PDA

View Full Version : Vikings should lean on Adrian Peterson to fix red-zone troubles



singersp
10-28-2009, 07:04 AM
NFL Replay: Vikes should lean on A.D. to fix red-zone troubles (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-10-27-nfl-replay_N.htm)

oaklandzoo24
10-28-2009, 07:19 AM
Should rely on the Williams Wall.
Put Fat Pat at FB and Kev at RB on the 1.
I defy you to stop those 2 from picking up that yard.

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 07:19 AM
"singersp" wrote:


NFL Replay: Vikes should lean on A.D. to fix red-zone troubles (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-10-27-nfl-replay_N.htm)

Excellent read my friend.
Thanks......


One thing we learned from Week 7: So close to the goal line, it's probably a safer bet to make or break with Peterson, who averages 5 yards per carry. Favre himself acknowledged as much afterward.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

As the late great Woody Hayes once said........"There are three things that can happen when you throw a pass, and two of them are bad."

singersp
10-28-2009, 07:20 AM
Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....

ejmat
10-28-2009, 07:46 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



Thanks for the good reads Singer.


I do agree that I thought they should have given the ball to AP when they were on the 1 yard line maybe one more time.
However, hind-sight is 20/20.
Let's not forget he had two chances (1 negated by penalty) and he did not get in.
What I am wondering is what is the Vikings redzone offense rated?
IMO they are making too big a deal out of not getting in.
Before this game weren't they one of the highest rated teams in the redzone?
Favre has been nearly flawless in the redzone this year.
This is the first time in a long time I have felt confident they would score when they get near.
It is bound not to work sometimes but since it has worked so far I don't blame the play calling a bit.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 09:05 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 09:26 AM
"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 09:37 AM
"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 09:38 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.



lol. Whatever makes you feel better.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 09:40 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 09:41 AM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.
::)
What a joke!!!!

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 09:44 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 09:45 AM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


You didn't answer my question.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 09:50 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


You didn't answer my question.


Well, did I say other's opinions were false?

No, I said I was vilified for having the same opinion... yet, a professional sports writer can also see the (rather obvious) flaw in our gameplan.

Just find it funny how I was attacked for saying the exact same thing.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 09:54 AM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:




Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 09:58 AM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:




Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


You didn't answer my question.


Well, did I say other's opinions were false?

No, I said I was vilified for having the same opinion... yet, a professional sports writer can also see the (rather obvious) flaw in our gameplan.

Just find it funny how I was attacked for saying the exact same thing.


You are right, you never said other's opinions are false. Who vilified you? Just because someone does not agree with you completely does not mean they are insulting you or trying to defame you. I agree that there were some times we should of ran instead of passing. The overall game plan was fine. Pittsburgh is better at stopping the run compared to the pass. I am sure there are "Professional Sports Writers" that agree with me as well. So really what are you trying to prove. You have a good football mind C Murder, just try to not make such a strong effort to say I told you so. Carry on.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 09:58 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:






Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.


No, I don't think the Vikings would be 6-1 with Brett Favre... but what does that have anything to do with what I'm saying? All I said was it was a bad idea to throw the ball 50+ times with a 40-year old QB... especially when he was just brought in to "manage the game..." To add to that, Peterson didn't even get 20 carries and we threw the ball from the 1/2 yard line. Both plays that resulted in Pitt defensive TD's were passing attempts. I'm mostly blaming Childress and Bevell for this.

Trying to sway the issue by saying, "would we be 6-1 without Favre?" just shows me that you have nothing left to add to the topic at hand and are grasping at straws.


BTW, we'd be 7-0 with Jackson. lol.

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 10:03 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.


Anyone catch NFL Live or the NFLN stuff yesterday.
I don't give much credance to what the talking heads have to say, however, most chimed in with ole C Mac D on this.

Sure there were circumstances were a pass play would have been a better option based on what the D was showing "Pre-snap" and they were playing the run pretty tough, however, there were times as well when we were passing and they were in the perfect play call to counter it.

Long story short, someone wasn't doing thier job as it appeared to me that Coach Laboe was dictating and not our offense.
;)

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 10:05 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.


Anyone catch NFL Live or the NFLN stuff yesterday.
I don't give much credance to what the talking heads have to say, however, most chimed in with ole C Mac D on this.

Sure there were circumstances were a pass play would have been a better option based on what the D was showing "Pre-snap" and they were playing the run pretty tough, however, there were times as well when we were passing and they were in the perfect play call to counter it.

Long story short, someone wasn't doing thier job as it appeared to me that Coach Laboe was dictating and not our offense.

;)


Thanks Marrdro, sometimes people let their hatred of Ol' C Mac D get in their way of rational thought.

jmcdon00
10-28-2009, 10:13 AM
I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.
Still the Vikings played a good game against a great team and had a good chance to win with under 2 minutes. The passing game was very effective most of the game. Hopefully Favre continues to have success and that leads to some huge games for Peterson down the road.
I hope against GreenBay the Vikings are more committed to the run, even if it's not working stick with it and eventually the law of averages will catch up and Peterson will make plays.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this was the first game since 07(25games) that Peterson did not have more rushing yards than the apposing RB. He did tie though(69yds) so I suppose the record continues.
;D

marstc09
10-28-2009, 10:14 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.



Sure there were circumstances were a pass play would have been a better option based on what the D was showing "Pre-snap" and they were playing the run pretty tough, however, there were times as well when we were passing and they were in the perfect play call to counter it.


That is exactly what I was trying to say. I just think that there will be games in the future where the same thing will have to happen. Again, Pitt is better at the run than the pass. It makes sense to have this type of ratio, especially with a HOF QB named Brett Favre. The ratio should have been a little closer because of the 1/2 yard line mistake.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 10:14 AM
Not sure if anyone noticed the comments on ESPN's Power Rankings...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2009&week=8


Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson. (Chadiha)

Yup.

echizen20
10-28-2009, 10:21 AM
Yew No Vat I thank?
I thank dat ze play culling vaz apropreeit and day deed vat day had tew do tew try and vin ze game.
I agrdee zat trowing at ze go line tew times vaz nut ze vight call.
Day zhould hof given ze ball tew Adrewrin peederson more butt yew know bitsburg sdeelurs stopped peederson vely vell.
I donut see zat in ze fewture dis vill happun agun.
Now, I must go feed on ze humons zat live in visconzin and take der tiket to ze game on sonday.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 10:22 AM
"C" wrote:


Not sure if anyone noticed the comments on ESPN's Power Rankings...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2009&week=8


Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson. (Chadiha)

Yup.


I thought you were the one that rips on ESPN all the time.

triedandtruevikesfan
10-28-2009, 10:25 AM
I tried reading that and it hurt too much so I stopped.

I think that we need to keep the pass/run game balanced, maybe even leaning a little heavier on the run then the pass.
Its really nice to see us with a passing game again, last year every time Gus or TJ dropped back I kind of cringed inside, but we can't get away from the running game.
AP is them most explosive player in the NFL and the coaching staff needs to not forget that.

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 10:28 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.



Sure there were circumstances were a pass play would have been a better option based on what the D was showing "Pre-snap" and they were playing the run pretty tough, however, there were times as well when we were passing and they were in the perfect play call to counter it.


That is exactly what I was trying to say. I just think that there will be games in the future where the same thing will have to happen. Again, Pitt is better at the run than the pass. It makes sense to have this type of ratio, especially with a HOF QB named Brett Favre. The ratio should have been a little closer because of the 1/2 yard line mistake.

And to take it one step further, in those instances, your HOF QB just might hold the ball to long and get stripped, or throw a pass to hard and to high which would result in a INT.

When it does, a few of us are gonna talk about it in that light.
As I said, its the nature of the beast.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 10:33 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:




Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.



Sure there were circumstances were a pass play would have been a better option based on what the D was showing "Pre-snap" and they were playing the run pretty tough, however, there were times as well when we were passing and they were in the perfect play call to counter it.


That is exactly what I was trying to say. I just think that there will be games in the future where the same thing will have to happen. Again, Pitt is better at the run than the pass. It makes sense to have this type of ratio, especially with a HOF QB named Brett Favre. The ratio should have been a little closer because of the 1/2 yard line mistake.

And to take it one step further, in those instances, your HOF QB just might hold the ball to long and get stripped, or throw a pass to hard and to high which would result in a INT.

When it does, a few of us are gonna talk about it in that light.
As I said, its the nature of the beast.


No shit.

69%, 12 TDs, 3 INTs, and 102.2 Rating

In my best Favre voice, that is "pretty good". Not worried at all. Nobody expected us to be undefeated all year. Talk about it all you want but we are 6-1. Favre will make more mistakes. Funny how you are not talking about how few he is making.
::)

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 10:33 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Not sure if anyone noticed the comments on ESPN's Power Rankings...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2009&week=8


Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson. (Chadiha)

Yup.


I thought you were the one that rips on ESPN all the time.


Oh, I am... but this one was so obvious, even they recognized it.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 10:34 AM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Not sure if anyone noticed the comments on ESPN's Power Rankings...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2009&week=8


Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson. (Chadiha)

Yup.


I thought you were the one that rips on ESPN all the time.


Oh, I am... but this one was so obvious, even they recognized it.


LOL touche

NodakPaul
10-28-2009, 10:34 AM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:




Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


You didn't answer my question.


Well, did I say other's opinions were false?

No, I said I was vilified for having the same opinion... yet, a professional sports writer can also see the (rather obvious) flaw in our gameplan.

Just find it funny how I was attacked for saying the exact same thing.


I might be way off here, but I don't think you were vilified for thinking that we should have relied on AD in the red zone.
There are plenty of others on this forum who also think that, and yet none of them are vilified or attacked.
Instead I think you are primarily vilified for the way you express your opinions and your constant belittling of others.
When you constantly attack and put down opinions that are contrary to yours, and constantly introduce hostility and tension in to threads, how can you be surprised when people argue with you?
Not trying to be a dick (honestly)... just pointing out the obvious...

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 10:36 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:






Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.



Sure there were circumstances were a pass play would have been a better option based on what the D was showing "Pre-snap" and they were playing the run pretty tough, however, there were times as well when we were passing and they were in the perfect play call to counter it.


That is exactly what I was trying to say. I just think that there will be games in the future where the same thing will have to happen. Again, Pitt is better at the run than the pass. It makes sense to have this type of ratio, especially with a HOF QB named Brett Favre. The ratio should have been a little closer because of the 1/2 yard line mistake.

And to take it one step further, in those instances, your HOF QB just might hold the ball to long and get stripped, or throw a pass to hard and to high which would result in a INT.

When it does, a few of us are gonna talk about it in that light.
As I said, its the nature of the beast.


No shit.

69%, 12 TDs, 3 INTs, and 102.2 Rating

In my best Favre voice, that is "pretty good". Not worried at all. Nobody expected us to be undefeated all year. Talk about it all you want but we are 6-1. Favre will make more mistakes. Funny how you are not talking about how few he is making.
::)


You're totally missing the point that I'm making... we should have thrown the ball 50+ times... period...

I'm not blaming Favre, I'm blaming Childress and Bevell mostly... but something tells me Favre had a roll in it.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 10:41 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:






Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


You didn't answer my question.


Well, did I say other's opinions were false?

No, I said I was vilified for having the same opinion... yet, a professional sports writer can also see the (rather obvious) flaw in our gameplan.

Just find it funny how I was attacked for saying the exact same thing.


I might be way off here, but I don't think you were vilified for thinking that we should have relied on AD in the red zone.
There are plenty of others on this forum who also think that, and yet none of them are vilified or attacked.
Instead I think you are primarily vilified for the way you express your opinions and your constant belittling of others.
When you constantly attack and put down opinions that are contrary to yours, and constantly introduce hostility and tension in to threads, how can you be surprised when people argue with you?
Not trying to be a dick (honestly)... just pointing out the obvious...


Funny, I just re-read the discussion from yesterday and I didn't attack or belittle others... other than saying the defending of Favre can be sickening on this site.

Go ahead and read it for yourself if you'd like: http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php/topic,53875.0.html

But, regardless, this is funny coming from the King of Condescending.

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 10:42 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:






Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.



Sure there were circumstances were a pass play would have been a better option based on what the D was showing "Pre-snap" and they were playing the run pretty tough, however, there were times as well when we were passing and they were in the perfect play call to counter it.


That is exactly what I was trying to say. I just think that there will be games in the future where the same thing will have to happen. Again, Pitt is better at the run than the pass. It makes sense to have this type of ratio, especially with a HOF QB named Brett Favre. The ratio should have been a little closer because of the 1/2 yard line mistake.

And to take it one step further, in those instances, your HOF QB just might hold the ball to long and get stripped, or throw a pass to hard and to high which would result in a INT.

When it does, a few of us are gonna talk about it in that light.
As I said, its the nature of the beast.


