, so it would have been on the 1.5 yard line. So it was a half yard difference.


----------



## vurbano

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I haven't seen anything that fake since Voom had their fake HD channels.


The NFL website is fake? Please explain?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RACJ2 said:


> Yes, it was on the play where it GB intercepted the pass, just before the half. They called interference and offsides on GB.


Gotcha....several posts back.

Thanks.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

vurbano said:


> I sencerely apologize HDTV.


I sincerely accept.

Outta here....there are serious and informative other threads awaiting us....


----------



## rey_1178

man this thread went down south real fast! vurbano, aaron rodgers *IS* the better qb . 
PS. don't mess with marino if you know what's good for ya :eek2:


----------



## vurbano

rey_1178 said:


> man this thread went down south real fast! vurbano, aaron rodgers *IS* the better qb .
> PS. don't mess with marino if you know what's good for ya :eek2:


well last night he wasnt. Marino was great. So quick with the ball that no lineman could get to him in time. I will never forget that pass on the goal line he threw for a TD when everyone though he was going to spike the ball.


----------



## ebaltz

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Be careful what you ask for - here are the stats and rankings from NFL.com...
> Deny away...Rodgers is clearly the better QB:
> 
> *NFL CATEGORY (AS OF 10/6/09)*
> 
> *Total Passing Yards*
> *Aaron Rodgers* 1098 - NFL RANK *6*
> Brett Favre 837 - NFL Rank 19
> 
> *Average Yards per Completed Pass*
> *Aaron Rodgers *8.6 - NFL RANK *2*
> Brett Favre 6.7 - NFL Rank 19
> 
> *Interceptions*
> *Brett Favre *8 - NFL Rank *26*
> Aaron Rodgers 6 - NFL RANK 27
> 
> Rodgers numbers have been solid and improved every single game, and that with a crappy offensive line, no less.
> 
> Rodgers is on track for his 2nd consecutive 4000 yard season in his first 2 years as a starting QB. Feel free to research how many others in history have ever done that.


The only STAT that matters Mr. Don't Know Anything About Football is:

Brett Favre (and the Vikings) 4-0
Rodgers (and the Packers) 2-2

Period. End of story.


----------



## ebaltz

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Maybe YOUR measurement....
> 
> That's not to say Brett didn't have a good game. But having seen him play for 17 years...it was not in the top 50 of his best.
> 
> Numbers can lie - ask any accountant.
> 
> RACJ2 summarized the results more rationally in his earlier post.


My measurement? Good one. The ONLY measurement that REALLY matters. Wins and Losses. Who won the game? Who has 4 wins and 0 losses this season?

Those are stats. Those are facts. WINNING is all that matters.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

ebaltz said:


> The only STAT that matters Mr. Don't Know Anything About Football is:
> 
> Brett Favre (and the Vikings) 4-0
> Rodgers (and the Packers) 2-2
> 
> Period. End of story.


Actually no....the only stat is who wins at the very end of the season.

Period. End of Story.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually no....the only stat is who wins at the very end of the season.
> 
> Period. End of Story.


Yeah... you only have to go back 2 seasons and ask the 18-1 New England Patriots about that!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah... you only have to go back 2 seasons and ask the 18-1 New England Patriots about that!


You got that right my early morning friend!


----------



## vikefan

Sweet victory go Vikings!!!!!!!!!!!:lol:


----------



## msmith198025

rey_1178 said:


> man this thread went down south real fast! vurbano, aaron rodgers *IS* the better qb .
> PS. don't mess with marino if you know what's good for ya :eek2:


Rodgers is better???? Seriously? Sorry charlie, you are wrong


----------



## rey_1178

msmith198025 said:


> Rodgers is better???? Seriously? Sorry charlie, you are wrong


  I'LL be at your house shortly!!!!!!!


----------



## cybok0

rey_1178 said:


> man this thread went down south real fast! vurbano, aaron rodgers *IS* the better qb .
> PS. don't mess with marino if you know what's good for ya :eek2:





msmith198025 said:


> Rodgers is better???? Seriously? Sorry charlie, you are wrong


Rey I agree with Todd, sorry Charlie, Rodgers isn't better.


----------



## rey_1178

cybok0 said:


> Rey I agree with Todd, sorry Charlie, Rodgers isn't better.


Favre is the king of interceptions baby. you can have him :grin:


----------



## cybok0

rey_1178 said:


> Favre is the king of interceptions baby. you can have him :grin:


Rey you don't know what you're talking about. That Florida sun must of fried your brain.


----------



## vurbano

msmith198025 said:


> Rodgers is better???? Seriously? Sorry charlie, you are wrong


Im going to report you for that insult! You'd better behave!!!!


