I dont understand what you were trying to show by those numbers, so in a seasons less games favre has significantly better numbers than your teams best franchise QB?

-- Edited by Jhuber at 01:05, 2006-10-16

And the gold star goes to Timmy1!

 

Pink - well said dude!

Fran actually only started  3 of the Vikes 4 Superbowl appearances...you have to give Joe Kapp the first one!

I am from the twin cities area, I must admit I find it hard to imagine anyone getting as much man on man love as BF I just cant buy that Tark gets/got as much slobbering as he (bF) does! I DO agree with the comparison to Moss however!! The media churns out the superlatives and all the bandwagon jumpers begin to chant the words with out ever bothering to learn, you know, the GAME.

Pink-thanks for the ribbing,  and you just enjoy your creaky ol' QB!!!  but YES i would love to see a passing TD more than once a game damnit!!!! (we'll see if we can keep our own geezer upright for the rest of the season!)

 

bbb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BBB played exactly the same style in tampa and won a bowl--the vikes defense is ranked 7th overall (4th against the run), that it in self puts us on pace to do something great in a 2 yr. window (w/brad)-- i'm happy w/ our progression, don't know 'bout others, but 4qt outcomes are just more intense viewing pleasure.

 

 

 

 

 

-- Edited by timmy1 at 21:50, 2006-10-16

Purple Delight wrote:

---

Grave Digger wrote:

---

Our creaky 'ol QB? Isn't the Brad Johnson older and MORE creaky than Favre? At least Favre isn't stationary.

---

I was just kidding around with Pink taco stadium GD...

---

I know, I was too.

couple things:

purple, why didn't your stats show passing attempts and completion percentage?

tark: 6467 57.0
favre: 7814 61.3

4.3 percentage points (a significant margin) lower than the interception king despite throwing almost 1400 fewer passes? not looking good for tark.

timmy, your support of purple's stat post claims that "in an era that saw teams play fewer games per season(14), fran the man has very comparable numbers".

if we forget about games per season, and just count the number of games each played, i don't see how these numbers are "very comparable". the only stat where tark comes up better is rushing. at this point in time, he played 16 more games but he has OVER A THOUSAND thousand fewer completions. he also only has six fewer INT's than favre. only SIX.

so sure, you can pop off and you can call someone a jacka$$ for asking purple exactly HOW these numbers were supposed to show tark in a positive light.

and that would be great for you. you'd be like the king of the dip$hits for a day. so valiant of you to defend the lovely mizz purple! maybe she'll let you hold her hand or something.

but none of this changes the numbers. nobody in their right mind would look at those numbers and think they're "comparable".

and here's the other thing: i WAS alive, and fully aware while tark was playing. i'm old, dangit. and he got PAH-LENTY of media love back in the day. trust me.

sure, cbs' "nfl today" w/ brent musberger, phyllis george, jimmy the greek, and irv cross sucked lots of staubach shlong, but they deep-throated as much tark and bradshaw as they could get, on a regular basis, too. tark had encorsements out the a$$, and there wasn't a camera he didn't like. even before he was a co-host of abc's "That's Incredible" in the early 80s he was ALREADY a household name. so don't go complaining about how poor tark was the great qb who never got any face time on the tube. it's simply NOT TRUE.

the 70s qb that the major networks REALLY didn't want to play in the homes of middle america was clearly ken stabler. i'm sure you remember him. believe me, the media covering the 77 soop looked REAL disappointed when the snake and co. spoiled the tark party they thought was finally going to happen. they wanted their fair haired boy in purple to win badly.

i have much respect for tark, but your purple colored goggles are really gettin' in the way on this one.

-- Edited by saturn11 at 21:21, 2006-10-17

-- Edited by saturn11 at 21:28, 2006-10-17

lovely mizz purple chiming in here (hey, I like that distinction!)  although it is mizzez as there is a Mr. Purple and a purple boy too!

Ah stats..aint they a gas? how about Yard per attempt? Tark 7.3 Farve 7.0....wheeeee...

Cherry picking your post a bit but this is the line that sort of stuck out....

so sure, you can pop off and you can call someone a jacka$$ for asking purple exactly HOW these numbers were supposed to show tark in a positive light.