No pooh.

69%, 12 TDs, 3 INTs, and 102.2 Rating

In my best Favre voice, that is "pretty good". Not worried at all. Nobody expected us to be undefeated all year. Talk about it all you want but we are 6-1. Favre will make more mistakes. Funny how you are not talking about how few he is making.
::)

Funny how you missed how many times I've admitted that he is playing better than I expected.
Granted, it isn't like I've said good things about him with every post or anything, like someone I know, but I've given him his due.

Especially in the areas of Line Calls and what role his running of the WCO will have in the education of TJ.

V4L
10-28-2009, 10:49 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:








Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.



Sure there were circumstances were a pass play would have been a better option based on what the D was showing "Pre-snap" and they were playing the run pretty tough, however, there were times as well when we were passing and they were in the perfect play call to counter it.


That is exactly what I was trying to say. I just think that there will be games in the future where the same thing will have to happen. Again, Pitt is better at the run than the pass. It makes sense to have this type of ratio, especially with a HOF QB named Brett Favre. The ratio should have been a little closer because of the 1/2 yard line mistake.

And to take it one step further, in those instances, your HOF QB just might hold the ball to long and get stripped, or throw a pass to hard and to high which would result in a INT.

When it does, a few of us are gonna talk about it in that light.
As I said, its the nature of the beast.


No pooh.

69%, 12 TDs, 3 INTs, and 102.2 Rating

In my best Favre voice, that is "pretty good". Not worried at all. Nobody expected us to be undefeated all year. Talk about it all you want but we are 6-1. Favre will make more mistakes. Funny how you are not talking about how few he is making.
::)

Funny how you missed how many times I've admitted that he is playing better than I expected.
Granted, it isn't like I've said good things about him with every post or anything, like someone I know, but I've given him his due.

Especially in the areas of Line Calls and what role his running of the WCO will have in the education of TJ.



I've seen ya man... You pay respects when they are due

marstc09
10-28-2009, 10:51 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:








Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.



Sure there were circumstances were a pass play would have been a better option based on what the D was showing "Pre-snap" and they were playing the run pretty tough, however, there were times as well when we were passing and they were in the perfect play call to counter it.


That is exactly what I was trying to say. I just think that there will be games in the future where the same thing will have to happen. Again, Pitt is better at the run than the pass. It makes sense to have this type of ratio, especially with a HOF QB named Brett Favre. The ratio should have been a little closer because of the 1/2 yard line mistake.

And to take it one step further, in those instances, your HOF QB just might hold the ball to long and get stripped, or throw a pass to hard and to high which would result in a INT.

When it does, a few of us are gonna talk about it in that light.
As I said, its the nature of the beast.


No pooh.

69%, 12 TDs, 3 INTs, and 102.2 Rating

In my best Favre voice, that is "pretty good". Not worried at all. Nobody expected us to be undefeated all year. Talk about it all you want but we are 6-1. Favre will make more mistakes. Funny how you are not talking about how few he is making.
::)

Funny how you missed how many times I've admitted that he is playing better than I expected.
Granted, it isn't like I've said good things about him with every post or anything, like someone I know, but I've given him his due.

Especially in the areas of Line Calls and what role his running of the WCO will have in the education of TJ.


If you said it MANY times, I would not have missed it. Blame that INT on Favre all you want but that still does not change the fact that you and others said he would be throwing them like crazy. Truth is, he is still one of the best in the league. I have no problem with him throwing 40+ times. Bevell should not have passed on the 1/2 yard line.

NodakPaul
10-28-2009, 10:51 AM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:








Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


You didn't answer my question.


Well, did I say other's opinions were false?

No, I said I was vilified for having the same opinion... yet, a professional sports writer can also see the (rather obvious) flaw in our gameplan.

Just find it funny how I was attacked for saying the exact same thing.


I might be way off here, but I don't think you were vilified for thinking that we should have relied on AD in the red zone.
There are plenty of others on this forum who also think that, and yet none of them are vilified or attacked.
Instead I think you are primarily vilified for the way you express your opinions and your constant belittling of others.
When you constantly attack and put down opinions that are contrary to yours, and constantly introduce hostility and tension in to threads, how can you be surprised when people argue with you?
Not trying to be a slick willy (honestly)... just pointing out the obvious...


Funny, I just re-read the discussion from yesterday and I didn't attack or belittle others... other than saying the defending of Favre can be sickening on this site.

Go ahead and read it for yourself if you'd like: http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php/topic,53875.0.html

But, regardless, this is funny coming from the King of Condescending.


That is what I am referring to.
I didn't say (or at least I didn't mean to say) that you attacked or belittled others in the discussion from yesterday.
I mean that you have a pretty strong history of doing it, and I would be willing to bet that not a day goes by that you post without you trying to stir the pot somehow or attack somebody.
Again, I am not trying to bash you, or even saying that you should change how you post.
I believe that is just who you are, so it is pointless to try and change it.
I was just pointing out that you shouldn't be surprised or feel victimized when people "villainize" you.

And if I have been condescending to you lately I apologize.
I am not trying to be.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 10:54 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:










Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


You didn't answer my question.


Well, did I say other's opinions were false?

No, I said I was vilified for having the same opinion... yet, a professional sports writer can also see the (rather obvious) flaw in our gameplan.

Just find it funny how I was attacked for saying the exact same thing.


I might be way off here, but I don't think you were vilified for thinking that we should have relied on AD in the red zone.
There are plenty of others on this forum who also think that, and yet none of them are vilified or attacked.
Instead I think you are primarily vilified for the way you express your opinions and your constant belittling of others.
When you constantly attack and put down opinions that are contrary to yours, and constantly introduce hostility and tension in to threads, how can you be surprised when people argue with you?
Not trying to be a slick willy (honestly)... just pointing out the obvious...


Funny, I just re-read the discussion from yesterday and I didn't attack or belittle others... other than saying the defending of Favre can be sickening on this site.

Go ahead and read it for yourself if you'd like: http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php/topic,53875.0.html

But, regardless, this is funny coming from the King of Condescending.


That is what I am referring to.
I didn't say (or at least I didn't mean to say) that you attacked or belittled others in the discussion from yesterday.
I mean that you have a pretty strong history of doing it, and I would be willing to bet that not a day goes by that you post without you trying to stir the pot somehow or attack somebody.
Again, I am not trying to bash you, or even saying that you should change how you post.
I believe that is just who you are, so it is pointless to try and change it.
I was just pointing out that you shouldn't be surprised or feel victimized when people "villainize" you.

And if I have been condescending to you lately I apologize.
I am not trying to be.


No, I'm not surprised I was vilianized... just happy when my opinion is shared by professional sports writers from around the country.

NodakPaul
10-28-2009, 10:54 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:










Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.



Sure there were circumstances were a pass play would have been a better option based on what the D was showing "Pre-snap" and they were playing the run pretty tough, however, there were times as well when we were passing and they were in the perfect play call to counter it.


That is exactly what I was trying to say. I just think that there will be games in the future where the same thing will have to happen. Again, Pitt is better at the run than the pass. It makes sense to have this type of ratio, especially with a HOF QB named Brett Favre. The ratio should have been a little closer because of the 1/2 yard line mistake.

And to take it one step further, in those instances, your HOF QB just might hold the ball to long and get stripped, or throw a pass to hard and to high which would result in a INT.

When it does, a few of us are gonna talk about it in that light.
As I said, its the nature of the beast.


No pooh.

69%, 12 TDs, 3 INTs, and 102.2 Rating

In my best Favre voice, that is "pretty good". Not worried at all. Nobody expected us to be undefeated all year. Talk about it all you want but we are 6-1. Favre will make more mistakes. Funny how you are not talking about how few he is making.
::)

Funny how you missed how many times I've admitted that he is playing better than I expected.
Granted, it isn't like I've said good things about him with every post or anything, like someone I know, but I've given him his due.

Especially in the areas of Line Calls and what role his running of the WCO will have in the education of TJ.


If you said it MANY times, I would not have missed it. Blame that INT on Favre all you want but that still does not change the fact that you and others said he would be throwing them like crazy. Truth is, he is still one of the best in the league. I have no problem with him throwing 40+ times. Bevell should not have passed on the 1/2 yard line.


Marrdro has said it many times.
If you missed it, it may be because he has complained about his play or pointed out minor mistakes in his play many more times.
If Favre plays great 98% of the time and makes a mistake 2% of the time, Marrdro's posts will be 98% about his mistakes, and 2% about the things he did right...

(And smile Marty - you know it's true.;) )

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 10:55 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:










Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.



Sure there were circumstances were a pass play would have been a better option based on what the D was showing "Pre-snap" and they were playing the run pretty tough, however, there were times as well when we were passing and they were in the perfect play call to counter it.


That is exactly what I was trying to say. I just think that there will be games in the future where the same thing will have to happen. Again, Pitt is better at the run than the pass. It makes sense to have this type of ratio, especially with a HOF QB named Brett Favre. The ratio should have been a little closer because of the 1/2 yard line mistake.

And to take it one step further, in those instances, your HOF QB just might hold the ball to long and get stripped, or throw a pass to hard and to high which would result in a INT.

When it does, a few of us are gonna talk about it in that light.
As I said, its the nature of the beast.


No pooh.

69%, 12 TDs, 3 INTs, and 102.2 Rating

In my best Favre voice, that is "pretty good". Not worried at all. Nobody expected us to be undefeated all year. Talk about it all you want but we are 6-1. Favre will make more mistakes. Funny how you are not talking about how few he is making.
::)

Funny how you missed how many times I've admitted that he is playing better than I expected.
Granted, it isn't like I've said good things about him with every post or anything, like someone I know, but I've given him his due.

Especially in the areas of Line Calls and what role his running of the WCO will have in the education of TJ.


If you said it MANY times, I would not have missed it. Blame that INT on Favre all you want but that still does not change the fact that you and others said he would be throwing them like crazy. Truth is, he is still one of the best in the league. I have no problem with him throwing 40+ times. Bevell should not have passed on the 1/2 yard line.

I did say that I thought he was gonna throw lots of them.
Several times I have said that I was midly suprised that "Ole Gunslinger" hasn't come out of the closet.

By the by, to date, this is the only one I have even discussed by the way, in case you haven't noticed.
I kindof looked the other way with the exception of that bullet he threw to BB that turned into a INT.

Thought he could have taken a bit off that one.

V4L
10-28-2009, 10:58 AM
I am plesently surprised ol gunslinger hasn't come out yet either

Dude is killin it

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 10:58 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:












Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.



Sure there were circumstances were a pass play would have been a better option based on what the D was showing "Pre-snap" and they were playing the run pretty tough, however, there were times as well when we were passing and they were in the perfect play call to counter it.


That is exactly what I was trying to say. I just think that there will be games in the future where the same thing will have to happen. Again, Pitt is better at the run than the pass. It makes sense to have this type of ratio, especially with a HOF QB named Brett Favre. The ratio should have been a little closer because of the 1/2 yard line mistake.

And to take it one step further, in those instances, your HOF QB just might hold the ball to long and get stripped, or throw a pass to hard and to high which would result in a INT.

When it does, a few of us are gonna talk about it in that light.
As I said, its the nature of the beast.


No pooh.

69%, 12 TDs, 3 INTs, and 102.2 Rating

In my best Favre voice, that is "pretty good". Not worried at all. Nobody expected us to be undefeated all year. Talk about it all you want but we are 6-1. Favre will make more mistakes. Funny how you are not talking about how few he is making.
::)

Funny how you missed how many times I've admitted that he is playing better than I expected.
Granted, it isn't like I've said good things about him with every post or anything, like someone I know, but I've given him his due.

Especially in the areas of Line Calls and what role his running of the WCO will have in the education of TJ.


If you said it MANY times, I would not have missed it. Blame that INT on Favre all you want but that still does not change the fact that you and others said he would be throwing them like crazy. Truth is, he is still one of the best in the league. I have no problem with him throwing 40+ times. Bevell should not have passed on the 1/2 yard line.


Marrdro has said it many times.
If you missed it, it may be because he has complained about his play or pointed out minor mistakes in his play many more times.
If Favre plays great 98% of the time and makes a mistake 2% of the time, Marrdro's posts will be 98% about his mistakes, and 2% about the things he did right...

(And smile Marty - you know it's true.;) )

It is, but it isn't like I haven't done that for cats like Birk, Sharp, Rice, BB, Ferguson, Longwell, Kluwe, TJ, Gus, ......Need I go on.

All, regardless of thier history are open for criticism my friend.....

LOL, Ole Soonerbornbred was gonna take a hit out on me over how I hacked on TJ his first couple of years......He has now come round to my way of thinking and is slowly climbing up the ole spreadsheet.
;)

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 11:00 AM
"V4L" wrote:


I've seen ya man... You pay respects when they are due

Thanks my friend.
;D

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 11:05 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


I've seen ya man... You pay respects when they are due

Thanks my friend.