----------



## cybok0

I just don't understand how Sorry Charlie is insulting.


----------



## msmith198025

rey_1178 said:


> Favre is the king of interceptions baby. you can have him :grin:


He is simply one of the better QBs to play the game, sorry charlie, but I would take him over most that have played the game.


----------



## msmith198025

vurbano said:


> Im going to report you for that insult! You'd better behave!!!!


Please dont PM me anymore vurb, I was just picking


----------



## Stewart Vernon

To be completely fair here...

Favre is good, I'd have him on my team. However, he can't have many good years left at his age. So given his "retirement" I can't blame the Packers for deciding to move on... It happens.

I'd also wager that IF you swapped QBs Monday night, that the Vikings would still have won and it would have been Favre on his butt all night and throwing for big yards + a couple of interceptions.


----------



## rey_1178

msmith198025 said:


> He is simply one of the better QBs to play the game, sorry charlie, but I would take him over most that have played the game.


oh i know he is but i still wouldn't pick him over some of the other greats of all time  by the way pm someone else smith :nono2:


----------



## msmith198025

rey_1178 said:


> oh i know he is but i still wouldn't pick him over some of the other greats of all time  by the way pm someone else smith :nono2:


I am sincerely sorry charlie


----------



## vurbano

Im sorry too Charlie.


----------



## cgking114

For the love of God what does Charlie Ergen have anything to do with this topic and why are we apologizing to him.???:lol:


----------



## vurbano

cgking114 said:


> For the love of God what does Charlie Ergen have anything to do with this topic and why are we apologizing to him.???:lol:


ask HDTV.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

cgking114 said:


> For the love of God what does Charlie Ergen have anything to do with this topic and why are we apologizing to him.???:lol:


Simple - it's not a name most people would like to be called. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

We'll have to see if PURPLE 4 lives up to all the hype this week, or if 11/1/09 becomes the final in a series of retirement parties.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

In the first matchup, Rogers seemed to me to have the better game (considering he has a lesser overall team & his o-line had troubles protecting him)... but the Vikings won.

Now the Packers have 2 losses while the Vikings have 1... so not much separating the two teams outside of that 1-game played against each other at this point in the season.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Packers win this round... and in truth, I'll be picking & rooting for the Packers this week. NOT a Favre-hater... but would like to see Rogers get a bit more credit for his performance thus far since taking over last season.


----------



## codespy

The biggest factor that some people don't understand is when you have Brett on your team, the other teammates step their game up to the next level, because based on his past he has the ability and gives a team a chance to win any game.

As a lifelong Packer fan, it sucks to see him in purple. But I still root for the Packers, AND for Favre, not the entire Viking team. Rodgers is doing phenomenol as a replacement to Brett, but Thompson and McCarthy are getting too big for their underwear. Holmgren's face would turn purple if his teams had this many penalties as the Packers have now.

We used to go to 1 or 2 games a year, and we were there at the snow bowl against Seattle and the NFC Championship against the Giants in Jan. 2008 when the Packers lost. Although we dropped a lot of cash to attend and hotel it, we knew we had a chance to win with Favre. Have not gone to a game since. Revenue for Green Bay is WAAAY down since Favre is gone.

The Pack has the youngest team for like 3 years straight now...good in some ways and bad in other ways. You cannot buy experience and cannot teach intelligence. Aaron would do better with a more experienced supporting cast. Until then, we will be watching them from the comfort of our home and out 47" Vizio above the fireplace. (Not to mention we got Sunday Ticket this year for the Minnesota games).

FYI- we hate Thompson in case none of you noticed. You'd be surprised at how many season ticket holders sell their tickets now compared to when Favre was still here.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

codespy said:


> FYI- we hate Thompson in case none of you noticed. You'd be surprised at how many season ticket holders sell their tickets now compared to when Favre was still here.


Yeah....the wait list for season tickets is down to a measily 21 year wait now...


----------



## ebaltz

Vikings proved again they are the much better team, and Favre showed the Packers and their disgusting fans who made who. Packers were nothing for about 25 years without Favre. No one outside of Green Bay cared a lick for them, knew anyone on the team and no one wanted to play for them. Without Favre (and Reggie White) the Packers would have done nothing the last 15 years. They'll be mediocre for the next 15 years or so now again without him. To Boo the guy who made you? It just shows again how classless Packer fans are. I lived a number of places, including Wisconsin (and have relatives there now) and there are is no team in sports that has bigger cry-baby sore losers than the Green Bay Packers, and every one in the sports world was just reminded of that on Sunday. They diminished themselves, hurt they're future chances for futures players to want to come and more. Most of the sports people on TV and other media outlets thought it was also classless. 