Tark amongst all time leaders

pass attempts 7th
Completions 7th
Passing Yards 5th
Passing TDs 2nd

He shines pretty good all on his own :)

and yes I am aware that BF  is

2
2
2
2
In the same catagories...

From my original post

These number only provided for some education for the younger boys and girls-And as you pointed out, your not, er, um, younger FT was the QB of my childhood; one of the first Vikings I remember seeing...sentimental favorite.

And as I stated before; even were he not the QB of my favorite team to root AGAINST - the sickening media leg humping of Brett FREAKING FAV-RE is just waaaaay more than I can stomach. The mind numbing drivel that is spewed by those who cannot differentiate  between tampa 2 and a tampon is enough to drive a football fan to lash out on a web site or something!

All things being equal - y'all keep him over there behind the cheddar curtain. Enjoy.

 <Pushing Purple glasses frimly onto nose and hitting 'Sumbit Post'> 

I don't like the man, don't gotta like the man. QBs a team i love to hate. BF is probably the love child of John Madden (which would explain a lot don't ya think) Ya can't make me like him or the pukers. I can read and comprehend just fine thank you very much! 

And these purple glasses I wear give the world a pleasing warm glow, if you want to borrow them ever, drop me line, I keep extra pairs for emergency... 

-- Edited by Purple Delight at 17:17, 2006-10-18

alright, purp! way to step up!

i'm definitely not tryin' to arrange a marriage between you and king brett pickitty pick fav-ruh (or you and timmy ).

while i still think the numbers don't do much to support your argument, your counterpoints are well taken. as i said, much respect goes to your boy, FTark. they played a similar style, and others who have pointed out that favre played in a more passer friendly era are on the money (i mean, sheesh, the "illegal chuck rule" wasn't even written until '78, at the end of tark's career).

and i'm pretty calloused about the soft media stuff...i'm sure i was one of the only cold hearts in the country who was like "fine fine, his father died, but could we PLEASE stop hearing about it everytime brett throws a td?".

but really...all things considered, Brett and Fran both enjoyed pretty obnoxious, mad media love in their days.

and now, as you were: continue to enjoy your purple view of things...

I don't know in what quarter Favre throws most of his picks, but they very often turn a close game into a blowout. He gets desperate even before the situation is and then he keeps making it worse. I'm sorry, you can't blame all this on the hopeless teammates. Brett's been around long enough to know that if you are on a lousy team then it is even more important to protect the ball and give your team a chance to win. Again, if any other QB in the league did this on a regualar basis, they'd have been gone a long time ago.

YOU TELL 'EM BOLIVAR! YOU TELL 'EM!!!

Bolivar wrote:

---

I don't know in what quarter Favre throws most of his picks, but they very often turn a close game into a blowout. He gets desperate even before the situation is and then he keeps making it worse. I'm sorry, you can't blame all this on the hopeless teammates. Brett's been around long enough to know that if you are on a lousy team then it is even more important to protect the ball and give your team a chance to win. Again, if any other QB in the league did this on a regualar basis, they'd have been gone a long time ago.

---

That's how Brett has played for 15 years. It's not desperation, it's frustration. He's been frustrated for the last probably 6 years with his receiving targets. He's only had 1 reliable target....Donald Driver. Walker had one good season, Terry Glenn played alright, Corey Bradford did ok. He's never had more than 2 reliable receivers. In the SB years, he had guys like Freeman, Schroeder, Mayes, Rison, etc. None were superstars, but all were reliable. Then he had Levens and Bennett and RB...very reliable. Jackson and Chumura at TE. He had MANY reliable receivers. In previous years, who has he had? Driver is the only won who has been reliable longer than 1 or 2 years.

Anyway, my point is, you can't blame all of the Packers recent troubles on Favre. You have to give him targets to throw to. I split the blame down the middle. Favre has to trust, but that trust has to be earned.