;D


What are you happier about? Bengals being 5-2 or the Vikings being 6-1?

ultravikingfan
10-28-2009, 11:11 AM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


I've seen ya man... You pay respects when they are due

Thanks my friend.

;D


What are you happier about? Bengals being 5-2 or the Vikings being 6-1?


Marrs always happy.

Too fucken happy if you ask me.
;D

josdin00
10-28-2009, 11:11 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.
Still the Vikings played a good game against a great team and had a good chance to win with under 2 minutes. The passing game was very effective most of the game. Hopefully Favre continues to have success and that leads to some huge games for Peterson down the road.
I hope against GreenBay the Vikings are more committed to the run, even if it's not working stick with it and eventually the law of averages will catch up and Peterson will make plays.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this was the first game since 07(25games) that Peterson did not have more rushing yards than the apposing RB. He did tie though(69yds) so I suppose the record continues.
;D


That 'big one' that Peterson broke just before the interception was a pass play, not a run.

gagarr
10-28-2009, 11:12 AM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


I've seen ya man... You pay respects when they are due

Thanks My Farvish Friend.

;D


What are you happier about? Bengals being 5-2 or the Vikings being 6-1?


Chicago being 3-3, Cutler sucking, and Vikes not mortgaging their future to get Cutler

oh yeah and sweeping the Packers would be a great Halloween treat.

echizen20
10-28-2009, 11:14 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


I've seen ya man... You pay respects when they are due

Thanks My Farvish Friend.

;D


What are you happier about? Bengals being 5-2 or the Vikings being 6-1?


Marrs always happy.

Too fricken happy if you ask me.

;D


I am hahpy ve vill derink
all uf ze puckers blood ven ve go to lambo field, it iz time to feed ze beast!

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 11:16 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


I've seen ya man... You pay respects when they are due

Thanks My Farvish Friend.

;D


What are you happier about? Bengals being 5-2 or the Vikings being 6-1?


Marrs always happy.

Too fricken happy if you ask me.

;D

LOL, I wasn't always happy.
Used to be a SOB.
Learned that life is way to short for that kindof shit.
Thats why I was very suprised how quickly I turned back into that SOB yesterday.

Again, apologies to all involved.

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 11:18 AM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


I've seen ya man... You pay respects when they are due

Thanks My Farvish Friend.

;D


What are you happier about? Bengals being 5-2 or the Vikings being 6-1?

I am always happy when the Bengals do good.
This year we all should be as they are key to us having home field advantage/winning the division as they put the beat down on a few teams that might have a say in that later on this year.
;)

By the way, I am starting to worry about that game.
Super Rand is already talking smack.

We might have to come up with something special for him at the tailgate.
;D

ejmat
10-28-2009, 12:57 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:








Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.


No, I don't think the Vikings would be 6-1 with Brett Favre... but what does that have anything to do with what I'm saying? All I said was it was a bad idea to throw the ball 50+ times with a 40-year old QB... especially when he was just brought in to "manage the game..." To add to that, Peterson didn't even get 20 carries and we threw the ball from the 1/2 yard line. Both plays that resulted in Pitt defensive TD's were passing attempts. I'm mostly blaming Childress and Bevell for this.

Trying to sway the issue by saying, "would we be 6-1 without Favre?" just shows me that you have nothing left to add to the topic at hand and are grasping at straws.


BTW, we'd be 7-0 with Jackson. lol.


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall Gay on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 12:59 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:










Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.


No, I don't think the Vikings would be 6-1 with Brett Favre... but what does that have anything to do with what I'm saying? All I said was it was a bad idea to throw the ball 50+ times with a 40-year old QB... especially when he was just brought in to "manage the game..." To add to that, Peterson didn't even get 20 carries and we threw the ball from the 1/2 yard line. Both plays that resulted in Pitt defensive TD's were passing attempts. I'm mostly blaming Childress and Bevell for this.

Trying to sway the issue by saying, "would we be 6-1 without Favre?" just shows me that you have nothing left to add to the topic at hand and are grasping at straws.


BTW, we'd be 7-0 with Jackson. lol.


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall Gay on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 01:14 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:












Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.


No, I don't think the Vikings would be 6-1 with Brett Favre... but what does that have anything to do with what I'm saying? All I said was it was a bad idea to throw the ball 50+ times with a 40-year old QB... especially when he was just brought in to "manage the game..." To add to that, Peterson didn't even get 20 carries and we threw the ball from the 1/2 yard line. Both plays that resulted in Pitt defensive TD's were passing attempts. I'm mostly blaming Childress and Bevell for this.

Trying to sway the issue by saying, "would we be 6-1 without Favre?" just shows me that you have nothing left to add to the topic at hand and are grasping at straws.


BTW, we'd be 7-0 with Jackson. lol.


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall Gay on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Sigh.......


The plain and simple attempt again.
You tried that once already.
I believe that is how the entire discussion started so to use your phrase, that tells me you have nothing more to say about the situation.


You know what?
We have gone over this a lot already.
If you think throwing the ball 50 times is the reason they lost so be it.
Personally I think there are other variables than just that.
There are 60 minutes of football.


If you take the average rushing yards for AP he averaged 3.83 yards per attempt in this game.
Favre averaged 6.55 yards per pass attempt in this game.
Which one is higher?
So let's say they split it evenly.
69 plays between the two players.
Hell I'll even give Peterson the extra play.

Peterson 35 rushes at 3.83 yards per attempt = 134.05 yards
Favre 34 passes at 6.55 per attempt = 222.70 yards

Total yards = 354.75

Is this a tell all?
No it isn't.
But let's not jump to conclusions that the Vikings would have done better if they did split the load and kept running AP.
We don't know.
By the way, 4 of those passing plays were to AP as well that totaled 60 yards.
What if those were the plays Favre didn't throw the ball?
I personally would rather see more passing plays to AP.
I think he is getting very good at coming out of the backfield and it could be used as a good weapon.

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 01:21 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall g*y on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.

Almost want to agree with you on that point, however, if you would have said that "the whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter when you are down by more than two scores", I would buy into it.

When your only down 3 to the defending SB champs in thier house, you keep managing the game especially if you are moving the ball.

Lets remember what was going on......

4th Quarter

Start Time Time Poss Drive Began # of Plays Yards Gained Result
14:08





7:45



MIN 4





15





73



Fumble
3:21






2:21



MIN 26





7





55



Int
0:54






0:54



MIN 37





5





36



End Reg

For some reason, our offense seemed to want to quicken the pace on how fast they could get to the line and get a play off.
I can see the rationale behind that, and it seemed to be working as we had several nice runs mixed in with the passes.


So saying that we were in a mode were we were trying to use less clock to catch up from being behind isn't exactly the right answer.
That is just as incorrect statement as saying the run wasn't working isn't right either.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20091025023&page=plays

We had them were we wanted them.
We were dictating to them and they weren't responding very well.
In the end, two bad decisions in that mode of operation were what spelled our doom.

Zeus
10-28-2009, 01:21 PM
"C" wrote:


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Football is neither plain nor simple.


=Z=

midgensa
10-28-2009, 01:25 PM
Who in the Vikings' organization ever said that Favre was here just to manage the game?

ejmat
10-28-2009, 01:29 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall g*y on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.

Almost want to agree with you on that point, however, if you would have said that "the whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter when you are down by more than two scores", I would buy into it.

When your only down 3 to the defending SB champs in thier house, you keep managing the game especially if you are moving the ball.

Lets remember what was going on......

4th Quarter


Start Time Time Poss Drive Began # of Plays Yards Gained Result
14:08





7:45



MIN 4






15






73




Fumble
3:21






2:21



MIN 26






7






55




Int
0:54






0:54



MIN 37






5






36




End Reg

For some reason, our offense seemed to want to quicken the pace on how fast they could get to the line and get a play off.
I can see the rationale behind that, and it seemed to be working as we had several nice runs mixed in with the passes.


So saying that we were in a mode were we were trying to use less clock to catch up from being behind isn't exactly the right answer.
That is just as incorrect statement as saying the run wasn't working isn't right either.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20091025023&page=plays

We had them were we wanted them.
We were dictating to them and they weren't responding very well.
In the end, two bad decisions in that mode of operation were what spelled our doom.


I have to disagree with that.
Your statistic that you show is a great example.
Starting the 4th quarter the 1st drive lasted 7:45 when they were down by 3.
That is hardly a fast pace.
After that then there was the kick off return.
Then we stopped the Steelers and got the ball back with 3:21 left.
It isn't about managing the game at that point.
It is about passing.
And those passes drove down field 55 yards and ended with 1:00 left in the game (INT).
I don't think that is rushing.
I think that is like it should be if you ask me.
If they would have scored on the INT drive the Steelers would have had the kick off and less than 1:00 to drive down field and score a TD.
Can't ask for a better situation than that.
Again, you play with what is dealt in the 4th quarter.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 01:31 PM
"midgensa" wrote:


Who in the Vikings' organization ever said that Favre was here just to manage the game?


That is a good point.
I think the media put it in everyone's heads that Favre would only need to manage the game.
I can say that I believe that is all he would have to do for the most part.
Of course there are going to be times where he would have to take the team on his shoulders.
He has done that so why people keep complaining about that is beyond me.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 01:31 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Football is neither plain nor simple.


=Z=


Very true.

Zeus
10-28-2009, 01:33 PM
"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Football is neither plain nor simple.



Very true.


Stop agreeing with me, lest I decide to use my evil powers to drive you and 5 other long-time posters from this site.

=Z=

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 01:38 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall g*y on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.

Almost want to agree with you on that point, however, if you would have said that "the whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter when you are down by more than two scores", I would buy into it.

When your only down 3 to the defending SB champs in thier house, you keep managing the game especially if you are moving the ball.

Lets remember what was going on......

4th Quarter


Start Time Time Poss Drive Began # of Plays Yards Gained Result
14:08





7:45



MIN 4






15






73




Fumble
3:21






2:21



MIN 26






7






55




Int
0:54






0:54



MIN 37






5






36




End Reg

For some reason, our offense seemed to want to quicken the pace on how fast they could get to the line and get a play off.
I can see the rationale behind that, and it seemed to be working as we had several nice runs mixed in with the passes.


So saying that we were in a mode were we were trying to use less clock to catch up from being behind isn't exactly the right answer.
That is just as incorrect statement as saying the run wasn't working isn't right either.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20091025023&page=plays

We had them were we wanted them.
We were dictating to them and they weren't responding very well.
In the end, two bad decisions in that mode of operation were what spelled our doom.


I have to disagree with that.
Your statistic that you show is a great example.
Starting the 4th quarter the 1st drive lasted 7:45 when they were down by 3.
That is hardly a fast pace.
After that then there was the kick off return.
Then we stopped the Steelers and got the ball back with 3:21 left.
It isn't about managing the game at that point.
It is about passing.
And those passes drove down field 55 yards and ended with 1:00 left in the game (INT).
I don't think that is rushing.
I think that is like it should be if you ask me.
If they would have scored on the INT drive the Steelers would have had the kick off and less than 1:00 to drive down field and score a TD.
Can't ask for a better situation than that.
Again, you play with what is dealt in the 4th quarter.

At 3:21, yes, I agree, its all about passing.
As to the initial drive that started in the 4th quarter.
We were definately trying to keep thier base package on the field and we were getting to the line quickly to ensure that didn't happen.

At one point, it was getting to a point I was starting to worry, 3 quick penalties in a row.

Zeus
10-28-2009, 01:40 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


At 3:21, yes, I agree, its all about passing.
As to the initial drive that started in the 4th quarter.
We were definately trying to keep thier base package on the field and we were getting to the line quickly to ensure that didn't happen.

At one point, it was getting to a point I was starting to worry, 3 quick penalties in a row.




The quick snaps and false-start penalties were a direct response by a HoF QB to the fact that the Steelers were (initially) only putting the nose-tackle in a down position and then having the other 2 D-Linemen and 4 LBs stand about 4 yards off the line of scrimmage in an effort to disguise the rush package.


=Z=

marstc09
10-28-2009, 01:54 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:












Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.


No, I don't think the Vikings would be 6-1 with Brett Favre... but what does that have anything to do with what I'm saying? All I said was it was a bad idea to throw the ball 50+ times with a 40-year old QB... especially when he was just brought in to "manage the game..." To add to that, Peterson didn't even get 20 carries and we threw the ball from the 1/2 yard line. Both plays that resulted in Pitt defensive TD's were passing attempts. I'm mostly blaming Childress and Bevell for this.

Trying to sway the issue by saying, "would we be 6-1 without Favre?" just shows me that you have nothing left to add to the topic at hand and are grasping at straws.