Beauty of it, Favre crammed it down their throat and did it with their worst enemy the Vikings. Take that cheese heads!

Favre, in two games against GB, 7 touchdowns, NO interceptions, NO sacks taken. That guy in GB, um 14 sacks. 14! in two games!

But as I have stated again, the only stat that matters is who won. Vikings and Favre 2, Green Bay 0. Case closed for 2009.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

ebaltz said:


> Vikings proved again they are the much better team, and Favre showed the Packers and their disgusting fans who made who. Packers were nothing for about 25 years without Favre. No one outside of Green Bay cared a lick for them, knew anyone on the team and no one wanted to play for them. Without Favre (and Reggie White) the Packers would have done nothing the last 15 years. They'll be mediocre for the next 15 years or so now again without him. To Boo the guy who made you? It just shows again how classless Packer fans are. I lived a number of places, including Wisconsin (and have relatives there now) and there are is no team in sports that has bigger cry-baby sore losers than the Green Bay Packers, and every one in the sports world was just reminded of that on Sunday. They diminished themselves, hurt they're future chances for futures players to want to come and more. Most of the sports people on TV and other media outlets thought it was also classless.
> 
> Beauty of it, Favre crammed it down their throat and did it with their worst enemy the Vikings. Take that cheese heads!
> 
> Favre, in two games against GB, 7 touchdowns, NO interceptions, NO sacks taken. That guy in GB, um 14 sacks. 14! in two games!
> 
> But as I have stated again, the only stat that matters is who won. Vikings and Favre 2, Green Bay 0. Case closed for 2009.


Sorry to say that little about Favre has to do with Favre's success this year, nor the Packers moderate successes since he left.

Fact is if Brett was still with the Pack, behind their swiss cheese offensive line, he'd likely be watching games from a hospital bed (much less mobility than Aaron Rodgers has). He has a much better line with the Vikes....keeping him on the playing field. He also has a world class RB to help him reduce the need for his past heroics to win games.

Then there's also the luck they've had. Even Brett was shocked on the sidelines in the one game where the Ravens missed a simple field goal at the end - another game the Vikes should have lost for sure.

Now the only suspense left is if Brett will again retire at the end of the season (or get injured before the end of it), and come back next year to play for yet somebody else.


----------



## ebaltz

How are you Errornd Rogers fans feeling now. He just lost to the Tampa Bay Bucs who had lost 11 in a row. Packers may not win again this year.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

ebaltz said:


> How are you Errornd Rogers fans feeling now. He just lost to the Tampa Bay Bucs who had lost 11 in a row. Packers may not win again this year.


One game does not a season make.

He's having a great statistical season (yet again after last year).

His TD-to-Interception is better the old Brett, as well as many other QB's.

The Pack will rise again.


----------



## ebaltz

It must be difficult being blind and still being able to watch football games. How do you do it?

The only "statistic" that matters is wins and losses. 4-4 and probably out of the playoffs again. That's the true measure of a quarterback. Wins and losses. 

What was Rogers touchdowns to interceptions ratio against the worse team in football yesterday?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ebaltz said:


> It must be difficult being blind and still being able to watch football games. How do you do it?
> 
> The only "statistic" that matters is wins and losses. 4-4 and probably out of the playoffs again. That's the true measure of a quarterback. Wins and losses.
> 
> What was Rogers touchdowns to interceptions ratio against the worse team in football yesterday?


Favre wasn't in the playoffs last year with the Jets, so I'm guessing last year Favre was a complete failure by those terms?

I don't think anyone has declared Aaron Rodgers the next big thing.. but he is far from the only thing wrong with the Packers... just like Favre is not the only good thing about the Vikings.

Packers with Favre might be 6-2 instead of 4-4... but Vikings would probably still be 5-3 even without Favre based on their schedule...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Packers = 8-4
Vikings = 10-2

Ignoring the head-to-head games against each other leaves both teams at 8-2 vs everyone else.

What that tells me is... Vikings > Packers BUT virtually the same against the "field".

I wholeheartedly agree the Packers didn't handle the "divorce" graciously... but in the grand scheme of things It's hard to call it a bad decision now to keep Rodgers and let Favre go, especially considering no matter how you slice it Favre is more likely to have less years left in him than Rodgers.

I also maintain that if you swapped QBs on those teams, you might find the results to be pretty much the same.

I still root for Favre and the Vikings... but I'm also rooting for Rodgers (not necessarily the Packers) to keep getting better so the comparisons will stop being about him vs Favre.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

ebaltz said:


> How are you Errornd Rogers fans feeling now. He just lost to the Tampa Bay Bucs who had lost 11 in a row. Packers may not win again this year.


----------