I didn't say superstars, I said RELIABLE. If I remember correctly, Thrash, Stinkston, Mitchell, Troy Brown, Givens, Branch, etc., were all RELIABLE receivers in their prime. Trash, Stinky, and FredEX didn't make huge plays or tear up DBs, but usually when the ball was thrown their way, they caught it. Plain and simple....McNabb trusted that those 3 could catch the ball when he threw it. Now, injury, age, and other factors have taken those 3 from being average to very below average. But in their PRIME, those guys could catch the football. Then throw in LJ Smith and Westbrook. Favre hasn't had that since the '96/'97 team went their separate ways. He hasn't had 2 more reliable recievers. He's had one slightly below average receiving TE, a good receiving RB, and 1 good receiver. You can't win anything when you surround your QB with mediocre players. Instead, Favre got guys like Antonio Chatman, Robert Ferguson, Taco Wallace, etc. Even then, even with crapola at the WR position, Favre still managed to rip off some pretty decent passing numbers. Archie Manning would have been one of the greatest QBs of all time had he not been surrounded with crap. You can't give a guy practice squad players and expect him to win. It doesn't work like that.

The Packers have had bad coaching, a good QB, and an average defense. Not a winning combination.

Jhuber wrote:

---

Well, id say Favre looked pretty decent against the Miami defense - with Donald Driver and two practice squad recievers! I dont care what anyone says about the old man, he can still play football, and unlike Mike Vick - i think if he did play for say the colts he could put up MVP numbers anually

---

Sure, Brett's looked good agasint some very bad defenses, but let's not annoint him as the current best QB out there.  Indy looks so good not just because they have a good line and good WR's...Manning's pretty damn excellent himself.  Would Brett do better on the Colts than GB?  Sure!  But that's like saying I'd be richer if I won the Lotto.

BillSwerski wrote:

---

Jhuber wrote:

---

Well, id say Favre looked pretty decent against the Miami defense - with Donald Driver and two practice squad recievers! I dont care what anyone says about the old man, he can still play football, and unlike Mike Vick - i think if he did play for say the colts he could put up MVP numbers anually

---

Sure, Brett's looked good agasint some very bad defenses, but let's not annoint him as the current best QB out there.  Indy looks so good not just because they have a good line and good WR's...Manning's pretty damn excellent himself.  Would Brett do better on the Colts than GB?  Sure!  But that's like saying I'd be richer if I won the Lotto.

---

He's posted a 78.8 rating (average) against the #2, 6, 13, 16, 24, 25 defenses. Thats not incedible, but it's not as bad as you people think he is.

Bolivar wrote:

---

By no means would I lay all the Pack's problems at Favre's doorstep. My point is that far too many times Brett is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And this goes back further than six years, certainly further than the last two seasons when Green Bay has stunk so badly (like so much of the rest of the league). One only has to look at the results of his team's most recent playoff appearances. There was that catastrophe against St Louis where he threw six INTs. There were playoff losses at home to Atlanta and Minnesota where Favre's picks wrecked any chance the Packers had in those games. And then there was the overtime loss two years ago in Philadelphia, where on the very first play from scrimmage in OT Favre threw a totally uncalled for desperation heave that was intercepted, and that pick led to Philly's winning score. Call it desperation or frustration, those were not the plays of a great clutch player, they were more what you'd see from an inexperienced rookie. 

---

So playoff appearences mean that the team stunk? How could they have stunk and still made the playoffs? A crappy playoff team......isn't that an oxymoron?? Obviously the 3 consecutive division crowns don't mean much.

I suppose his 30+ 4th quarter comebacks mean nothing at all......nothing......bad games are the only thing that count when Favre is discussed. Or his MVP-like season in '01 (I think it was '01)......the year Kurt Warner won it when really Favre should have.....guess that doesn't count either. He average and 85.1 rating over that 6 year period......everyone's beloved Donovan McNabb has done the same over the same period.

My point is.....no, my question is, why can't people except that Brett Favre is one of the greatest QBs in the history of football, he's a first ballot hall of famer, hes in the  top 10 in almost every major passing record (most of them top 5), and he's a nice guy to boot. He's gotten so much sh1t this year its COMPLETELY SICKENING!! So go on, hate the guy for no reason........your wrong for hating him, but go ahead. He's done nothing wrong in his career....when he has done something wrong, he takes the blame. He doesn't throw teammates under the bus either.