BTW, we'd be 7-0 with Jackson. lol.


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall Gay on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Disagree. No way in hell that lost us the game. The Brett Favre INT/ Taylor drop, passing on the 1/2 yard line, and the fumble lost us the game. Plain and simple.

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 02:06 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


At 3:21, yes, I agree, its all about passing.
As to the initial drive that started in the 4th quarter.
We were definately trying to keep thier base package on the field and we were getting to the line quickly to ensure that didn't happen.

At one point, it was getting to a point I was starting to worry, 3 quick penalties in a row.




The quick snaps and false-start penalties were a direct response by a HoF QB to the fact that the Steelers were (initially) only putting the nose-tackle in a down position and then having the other 2 D-Linemen and 4 LBs stand about 4 yards off the line of scrimmage in an effort to disguise the rush package.


=Z=

Hmmmm, isn't that thier base package?
::)

Zeus
10-28-2009, 02:09 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


At 3:21, yes, I agree, its all about passing.
As to the initial drive that started in the 4th quarter.
We were definately trying to keep thier base package on the field and we were getting to the line quickly to ensure that didn't happen.

At one point, it was getting to a point I was starting to worry, 3 quick penalties in a row.




The quick snaps and false-start penalties were a direct response by a HoF QB to the fact that the Steelers were (initially) only putting the nose-tackle in a down position and then having the other 2 D-Linemen and 4 LBs stand about 4 yards off the line of scrimmage in an effort to disguise the rush package.



Hmmmm, isn't that thier base package?

::)


Not the way they were setting up.
Pardon me if you missed it.
But late in the 3rd quarter, the Steelers stopped putting the 3 d-linemen into down positions and started putting only the nosetackle in position over Sullivan.
The DEs and the LBs were 4 yards (or so) off the ball and milling about and ONLY moved into stances after the Vikings got into their pre-snap configurations.
Favre recognized this and started going for quick snaps to counter.

=Z=

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 02:09 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:














Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.


No, I don't think the Vikings would be 6-1 with Brett Favre... but what does that have anything to do with what I'm saying? All I said was it was a bad idea to throw the ball 50+ times with a 40-year old QB... especially when he was just brought in to "manage the game..." To add to that, Peterson didn't even get 20 carries and we threw the ball from the 1/2 yard line. Both plays that resulted in Pitt defensive TD's were passing attempts. I'm mostly blaming Childress and Bevell for this.

Trying to sway the issue by saying, "would we be 6-1 without Favre?" just shows me that you have nothing left to add to the topic at hand and are grasping at straws.


BTW, we'd be 7-0 with Jackson. lol.


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall Gay on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Disagree. No way in hell that lost us the game. The Brett Favre INT/ Taylor drop, passing on the 1/2 yard line, and the fumble lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Both passing plays, no?

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 02:12 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


At 3:21, yes, I agree, its all about passing.
As to the initial drive that started in the 4th quarter.
We were definately trying to keep thier base package on the field and we were getting to the line quickly to ensure that didn't happen.

At one point, it was getting to a point I was starting to worry, 3 quick penalties in a row.




The quick snaps and false-start penalties were a direct response by a HoF QB to the fact that the Steelers were (initially) only putting the nose-tackle in a down position and then having the other 2 D-Linemen and 4 LBs stand about 4 yards off the line of scrimmage in an effort to disguise the rush package.



Hmmmm, isn't that thier base package?

::)


Not the way they were setting up.
Pardon me if you missed it.
But late in the 3rd quarter, the Steelers stopped putting the 3 d-linemen into down positions and started putting only the nosetackle in position over Sullivan.
The DEs and the LBs were 4 yards (or so) off the ball and milling about and ONLY moved into stances after the Vikings got into their pre-snap configurations.
Favre recognized this and started going for quick snaps to counter.

=Z=

Again, we have determined that it was in fact thier base package.
We have also determined, I think (not sure if you got it) that our staff was trying to put them in situations that they couldn't handle.

Maybe I didn't spell it out in depth enough, but isn't the looks they were showing an attempt to counter the hurry up with thier base package?

Maybe you missed that.

i_bleed_purple
10-28-2009, 02:14 PM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:
















Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.


No, I don't think the Vikings would be 6-1 with Brett Favre... but what does that have anything to do with what I'm saying? All I said was it was a bad idea to throw the ball 50+ times with a 40-year old QB... especially when he was just brought in to "manage the game..." To add to that, Peterson didn't even get 20 carries and we threw the ball from the 1/2 yard line. Both plays that resulted in Pitt defensive TD's were passing attempts. I'm mostly blaming Childress and Bevell for this.

Trying to sway the issue by saying, "would we be 6-1 without Favre?" just shows me that you have nothing left to add to the topic at hand and are grasping at straws.


BTW, we'd be 7-0 with Jackson. lol.


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall Gay on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Disagree. No way in hell that lost us the game. The Brett Favre INT/ Taylor drop, passing on the 1/2 yard line, and the fumble lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Both passing plays, no?


so by your logic, I guess both those turnovers came in the redzone as well, so we should probably stay out of there, no?

marstc09
10-28-2009, 02:16 PM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:
















Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.


No, I don't think the Vikings would be 6-1 with Brett Favre... but what does that have anything to do with what I'm saying? All I said was it was a bad idea to throw the ball 50+ times with a 40-year old QB... especially when he was just brought in to "manage the game..." To add to that, Peterson didn't even get 20 carries and we threw the ball from the 1/2 yard line. Both plays that resulted in Pitt defensive TD's were passing attempts. I'm mostly blaming Childress and Bevell for this.

Trying to sway the issue by saying, "would we be 6-1 without Favre?" just shows me that you have nothing left to add to the topic at hand and are grasping at straws.


BTW, we'd be 7-0 with Jackson. lol.


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall Gay on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Disagree. No way in hell that lost us the game. The Brett Favre INT/ Taylor drop, passing on the 1/2 yard line, and the fumble lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Both passing plays, no?


50-2=48

4% sucked and were factors in costing us the game. When Peterson fumbles, I don't hear you saying we should pass more. Shit happens. Passing more than running did not cost us the game. Turnovers did. These can happen when running or passing. Blame Favre if you want, but don't blame passing 50 times.

Zeus
10-28-2009, 02:16 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


At 3:21, yes, I agree, its all about passing.
As to the initial drive that started in the 4th quarter.
We were definately trying to keep thier base package on the field and we were getting to the line quickly to ensure that didn't happen.

At one point, it was getting to a point I was starting to worry, 3 quick penalties in a row.




The quick snaps and false-start penalties were a direct response by a HoF QB to the fact that the Steelers were (initially) only putting the nose-tackle in a down position and then having the other 2 D-Linemen and 4 LBs stand about 4 yards off the line of scrimmage in an effort to disguise the rush package.



Hmmmm, isn't that thier base package?

::)


Not the way they were setting up.
Pardon me if you missed it.
But late in the 3rd quarter, the Steelers stopped putting the 3 d-linemen into down positions and started putting only the nosetackle in position over Sullivan.
The DEs and the LBs were 4 yards (or so) off the ball and milling about and ONLY moved into stances after the Vikings got into their pre-snap configurations.
Favre recognized this and started going for quick snaps to counter.


Again, we have determined that it was in fact thier base package.
We have also determined, I think (not sure if you got it) that our staff was trying to put them in situations that they couldn't handle.

Maybe I didn't spell it out in depth enough, but isn't the looks they were showing an attempt to counter the hurry up with thier base package?

Maybe you missed that.


What hurry up?
The Vikings weren't playing a hurry up in the 3rd quarter.
And I already stated - while they may have been employing base personnel, the change to only the NT getting into a downstance started only in the 3rd quarter.
As did Favre's attempt to counter that with quick snaps, NOT a hurry up.

=Z=

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 02:18 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


















Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.


No, I don't think the Vikings would be 6-1 with Brett Favre... but what does that have anything to do with what I'm saying? All I said was it was a bad idea to throw the ball 50+ times with a 40-year old QB... especially when he was just brought in to "manage the game..." To add to that, Peterson didn't even get 20 carries and we threw the ball from the 1/2 yard line. Both plays that resulted in Pitt defensive TD's were passing attempts. I'm mostly blaming Childress and Bevell for this.

Trying to sway the issue by saying, "would we be 6-1 without Favre?" just shows me that you have nothing left to add to the topic at hand and are grasping at straws.


BTW, we'd be 7-0 with Jackson. lol.


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall Gay on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Disagree. No way in hell that lost us the game. The Brett Favre INT/ Taylor drop, passing on the 1/2 yard line, and the fumble lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Both passing plays, no?


50-2=48

4% sucked and were factors in costing us the game. When Peterson fumbles, I don't hear you saying we should pass more. Shit happens. Passing more than running did not cost us the game. Turnovers did. These can happen when running or passing. Blame Favre if you want, but don't blame passing 50 times.


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.

Zeus
10-28-2009, 02:20 PM
"C" wrote:


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=

i_bleed_purple
10-28-2009, 02:20 PM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:




















Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.


No, I don't think the Vikings would be 6-1 with Brett Favre... but what does that have anything to do with what I'm saying? All I said was it was a bad idea to throw the ball 50+ times with a 40-year old QB... especially when he was just brought in to "manage the game..." To add to that, Peterson didn't even get 20 carries and we threw the ball from the 1/2 yard line. Both plays that resulted in Pitt defensive TD's were passing attempts. I'm mostly blaming Childress and Bevell for this.

Trying to sway the issue by saying, "would we be 6-1 without Favre?" just shows me that you have nothing left to add to the topic at hand and are grasping at straws.


BTW, we'd be 7-0 with Jackson. lol.


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall Gay on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Disagree. No way in hell that lost us the game. The Brett Favre INT/ Taylor drop, passing on the 1/2 yard line, and the fumble lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Both passing plays, no?


50-2=48

4% sucked and were factors in costing us the game. When Peterson fumbles, I don't hear you saying we should pass more. Shit happens. Passing more than running did not cost us the game. Turnovers did. These can happen when running or passing. Blame Favre if you want, but don't blame passing 50 times.


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Yes, passing with the third best rated passer in the league is an awful idea.
(it is passer rating that determines how good a QB is right?)

Braddock
10-28-2009, 02:22 PM
"C" wrote:



Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


My god C Mac, your illogical conclusions drive me crazy.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 02:24 PM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:




















Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.


No, I don't think the Vikings would be 6-1 with Brett Favre... but what does that have anything to do with what I'm saying? All I said was it was a bad idea to throw the ball 50+ times with a 40-year old QB... especially when he was just brought in to "manage the game..." To add to that, Peterson didn't even get 20 carries and we threw the ball from the 1/2 yard line. Both plays that resulted in Pitt defensive TD's were passing attempts. I'm mostly blaming Childress and Bevell for this.

Trying to sway the issue by saying, "would we be 6-1 without Favre?" just shows me that you have nothing left to add to the topic at hand and are grasping at straws.


BTW, we'd be 7-0 with Jackson. lol.


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall Gay on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Disagree. No way in hell that lost us the game. The Brett Favre INT/ Taylor drop, passing on the 1/2 yard line, and the fumble lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Both passing plays, no?


50-2=48

4% sucked and were factors in costing us the game. When Peterson fumbles, I don't hear you saying we should pass more. Shit happens. Passing more than running did not cost us the game. Turnovers did. These can happen when running or passing. Blame Favre if you want, but don't blame passing 50 times.


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Those law of averages don't seem to be the norm for Favre this year. He is 8th in attempts per game and 5th in total attempts. He is at the bottom of the league in INTs. We lost the turnover battle, hence, we lost the game. We have lost games because the turnovers of Peterson as well. So should we run less? I am confused.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 02:28 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 02:30 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:






















Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.


No, I don't think the Vikings would be 6-1 with Brett Favre... but what does that have anything to do with what I'm saying? All I said was it was a bad idea to throw the ball 50+ times with a 40-year old QB... especially when he was just brought in to "manage the game..." To add to that, Peterson didn't even get 20 carries and we threw the ball from the 1/2 yard line. Both plays that resulted in Pitt defensive TD's were passing attempts. I'm mostly blaming Childress and Bevell for this.

Trying to sway the issue by saying, "would we be 6-1 without Favre?" just shows me that you have nothing left to add to the topic at hand and are grasping at straws.


BTW, we'd be 7-0 with Jackson. lol.


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall Gay on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Disagree. No way in hell that lost us the game. The Brett Favre INT/ Taylor drop, passing on the 1/2 yard line, and the fumble lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Both passing plays, no?


50-2=48

4% sucked and were factors in costing us the game. When Peterson fumbles, I don't hear you saying we should pass more. Shit happens. Passing more than running did not cost us the game. Turnovers did. These can happen when running or passing. Blame Favre if you want, but don't blame passing 50 times.


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Those law of averages don't seem to be the norm for Favre this year. He is 8th in attempts per game and 5th in total attempts. He is at the bottom of the league in INTs. We lost the turnover battle, hence, we lost the game. We have lost games because the turnovers of Peterson as well. So should we run less? I am confused.


If you think 50 pass attempts is the same as 24 attempts per game, then yes... you are confused.

i_bleed_purple
10-28-2009, 02:30 PM
"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 02:32 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.

i_bleed_purple
10-28-2009, 02:34 PM
"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.


You're as stubborn as a mule.

Family Guy-Stubborn As A Mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4V1OlleRA#)

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 02:36 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:




Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.


You're as stubborn as a mule.

Family Guy-Stubborn As A Mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4V1OlleRA#)


Only if you refuse to agree with the basic logic presented to you.

Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 02:36 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall g*y on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.

Almost want to agree with you on that point, however, if you would have said that "the whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter when you are down by more than two scores", I would buy into it.

When your only down 3 to the defending SB champs in thier house, you keep managing the game especially if you are moving the ball.

Lets remember what was going on......

4th Quarter


Start Time Time Poss Drive Began # of Plays Yards Gained Result
14:08





7:45



MIN 4






15






73




Fumble
3:21






2:21



MIN 26






7






55




Int
0:54






0:54



MIN 37






5






36




End Reg

For some reason, our offense seemed to want to quicken the pace on how fast they could get to the line and get a play off.
I can see the rationale behind that, and it seemed to be working as we had several nice runs mixed in with the passes.


So saying that we were in a mode were we were trying to use less clock to catch up from being behind isn't exactly the right answer.
That is just as incorrect statement as saying the run wasn't working isn't right either.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20091025023&page=plays

We had them were we wanted them.
We were dictating to them and they weren't responding very well.
In the end, two bad decisions in that mode of operation were what spelled our doom.


I have to disagree with that.
Your statistic that you show is a great example.
Starting the 4th quarter the 1st drive lasted 7:45 when they were down by 3.
That is hardly a fast pace.
After that then there was the kick off return.
Then we stopped the Steelers and got the ball back with 3:21 left.
It isn't about managing the game at that point.
It is about passing.
And those passes drove down field 55 yards and ended with 1:00 left in the game (INT).
I don't think that is rushing.
I think that is like it should be if you ask me.
If they would have scored on the INT drive the Steelers would have had the kick off and less than 1:00 to drive down field and score a TD.
Can't ask for a better situation than that.
Again, you play with what is dealt in the 4th quarter.

At 3:21, yes, I agree, its all about passing.
As to the initial drive that started in the 4th quarter.
We were definately trying to keep thier base package on the field and we were getting to the line quickly to ensure that didn't happen.

At one point, it was getting to a point I was starting to worry, 3 quick penalties in a row.




Yeah the penalties were killers this game.
It was so bad.
One thing I didn't even mention in my rant about penalties was the guy that actually took off a Viking player helmet then threw it like 10 yards.
How is that not a penalty?

i_bleed_purple
10-28-2009, 02:40 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall g*y on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.

Almost want to agree with you on that point, however, if you would have said that "the whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter when you are down by more than two scores", I would buy into it.

When your only down 3 to the defending SB champs in thier house, you keep managing the game especially if you are moving the ball.

Lets remember what was going on......

4th Quarter


Start Time Time Poss Drive Began # of Plays Yards Gained Result
14:08





7:45



MIN 4






15






73




Fumble
3:21






2:21



MIN 26






7






55




Int
0:54






0:54



MIN 37






5






36




End Reg

For some reason, our offense seemed to want to quicken the pace on how fast they could get to the line and get a play off.
I can see the rationale behind that, and it seemed to be working as we had several nice runs mixed in with the passes.


So saying that we were in a mode were we were trying to use less clock to catch up from being behind isn't exactly the right answer.
That is just as incorrect statement as saying the run wasn't working isn't right either.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20091025023&page=plays

We had them were we wanted them.
We were dictating to them and they weren't responding very well.
In the end, two bad decisions in that mode of operation were what spelled our doom.


I have to disagree with that.
Your statistic that you show is a great example.
Starting the 4th quarter the 1st drive lasted 7:45 when they were down by 3.
That is hardly a fast pace.
After that then there was the kick off return.
Then we stopped the Steelers and got the ball back with 3:21 left.
It isn't about managing the game at that point.
It is about passing.
And those passes drove down field 55 yards and ended with 1:00 left in the game (INT).
I don't think that is rushing.
I think that is like it should be if you ask me.
If they would have scored on the INT drive the Steelers would have had the kick off and less than 1:00 to drive down field and score a TD.
Can't ask for a better situation than that.
Again, you play with what is dealt in the 4th quarter.

At 3:21, yes, I agree, its all about passing.
As to the initial drive that started in the 4th quarter.
We were definately trying to keep thier base package on the field and we were getting to the line quickly to ensure that didn't happen.

At one point, it was getting to a point I was starting to worry, 3 quick penalties in a row.




Yeah the penalties were killers this game.
It was so bad.
One thing I didn't even mention in my rant about penalties was the guy that actually took off a Viking player helmet then threw it like 10 yards.
How is that not a penalty?


because the refs didn't want it to be.

Zeus
10-28-2009, 02:40 PM
"C" wrote:


Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


I bet you have that tatooed over your ass-crack.

=Z=

vikinggreg
10-28-2009, 02:42 PM
"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




51 is a lot of passes, I'd say too many, but if he's only getting picked 1 for every 76 attempts doesn't that go against the old he's an interception machine, too much of a gunslinger, Childress won't be able to keep him under control in his system?

Also

Vikings + Favre + 7 weeks = 6 and 1

So far I'm pretty happy with that one ;)

ejmat
10-28-2009, 02:43 PM
"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?

i_bleed_purple
10-28-2009, 02:44 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 02:45 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


I bet you have that tatooed over your ass-crack.

=Z=


Best statement of the day.
lol

marstc09
10-28-2009, 02:46 PM
"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Hard to see your point when your source is wrong. It was 50 attempts.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 02:46 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


I bet you have that tatooed over your ass-crack.

=Z=


Best statement of the day.
lol


I guess when you don't have an argument, cracking jokes is fun too.

And no, my tattoo is elephant ears around my dick.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 02:47 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 02:47 PM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:
























Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


So because Vito Stellino from The Florida Times-Union agrees with you, it makes others opinions false? There was nothing wrong with the decision to throw more than run. There was a problem with the decision to throw on the 1/2 yard line.


Hmm...

A professional sports writer agreeing with me?

Or a PPO member disagreeing with me?


Yeah, I feel fine in my stance.


How about the other sports writerS that don't share your point of view.
Again take one out of many and call it a tell all.
Yeah that makes me feel better.

::)
What a joke!!!!


lol... It must burn you up inside.


What?
The fact you ignore so many things and only concentrate on one little thing that you "believe" validates your point?
Not really.
It just shows how you are hypocritical by calling others myopic when you are the one that is yourself.
I don't see you quoted the articles that don't agree with your point of view.
At least I quote articles that agree and disagree.

You never answered my question either?
Do you think the Vikings would be 6-1 without Favre this year?
If you do you would be the only person here or anywhere else for that matter that does.
But let's see your response to the question.
It will probably be most entertaining.


No, I don't think the Vikings would be 6-1 with Brett Favre... but what does that have anything to do with what I'm saying? All I said was it was a bad idea to throw the ball 50+ times with a 40-year old QB... especially when he was just brought in to "manage the game..." To add to that, Peterson didn't even get 20 carries and we threw the ball from the 1/2 yard line. Both plays that resulted in Pitt defensive TD's were passing attempts. I'm mostly blaming Childress and Bevell for this.

Trying to sway the issue by saying, "would we be 6-1 without Favre?" just shows me that you have nothing left to add to the topic at hand and are grasping at straws.


BTW, we'd be 7-0 with Jackson. lol.


LOL.
I disagree with the with the 7-0 gesture with TJ but it would be a good thing.
Maybe 4-3 but who knows.

Again, I agree throwing the ball that much isn't the best.
We've all said that.
But you have to go by the situation of the game.
You can blame Childress, Bevell or Favre.
I know you like to do that.
In the 4th quarter you have to go with the flow of the game.
AP was pretty much stymied all game except for a couple of decent runs and a great bulldoze run-over of Randall Gay on a screen.


The whole manage the game thing goes away when you are down in the 4th quarter.
You manage the game when you are up.
As far as giving the ball to AP on the 1 yard line I will agree with that and have agreed with that.
However keep in mind they handed the ball to him twice on the goal line and he didn't make it in.
Would I have handed it to him again?
Probably but hind-sight is 20/20.
He still threw a nice pass that was dropped by Kleinny so if that was a catch like it should have been this wouldn't be part of the conversation.
I suppose if Kleinny caught the ball it would have been okay with you?
Therefore you cannot blame Favre, Childress or Bevell for that.
If you want to point a finger Kleinny would be the one to point it at.


Deciding to throw the ball 50+ times lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Disagree. No way in hell that lost us the game. The Brett Favre INT/ Taylor drop, passing on the 1/2 yard line, and the fumble lost us the game. Plain and simple.


Both passing plays, no?


50-2=48

4% sucked and were factors in costing us the game. When Peterson fumbles, I don't hear you saying we should pass more. Shit happens. Passing more than running did not cost us the game. Turnovers did. These can happen when running or passing. Blame Favre if you want, but don't blame passing 50 times.


Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Those law of averages don't seem to be the norm for Favre this year. He is 8th in attempts per game and 5th in total attempts. He is at the bottom of the league in INTs. We lost the turnover battle, hence, we lost the game. We have lost games because the turnovers of Peterson as well. So should we run less? I am confused.


If you think 50 pass attempts is the same as 24 attempts per game, then yes... you are confused.


What are you even talking about?

i_bleed_purple
10-28-2009, 02:48 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


I bet you have that tatooed over your ass-crack.

=Z=


Best statement of the day.
lol


I guess when you don't have an argument, cracking jokes is fun too.

And no, my tattoo is elephant ears around my dick.


I've never heard of a trunkless elephant, that tatoo seems like a waste of money if you ask me.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 02:49 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:




Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.


You're as stubborn as a mule.

Family Guy-Stubborn As A Mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4V1OlleRA#)


Sums up PPO perfectly.
;D

Zeus
10-28-2009, 02:49 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


I bet you have that tatooed over your ass-crack.


Best statement of the day.
lol


I guess when you don't have an argument, cracking jokes is fun too.

And no, my tattoo is elephant ears around my dick.


Well - you do always like to go for humor over accuracy.

=Z=

marstc09
10-28-2009, 02:50 PM
"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:






Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.


You're as stubborn as a mule.

Family Guy-Stubborn As A Mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4V1OlleRA#)


Only if you refuse to agree with the basic logic presented to you.

Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


What basic logic? Many teams have won passing more than running, including us this year.

echizen20
10-28-2009, 02:52 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:




Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the kaka del rio powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.


You're as stubborn as a mule.

Family Guy-Stubborn As A Mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4V1OlleRA#)


Hehehehehehe, that is funny my man.
I don't want to get involve with some of these arguments but I think we all need to relax and do some koom bah ya my lord.
Everyone has their own opinions whether it is right or wrong or logical or illogical or agreeable or unagreeable or etc.
Anyone can defend or criticize how they want with these posts because it is an open forum after all, but i like it when there is humor involved so i just wanted to comment on that clip and say that was pretty funny.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 02:52 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:




Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 02:53 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


I bet you have that tatooed over your ass-crack.

=Z=


Best statement of the day.
lol


I guess when you don't have an argument, cracking jokes is fun too.

And no, my tattoo is elephant ears around my dick.


Maybe rat ears.

i_bleed_purple
10-28-2009, 02:53 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:






Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


if its so obvoius, why are you one of the only people who think that?

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 02:54 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:








Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.


You're as stubborn as a mule.

Family Guy-Stubborn As A Mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4V1OlleRA#)


Only if you refuse to agree with the basic logic presented to you.

Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


What basic logic? Many teams have won passing more than running, including us this year.


Really? With a 40-year old QB? Who?

i_bleed_purple
10-28-2009, 02:55 PM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:










Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.


You're as stubborn as a mule.

Family Guy-Stubborn As A Mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4V1OlleRA#)


Only if you refuse to agree with the basic logic presented to you.

Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


What basic logic? Many teams have won passing more than running, including us this year.


Really? With a 40-year old QB? Who?


well, for starters we are.
Warren Moon did it.
There aren't alot of 40 year old QB's around, but the one we have is probably best known for his durability and longevity.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 02:56 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:








Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


if its so obvoius, why are you one of the only people who think that?


Oh, I'm sure others agree with me... it just pains them too much to admit it.

But, I guess I'll just have to learn that people on internet football forums may not agree with me... as hard as it may be to accept that. Tomorrow is a new day,
and I'll put a new foot forward... one step at a time.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 02:58 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:






Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


Obvious? What evidence have you presented that passing lost us the game other than a couple sports writers who are just like me or you? An idiot with a computer. Favre threw 46 times against the 49ers and we won! So 4 more passes caused us to lose a game? LOL, NO! Turnovers did.

i_bleed_purple
10-28-2009, 02:59 PM
"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:










Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


if its so obvoius, why are you one of the only people who think that?


Oh, I'm sure others agree with me... it just pains them too much to admit it.

But, I guess I'll just have to learn that people on internet football forums may not agree with me... as hard as it may be to accept that. Tomorrow is a new day,
and I'll put a new foot forward... one step at a time.


you're probably right.

Quick question for you though, in a game where we were struggling running the ball, but put up 334 yards passing, why would we start running more?
Seems to me the only reason we were in position to score was because we could pass effectively.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 02:59 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:












Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.


You're as stubborn as a mule.

Family Guy-Stubborn As A Mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4V1OlleRA#)


Only if you refuse to agree with the basic logic presented to you.

Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


What basic logic? Many teams have won passing more than running, including us this year.


Really? With a 40-year old QB? Who?


well, for starters we are.
Warren Moon did it.
There aren't alot of 40 year old QB's around, but the one we have is probably best known for his durability and longevity.


Actually... no he didn't.

Warren Moon never had one game with 50+ passing attempts in his 40's. His coaches were far too smart for that.

I'm sure people will say I'm wrong about this too.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MoonWa00/gamelog/

echizen20
10-28-2009, 03:01 PM
"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:










Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


if its so obvoius, why are you one of the only people who think that?


Oh, I'm sure others agree with me... it just pains them too much to admit it.

But, I guess I'll just have to learn that people on internet football forums may not agree with me... as hard as it may be to accept that. Tomorrow is a new day,
and I'll put a new foot forward... one step at a time.


Yes, tomorrow is a new day, so lets end today on a good note with some love.
I have a special movie for everyone.
Lets all just show some love to each other and to Cmac.
Enjoy!

Lets Get It On: Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris = Love (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrOJBlSRRZ0#)

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 03:01 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:












Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


if its so obvoius, why are you one of the only people who think that?


Oh, I'm sure others agree with me... it just pains them too much to admit it.

But, I guess I'll just have to learn that people on internet football forums may not agree with me... as hard as it may be to accept that. Tomorrow is a new day,
and I'll put a new foot forward... one step at a time.


you're probably right.

Quick question for you though, in a game where we were struggling running the ball, but put up 334 yards passing, why would we start running more?
Seems to me the only reason we were in position to score was because we could pass effectively.


I definitely would have run on the 1/2 yard line... or on first down after Peterson plowed his way though to the first down marker... which left me scratching my head at the time.

But whatever, you guys would rather have 50 passing attempts and lose. I get it.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 03:02 PM
"echizen20" wrote:


Yes, tomorrow is a new day, so lets end today on a good note with some love.
I have a special movie for everyone.
Lets all just show some love to each other and to Cmac.
Enjoy!

Lets Get It On: Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris = Love (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrOJBlSRRZ0#)


Ha... that video is awesome.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 03:02 PM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:










Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.


You're as stubborn as a mule.

Family Guy-Stubborn As A Mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4V1OlleRA#)


Only if you refuse to agree with the basic logic presented to you.

Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


What basic logic? Many teams have won passing more than running, including us this year.


Really? With a 40-year old QB? Who?


The 2009 Minnesota Vikings. The Lions, 49ers, Green Bay, and Rams games.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 03:07 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:












Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.


You're as stubborn as a mule.

Family Guy-Stubborn As A Mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4V1OlleRA#)


Only if you refuse to agree with the basic logic presented to you.

Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


What basic logic? Many teams have won passing more than running, including us this year.


Really? With a 40-year old QB? Who?


The 2009 Minnesota Vikings. The Lions, 49ers, Green Bay, and Rams games.


All those teams are winning with 40 year old QBs thowing over 50 times?

Wow... had no idea Aaron Rogers was 40. He looks great for his age.

i_bleed_purple
10-28-2009, 03:12 PM
"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:














Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.


You're as stubborn as a mule.

Family Guy-Stubborn As A Mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4V1OlleRA#)


Only if you refuse to agree with the basic logic presented to you.

Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


What basic logic? Many teams have won passing more than running, including us this year.


Really? With a 40-year old QB? Who?


well, for starters we are.
Warren Moon did it.
There aren't alot of 40 year old QB's around, but the one we have is probably best known for his durability and longevity.


Actually... no he didn't.

Warren Moon never had one game with 50+ passing attempts in his 40's. His coaches were far too smart for that.

I'm sure people will say I'm wrong about this too.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MoonWa00/gamelog/


in 1997 at the age of 41, he averaged 33 attempts per game.
He also threw games of 40, 44, 45, 45 and 46 attempts.

In those games he was 3-2.


Sure, its not 50 times, but it is more than they ran, which is what the question is.
Its fairly convenient that you can change a question when the answer isn't what you wanted.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 03:12 PM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:














Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.


You're as stubborn as a mule.

Family Guy-Stubborn As A Mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4V1OlleRA#)


Only if you refuse to agree with the basic logic presented to you.

Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


What basic logic? Many teams have won passing more than running, including us this year.


Really? With a 40-year old QB? Who?


The 2009 Minnesota Vikings. The Lions, 49ers, Green Bay, and Rams games.


All those teams are winning with 40 year old QBs thowing over 50 times?

Wow... had no idea Aaron Rogers was 40. He looks great for his age.


What the fuck are you even talking about? I listed all the games we won passing more than running. I am sure many teams have won like that this year. What the fuck does age have to do with winning and passing more than running in a game?

marstc09
10-28-2009, 03:13 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:
















Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




Lol!
Saying the pros agree with you, then linking to the bullshit powerrankings is laughable.


Don't care about the rankings, but they are clearly right.

50+ pass attempts for Favre = loss.


You're as stubborn as a mule.

Family Guy-Stubborn As A Mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4V1OlleRA#)


Only if you refuse to agree with the basic logic presented to you.

Most people just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.


What basic logic? Many teams have won passing more than running, including us this year.


Really? With a 40-year old QB? Who?


well, for starters we are.
Warren Moon did it.
There aren't alot of 40 year old QB's around, but the one we have is probably best known for his durability and longevity.


Actually... no he didn't.

Warren Moon never had one game with 50+ passing attempts in his 40's. His coaches were far too smart for that.

I'm sure people will say I'm wrong about this too.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MoonWa00/gamelog/


in 1997 at the age of 41, he averaged 33 attempts per game.
He also threw games of 40, 44, 45, 45 and 46 attempts.

In those games he was 3-2.


Sure, its not 50 times, but it is more than they ran, which is what the question is.
Its fairly convenient that you can change a question when the answer isn't what you wanted.


EXACTLY!

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 03:14 PM
lol... cracking me up. You's guys is great.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 03:14 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:






Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


Flimsy at best.
I have several arguments on here that you continue choosing to ignore.
I don't attack you or the article. I
disagree with you and the article as does other people here and other sports writers.
Again, for the umpteenth time, 50 passes is a lot of attempts for Favre.
What makes you think I don't agree with that.
However, different circumstances call for different things.
So with your theory against the flow of the game you believe they should run the ball no matter what?

I have just as much as a right to my opinions and "argument" as you have to yours.
Don't come in here and tell me I have no argument or that one of my many arguments are flimsy.
You are the one basing your argument on one aspect of the game.
Where have I attacked you?
Why are you always the Whoa is me person?
Poor CMac.
Everyone attacks him.
Do you ever wonder why people reply to your posts like they do?
There is a reason for that and if you don't like it I would suggest go somewhere else and post.
Your coworkers seem to laugh at, I mean with you.
Talk to them instead of posting.

I basically showed you that Favre had more yards per pass attempt than Peterson had per rushing attempt.
So to use your logic how are you proving the Vikings would have been in the game if Favre doesn't throw 50 times?
How in hell does that make you right?
I am sure I can find a game where a QB threw for 50 passes and they won.
What the hell does it prove?
Not a damn thing.

If anyone is making their argument look bad it is you.
How many people here agree with your argument that "the Vikings lost because Favre threw 50 times.
Plain and simple"?
Isn't that your argument.
It is not plain and simple just like TJs QB rating of 95.5 for 5.5 games in 2008 doesn't say he is a good QB plain and simply as you try to make it out.

You are taking one aspect of the game and trying to say that is why the Vikings lost.
People are saying that it is one aspect of the game that contributed to the loss.
So were other variables that I and others have already explained.
You always have to be so black and white that it blinds you to even listen to another person's opinion.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 03:16 PM
"C" wrote:


lol... cracking me up. You's guys is great.


Plain and simple.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 03:16 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:








Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


Flimsy at best.
I have several arguments on here that you continue choosing to ignore.
I don't attack you or the article. I
disagree with you and the article as does other people here and other sports writers.
Again, for the umpteenth time, 50 passes is a lot of attempts for Favre.
What makes you think I don't agree with that.
However, different circumstances call for different things.
So with your theory against the flow of the game you believe they should run the ball no matter what?

I have just as much as a right to my opinions and "argument" as you have to yours.
Don't come in here and tell me I have no argument or that one of my many arguments are flimsy.
You are the one basing your argument on one aspect of the game.
Where have I attacked you?
Why are you always the Whoa is me person?
Poor CMac.
Everyone attacks him.
Do you ever wonder why people reply to your posts like they do?
There is a reason for that and if you don't like it I would suggest go somewhere else and post.
Your coworkers seem to laugh at, I mean with you.
Talk to them instead of posting.

I basically showed you that Favre had more yards per pass attempt than Peterson had per rushing attempt.
So to use your logic how are you proving the Vikings would have been in the game if Favre doesn't throw 50 times?
How in hell does that make you right?
I am sure I can find a game where a QB threw for 50 passes and they won.
What the hell does it prove?
Not a damn thing.

If anyone is making their argument look bad it is you.
How many people here agree with your argument that "the Vikings lost because Favre threw 50 times.
Plain and simple"?
Isn't that your argument.
It is not plain and simple just like TJs QB rating of 95.5 for 5.5 games in 2008 doesn't say he is a good QB plain and simply as you try to make it out.

You are taking one aspect of the game and trying to say that is why the Vikings lost.
People are saying that it is one aspect of the game that contributed to the loss.
So were other variables that I and others have already explained.
You always have to be so black and white that it blinds you to even listen to another person's opinion.



Well, golly... I guess passing 50 times and losing is justified!

So much for, "Favre only has to manage the game..." lol...

jmcdon00
10-28-2009, 03:18 PM
Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).

Zeus
10-28-2009, 03:18 PM
"C" wrote:


Well, golly... I guess passing 50 times and losing is justified!

So much for, "Favre only has to manage the game..." lol...


You take what the defense gives you.


And no actual Vikings player, coach or team representative EVER said "manage the game".


=Z=

ejmat
10-28-2009, 03:19 PM
"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:














Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


if its so obvoius, why are you one of the only people who think that?


Oh, I'm sure others agree with me... it just pains them too much to admit it.

But, I guess I'll just have to learn that people on internet football forums may not agree with me... as hard as it may be to accept that. Tomorrow is a new day,
and I'll put a new foot forward... one step at a time.


you're probably right.

Quick question for you though, in a game where we were struggling running the ball, but put up 334 yards passing, why would we start running more?
Seems to me the only reason we were in position to score was because we could pass effectively.


I definitely would have run on the 1/2 yard line... or on first down after Peterson plowed his way though to the first down marker... which left me scratching my head at the time.

But whatever, you guys would rather have 50 passing attempts and lose. I get it.


I know it isn't my first time posting this but AP had 2 chances to get the ball in inside the 1 yard line.
It didn't work either time.
How do you
know and what evidence do you have that says if he would have tried again he would have made it with a higher probably that Favre throwing wouldn't?
I am pretty sure before this game that Favre has been very successful in the redzone which includes a TD pass from the 1 yard line.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 03:19 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Shhh.... let them think they are right... it's adorable.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 03:21 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


So you can win games? Interesting.

Braddock
10-28-2009, 03:22 PM
This has turned less a debate on the Vikings, and more C Mac craving attention.

Oy

marstc09
10-28-2009, 03:22 PM
"C" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Shhh.... let them think they are right... it's adorable.


Did I ever say I was right? You did though. It is just my opinion that we lost due to turnovers, penalties, and not trying to run on the 1/2 yard line. Not because we passed more than running. Pretty simple concept.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 03:25 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:










Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


Flimsy at best.
I have several arguments on here that you continue choosing to ignore.
I don't attack you or the article. I
disagree with you and the article as does other people here and other sports writers.
Again, for the umpteenth time, 50 passes is a lot of attempts for Favre.
What makes you think I don't agree with that.
However, different circumstances call for different things.
So with your theory against the flow of the game you believe they should run the ball no matter what?

I have just as much as a right to my opinions and "argument" as you have to yours.
Don't come in here and tell me I have no argument or that one of my many arguments are flimsy.
You are the one basing your argument on one aspect of the game.
Where have I attacked you?
Why are you always the Whoa is me person?
Poor CMac.
Everyone attacks him.
Do you ever wonder why people reply to your posts like they do?
There is a reason for that and if you don't like it I would suggest go somewhere else and post.
Your coworkers seem to laugh at, I mean with you.
Talk to them instead of posting.

I basically showed you that Favre had more yards per pass attempt than Peterson had per rushing attempt.
So to use your logic how are you proving the Vikings would have been in the game if Favre doesn't throw 50 times?
How in hell does that make you right?
I am sure I can find a game where a QB threw for 50 passes and they won.
What the hell does it prove?
Not a damn thing.

If anyone is making their argument look bad it is you.
How many people here agree with your argument that "the Vikings lost because Favre threw 50 times.
Plain and simple"?
Isn't that your argument.
It is not plain and simple just like TJs QB rating of 95.5 for 5.5 games in 2008 doesn't say he is a good QB plain and simply as you try to make it out.

You are taking one aspect of the game and trying to say that is why the Vikings lost.
People are saying that it is one aspect of the game that contributed to the loss.
So were other variables that I and others have already explained.
You always have to be so black and white that it blinds you to even listen to another person's opinion.



Well, golly... I guess passing 50 times and losing is justified!

So much for, "Favre only has to manage the game..." lol...


Great come back but you still fail to answer any of the logical questions asked in the post.
You have nothing to prove throwing the ball 50 times is what lost this game.
That is merely your "flimsy" opinion

ejmat
10-28-2009, 03:27 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 03:30 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:












Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


Flimsy at best.
I have several arguments on here that you continue choosing to ignore.
I don't attack you or the article. I
disagree with you and the article as does other people here and other sports writers.
Again, for the umpteenth time, 50 passes is a lot of attempts for Favre.
What makes you think I don't agree with that.
However, different circumstances call for different things.
So with your theory against the flow of the game you believe they should run the ball no matter what?

I have just as much as a right to my opinions and "argument" as you have to yours.
Don't come in here and tell me I have no argument or that one of my many arguments are flimsy.
You are the one basing your argument on one aspect of the game.
Where have I attacked you?
Why are you always the Whoa is me person?
Poor CMac.
Everyone attacks him.
Do you ever wonder why people reply to your posts like they do?
There is a reason for that and if you don't like it I would suggest go somewhere else and post.
Your coworkers seem to laugh at, I mean with you.
Talk to them instead of posting.

I basically showed you that Favre had more yards per pass attempt than Peterson had per rushing attempt.
So to use your logic how are you proving the Vikings would have been in the game if Favre doesn't throw 50 times?
How in hell does that make you right?
I am sure I can find a game where a QB threw for 50 passes and they won.
What the hell does it prove?
Not a damn thing.

If anyone is making their argument look bad it is you.
How many people here agree with your argument that "the Vikings lost because Favre threw 50 times.
Plain and simple"?
Isn't that your argument.
It is not plain and simple just like TJs QB rating of 95.5 for 5.5 games in 2008 doesn't say he is a good QB plain and simply as you try to make it out.

You are taking one aspect of the game and trying to say that is why the Vikings lost.
People are saying that it is one aspect of the game that contributed to the loss.
So were other variables that I and others have already explained.
You always have to be so black and white that it blinds you to even listen to another person's opinion.



Well, golly... I guess passing 50 times and losing is justified!

So much for, "Favre only has to manage the game..." lol...


Great come back but you still fail to answer any of the logical questions asked in the post.
You have nothing to prove throwing the ball 50 times is what lost this game.
That is merely your "flimsy" opinion


Having professional sports writers from across the country agree with me is enough. I'm not really concerned if you disagree or want me to prove something...
seems to me that it's mostly the same crowd that was telling me Sage Rosenfells was our answer... lol. Sorry if I'm just not too worried about your opinion.

I've proven my point beyond a reasonable doubt in this thread... even with cited sources that agree with me.

But yes, the high number of pass attempts is what lost us this game. Poor planning and poor execution.

And as jmcdon00 stated...


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).

marstc09
10-28-2009, 03:31 PM
Glad that is over. Good to see C Mac lost again.
;D

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 03:32 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


Glad that is over. Good to see C Mac lost again.
;D


lol? True sign of zero argument.

OK.. so, I guess... we... won... last... week?

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 03:34 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 03:34 PM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


Glad that is over. Good to see C Mac lost again.
;D


lol?

OK, I guess... we... won... last... week?


We did. The refs prevented us from the actual statistic. No big deal we are 6-1.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 03:36 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


You are right. He shouldn't. Still not the reason we lost.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1149/761428854_abbd9d7de5.jpg

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 03:37 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


You are right. He shouldn't. Still not the reason we lost.



OK, that's fair enough.

marstc09
10-28-2009, 03:38 PM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


You are right. He shouldn't. Still not the reason we lost.



OK, that's fair enough.



Can we turn to porn now?

Zeus
10-28-2009, 03:39 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


According to Cold Hard Football Facts.com, NO QB should pass over 50 times a game.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2818_The_true_Mad_Bomber.html


The desperation of 50 attempts

But 50 attempts is a whole different stratosphere, one rarely if ever called for in a game plan.

Fifty attempts is a sign that 1) your defense is playing very poorly so you're locked in a shootout, or 2) that your team simply can’t run the ball, or that 3) your team has completely abandoned the running game based upon circumstances – namely a big deficit. In all these cases, the chances of victory are slim.

Teams in these circumstances are desperate – much like the Patriots were desperate last night, trailing 24-13 in the final
minutes. Quarterbacks in these circumstances are also desperate. They play frantically. They take risks they wouldn't take in other circumstances. They make poor decisions. They throw bad passes to well-covered receivers. They make mistakes that lose games.
This description applies to almost everybody in the history of the game – except for Brady and a small handful of others.

And here are the Cold, Hard, Football Facts (I love that site):

(Trimmed the chart from the article)


Notable gunslingers when attempting 50-plus passes - includes postseason (alphabetical order)
Player Record

Tom Brady 7-2
Drew Brees 1-4
Jake Delhomme 0-1
Brett Favre 3-8
Dan Fouts
3-2
Jim Kelly 0-4

Bernie Kosar 2-0
P.Manning
1-7
Dan Marino 5-11
D. McNabb 3-1-1

Joe Montana 2-3
Warren Moon
Joe Namath 0-4-1
Big Ben 0-1
Kurt Warner 1-3

NONE OF WHICH, BTW, proves your assertion that passing 50 times in the game cost the Vikings the W.

=Z=

Zeus
10-28-2009, 03:41 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


Glad that is over. Good to see C Mac lost again.
;D


lol?

OK, I guess... we... won... last... week?


We did. The refs prevented us from the actual statistic. No big deal we are 6-1.


If I had a spreadsheet, I'd blank out your cell for that 1st grade "The Refs screwed us!" remark.

=Z=

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 03:44 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


According to Cold Hard Football Facts.com, NO QB should pass over 50 times a game.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2818_The_true_Mad_Bomber.html


The desperation of 50 attempts

But 50 attempts is a whole different stratosphere, one rarely if ever called for in a game plan.

Fifty attempts is a sign that 1) your defense is playing very poorly so you're locked in a shootout, or 2) that your team simply can’t run the ball, or that 3) your team has completely abandoned the running game based upon circumstances – namely a big deficit. In all these cases, the chances of victory are slim.

Teams in these circumstances are desperate – much like the Patriots were desperate last night, trailing 24-13 in the final
minutes. Quarterbacks in these circumstances are also desperate. They play frantically. They take risks they wouldn't take in other circumstances. They make poor decisions. They throw bad passes to well-covered receivers. They make mistakes that lose games.
This description applies to almost everybody in the history of the game – except for Brady and a small handful of others.

And here are the Cold, Hard, Football Facts (I love that site):

(Trimmed the chart from the article)


Notable gunslingers when attempting 50-plus passes - includes postseason (alphabetical order)
Player Record

Tom Brady 7-2
Drew Brees 1-4
Jake Delhomme 0-1
Brett Favre 3-8
Dan Fouts
3-2
Jim Kelly 0-4

Bernie Kosar 2-0
P.Manning
1-7
Dan Marino 5-11
D. McNabb 3-1-1

Joe Montana 2-3
Warren Moon
Joe Namath 0-4-1
Big Ben 0-1
Kurt Warner 1-3

NONE OF WHICH, BTW, proves your assertion that passing 50 times in the game cost the Vikings the W.

=Z=


lol... I see reading comprehension is a problem across the site today.

"C" wrote:


I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Zeus
10-28-2009, 03:46 PM
"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


According to Cold Hard Football Facts.com, NO QB should pass over 50 times a game.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2818_The_true_Mad_Bomber.html


The desperation of 50 attempts

But 50 attempts is a whole different stratosphere, one rarely if ever called for in a game plan.

Fifty attempts is a sign that 1) your defense is playing very poorly so you're locked in a shootout, or 2) that your team simply can’t run the ball, or that 3) your team has completely abandoned the running game based upon circumstances – namely a big deficit. In all these cases, the chances of victory are slim.

Teams in these circumstances are desperate – much like the Patriots were desperate last night, trailing 24-13 in the final
minutes. Quarterbacks in these circumstances are also desperate. They play frantically. They take risks they wouldn't take in other circumstances. They make poor decisions. They throw bad passes to well-covered receivers. They make mistakes that lose games.
This description applies to almost everybody in the history of the game – except for Brady and a small handful of others.

And here are the Cold, Hard, Football Facts (I love that site):

(Trimmed the chart from the article)


Notable gunslingers when attempting 50-plus passes - includes postseason (alphabetical order)
Player Record

Tom Brady 7-2
Drew Brees 1-4
Jake Delhomme 0-1
Brett Favre 3-8
Dan Fouts
3-2
Jim Kelly 0-4

Bernie Kosar 2-0
P.Manning
1-7
Dan Marino 5-11
D. McNabb 3-1-1

Joe Montana 2-3
Warren Moon
Joe Namath 0-4-1
Big Ben 0-1
Kurt Warner 1-3

NONE OF WHICH, BTW, proves your assertion that passing 50 times in the game cost the Vikings the W.

=Z=


lol... I see reading comprehension is a problem across the site today.

"C" wrote:


I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.


Yes, and I countered with definitive statistical analysis that clearly shows that 50 attempts in a game is bad for any NFL QB at any age.
So, no matter how much bolding and re-sizing you insert, his age is not really relevant when judged against the historical trends.

=Z=

marstc09
10-28-2009, 03:46 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


Glad that is over. Good to see C Mac lost again.
;D


lol?

OK, I guess... we... won... last... week?


We did. The refs prevented us from the actual statistic. No big deal we are 6-1.


If I had a spreadsheet, I'd blank out your cell for that 1st grade "The Refs screwed us!" remark.

=Z=


Thanks.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 03:47 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:




Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


According to Cold Hard Football Facts.com, NO QB should pass over 50 times a game.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2818_The_true_Mad_Bomber.html


The desperation of 50 attempts

But 50 attempts is a whole different stratosphere, one rarely if ever called for in a game plan.

Fifty attempts is a sign that 1) your defense is playing very poorly so you're locked in a shootout, or 2) that your team simply can’t run the ball, or that 3) your team has completely abandoned the running game based upon circumstances – namely a big deficit. In all these cases, the chances of victory are slim.

Teams in these circumstances are desperate – much like the Patriots were desperate last night, trailing 24-13 in the final
minutes. Quarterbacks in these circumstances are also desperate. They play frantically. They take risks they wouldn't take in other circumstances. They make poor decisions. They throw bad passes to well-covered receivers. They make mistakes that lose games.
This description applies to almost everybody in the history of the game – except for Brady and a small handful of others.

And here are the Cold, Hard, Football Facts (I love that site):

(Trimmed the chart from the article)


Notable gunslingers when attempting 50-plus passes - includes postseason (alphabetical order)
Player Record

Tom Brady 7-2
Drew Brees 1-4
Jake Delhomme 0-1
Brett Favre 3-8
Dan Fouts
3-2
Jim Kelly 0-4

Bernie Kosar 2-0
P.Manning
1-7
Dan Marino 5-11
D. McNabb 3-1-1

Joe Montana 2-3
Warren Moon
Joe Namath 0-4-1
Big Ben 0-1
Kurt Warner 1-3

NONE OF WHICH, BTW, proves your assertion that passing 50 times in the game cost the Vikings the W.

=Z=


lol... I see reading comprehension is a problem across the site today.

"C" wrote:


I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.


Yes, and I countered with definitive statistical analysis that clearly shows that 50 attempts in a game is bad for any NFL QB at any age.
So, no matter how much bolding and re-sizing you insert, his age is not really relevant when judged against the historical trends.

=Z=


So... you're agreeing with me?

That... just can't be true.

jmcdon00
10-28-2009, 03:48 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.

Not my intent to prove or disprove Cmac. Just putting off all the work I should be doing a little longer.

Peyton Manning throwing 50+ times:
1-6, 19int, never thrown 50 times with out an interception.

Zeus
10-28-2009, 03:50 PM
"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:






Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


According to Cold Hard Football Facts.com, NO QB should pass over 50 times a game.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2818_The_true_Mad_Bomber.html


The desperation of 50 attempts

But 50 attempts is a whole different stratosphere, one rarely if ever called for in a game plan.

Fifty attempts is a sign that 1) your defense is playing very poorly so you're locked in a shootout, or 2) that your team simply can’t run the ball, or that 3) your team has completely abandoned the running game based upon circumstances – namely a big deficit. In all these cases, the chances of victory are slim.

Teams in these circumstances are desperate – much like the Patriots were desperate last night, trailing 24-13 in the final
minutes. Quarterbacks in these circumstances are also desperate. They play frantically. They take risks they wouldn't take in other circumstances. They make poor decisions. They throw bad passes to well-covered receivers. They make mistakes that lose games.
This description applies to almost everybody in the history of the game – except for Brady and a small handful of others.

And here are the Cold, Hard, Football Facts (I love that site):

(Trimmed the chart from the article)


Notable gunslingers when attempting 50-plus passes - includes postseason (alphabetical order)
Player Record

Tom Brady 7-2
Drew Brees 1-4
Jake Delhomme 0-1
Brett Favre 3-8
Dan Fouts
3-2
Jim Kelly 0-4

Bernie Kosar 2-0
P.Manning
1-7
Dan Marino 5-11
D. McNabb 3-1-1

Joe Montana 2-3
Warren Moon
Joe Namath 0-4-1
Big Ben 0-1
Kurt Warner 1-3

NONE OF WHICH, BTW, proves your assertion that passing 50 times in the game cost the Vikings the W.

=Z=


lol... I see reading comprehension is a problem across the site today.

"C" wrote:


I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.


Yes, and I countered with definitive statistical analysis that clearly shows that 50 attempts in a game is bad for any NFL QB at any age.
So, no matter how much bolding and re-sizing you insert, his age is not really relevant when judged against the historical trends.


So... you're agreeing with me?

That... just can't be true.


Quite the contrary.
I'm disagreeing with your "40-year-old" babbling and using actual statistical evidence to support my stance.

I'm also disagreeing with your claim that "those 2 plays cost us (sic) the game" (that was elsewhere today).

And I'm using the overwhelming lack of hot FB female support on your page to counter the "elephant dick" remark, as well.

=Z=

Zeus
10-28-2009, 03:50 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.

Not my intent to prove or disprove Cmac. Just putting off all the work I should be doing a little longer.

Peyton Manning throwing 50+ times:
1-6, 19int, never thrown 50 times with out an interception.


1-7.
See my link to the Cold, Hard, Football Facts website.

=Z=

echizen20
10-28-2009, 03:51 PM
http://hoboken411.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/please-do-not-feed-the-hoboken-trolls.jpg

NodakPaul
10-28-2009, 03:54 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:




Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


You are right. He shouldn't. Still not the reason we lost.



OK, that's fair enough.



Can we turn to porn now?


I did that 7 pages ago...

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 03:56 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


And I'm using the overwhelming lack of hot FB female support on your page to counter the "elephant dick" remark, as well.

=Z=


Big ears, small trunk.

jmcdon00
10-28-2009, 04:02 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.

Not my intent to prove or disprove Cmac. Just putting off all the work I should be doing a little longer.

Peyton Manning throwing 50+ times:
1-6, 19int, never thrown 50 times with out an interception.


1-7.
See my link to the Cold, Hard, Football Facts website.

=Z=

Ah, that probably beats looking through game logs, I probably missed a playoff game.
I see I was off on Favre too. Original I figured 3-8, but I wrote down all the interceptions, and there were 12 so I took a stab at it.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 05:40 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


What is the difference if a QB is 40 or 35 or 25 for that matter?
If the QB can still play he can still play.
Your point means nothing.
Absolutely nothing.

C Mac D
10-28-2009, 05:41 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


What is the difference if a QB is 40 or 35 or 25 for that matter?
If the QB can still play he can still play.
Your point means nothing.
Absolutely nothing.


What is the difference between a 40 year old QB and a 25 year old QB? 15 years.

lol...

vikinggreg
10-28-2009, 06:00 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


What is the difference if a QB is 40 or 35 or 25 for that matter?
If the QB can still play he can still play.
Your point means nothing.
Absolutely nothing.


What is the difference between a 40 year old QB and a 25 year old QB? 15 years.

lol...


So Jackson couldn't win a game with 30+ pass and he's 15 years younger or make it through a whole season healthy.
That 15 years hasn't made a difference for him.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 06:17 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:














Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


Flimsy at best.
I have several arguments on here that you continue choosing to ignore.
I don't attack you or the article. I
disagree with you and the article as does other people here and other sports writers.
Again, for the umpteenth time, 50 passes is a lot of attempts for Favre.
What makes you think I don't agree with that.
However, different circumstances call for different things.
So with your theory against the flow of the game you believe they should run the ball no matter what?

I have just as much as a right to my opinions and "argument" as you have to yours.
Don't come in here and tell me I have no argument or that one of my many arguments are flimsy.
You are the one basing your argument on one aspect of the game.
Where have I attacked you?
Why are you always the Whoa is me person?
Poor CMac.
Everyone attacks him.
Do you ever wonder why people reply to your posts like they do?
There is a reason for that and if you don't like it I would suggest go somewhere else and post.
Your coworkers seem to laugh at, I mean with you.
Talk to them instead of posting.

I basically showed you that Favre had more yards per pass attempt than Peterson had per rushing attempt.
So to use your logic how are you proving the Vikings would have been in the game if Favre doesn't throw 50 times?
How in hell does that make you right?
I am sure I can find a game where a QB threw for 50 passes and they won.
What the hell does it prove?
Not a damn thing.

If anyone is making their argument look bad it is you.
How many people here agree with your argument that "the Vikings lost because Favre threw 50 times.
Plain and simple"?
Isn't that your argument.
It is not plain and simple just like TJs QB rating of 95.5 for 5.5 games in 2008 doesn't say he is a good QB plain and simply as you try to make it out.

You are taking one aspect of the game and trying to say that is why the Vikings lost.
People are saying that it is one aspect of the game that contributed to the loss.
So were other variables that I and others have already explained.
You always have to be so black and white that it blinds you to even listen to another person's opinion.



Well, golly... I guess passing 50 times and losing is justified!

So much for, "Favre only has to manage the game..." lol...


Great come back but you still fail to answer any of the logical questions asked in the post.
You have nothing to prove throwing the ball 50 times is what lost this game.
That is merely your "flimsy" opinion


Having professional sports writers from across the country agree with me is enough. I'm not really concerned if you disagree or want me to prove something...
seems to me that it's mostly the same crowd that was telling me Sage Rosenfells was our answer... lol. Sorry if I'm just not too worried about your opinion.

I've proven my point beyond a reasonable doubt in this thread... even with cited sources that agree with me.

But yes, the high number of pass attempts is what lost us this game. Poor planning and poor execution.

And as jmcdon00 stated...


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


And there are other professional sports writers that don't agree.
Who is right?
Le me ask again.
If these "professional sports writers" are such "experts" as you call them, why aren't they coaching?
I would think if they knew so much about the game they would be coaching instead of writing.

And you were trying to say TJ was the answer.
What's the difference?
Are you trying to take a non concurrent 4 quarters of preseason football to say TJ is better than Sage?
Give it up already.

You have no idea of the game plan.
We went into a hostile crowd at the world champion Steelers and beat them offensively and defensively.
Unfortunately the score didn't go our way because of a variety of variables that you refuse to acknowledge.
We had more yardage offensively and gave up less yardage defensively.
Yes htat was by throwing the ball 50 times.


Again if you believe the Vikings throwing the ball 50 times is the sole reason why they lost the game so be it.
How is that not myopic?
You know that word you like to call others?
You still have not been able to prove, although you've been asked several times, how that is the sole reason for the Vikings losing.
Hell they didn't throw 50 times last week yet you were pretty adamant that they should have lost.
Your reasoning was because they were conservative.
So your logic contradicts itself.
Here they weren't conservative and they lost.
To me and others the only thing you are trying to do is find fault with Favre or Childress.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 06:20 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.

Not my intent to prove or disprove Cmac. Just putting off all the work I should be doing a little longer.

Peyton Manning throwing 50+ times:
1-6, 19int, never thrown 50 times with out an interception.


I know my friend.
Didn't know about the work thing but I knew you were just throwing out an unbiased fact.

ejmat
10-28-2009, 06:23 PM
"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


What is the difference if a QB is 40 or 35 or 25 for that matter?
If the QB can still play he can still play.
Your point means nothing.
Absolutely nothing.


What is the difference between a 40 year old QB and a 25 year old QB? 15 years.

lol...


LOL.
You are correct there.
Can't argue that point.

Purple Floyd
10-28-2009, 07:18 PM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


Not sure if anyone noticed the comments on ESPN's Power Rankings...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2009&week=8


Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson. (Chadiha)

Yup.


I thought you were the one that rips on ESPN all the time.


Oh, I am... but this one was so obvious, even they recognized it.


Now that is the classic CmacD. Funny as hell

Purple Floyd
10-28-2009, 07:35 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


Ah so what you are saying is a team can throw 50 times and actually win a game.
I guess that disproves CMac's theory right there.


Proof that you are not reading my posts whatsoever.

I said a 40-year old QB shouldn't be passing 50 times.

Please read the posts. No wonder you've been disagreeing with me so much.


According to Cold Hard Football Facts.com, NO QB should pass over 50 times a game.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2818_The_true_Mad_Bomber.html


The desperation of 50 attempts

But 50 attempts is a whole different stratosphere, one rarely if ever called for in a game plan.

Fifty attempts is a sign that 1) your defense is playing very poorly so you're locked in a shootout, or 2) that your team simply can’t run the ball, or that 3) your team has completely abandoned the running game based upon circumstances – namely a big deficit. In all these cases, the chances of victory are slim.

Teams in these circumstances are desperate – much like the Patriots were desperate last night, trailing 24-13 in the final
minutes. Quarterbacks in these circumstances are also desperate. They play frantically. They take risks they wouldn't take in other circumstances. They make poor decisions. They throw bad passes to well-covered receivers. They make mistakes that lose games.
This description applies to almost everybody in the history of the game – except for Brady and a small handful of others.

And here are the Cold, Hard, Football Facts (I love that site):

(Trimmed the chart from the article)


Notable gunslingers when attempting 50-plus passes - includes postseason (alphabetical order)
Player Record

Tom Brady 7-2
Drew Brees 1-4
Jake Delhomme 0-1
Brett Favre 3-8
Dan Fouts
3-2
Jim Kelly 0-4

Bernie Kosar 2-0
P.Manning
1-7
Dan Marino 5-11
D. McNabb 3-1-1

Joe Montana 2-3
Warren Moon
Joe Namath 0-4-1
Big Ben 0-1
Kurt Warner 1-3

NONE OF WHICH, BTW, proves your assertion that passing 50 times in the game cost the Vikings the W.

=Z=


Q: Can you win a game throwing more than 50 times?



Patriots QB Drew Bledsoe set single game NFL records for pass attempts (70) and completions (45) in a overtime game in 1994 against the Minnesota Vikings. The Patriots won that game 26-20.


That day sucked.

Purple Floyd
10-28-2009, 07:36 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:
















Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


Flimsy at best.
I have several arguments on here that you continue choosing to ignore.
I don't attack you or the article. I
disagree with you and the article as does other people here and other sports writers.
Again, for the umpteenth time, 50 passes is a lot of attempts for Favre.
What makes you think I don't agree with that.
However, different circumstances call for different things.
So with your theory against the flow of the game you believe they should run the ball no matter what?

I have just as much as a right to my opinions and "argument" as you have to yours.
Don't come in here and tell me I have no argument or that one of my many arguments are flimsy.
You are the one basing your argument on one aspect of the game.
Where have I attacked you?
Why are you always the Whoa is me person?
Poor CMac.
Everyone attacks him.
Do you ever wonder why people reply to your posts like they do?
There is a reason for that and if you don't like it I would suggest go somewhere else and post.
Your coworkers seem to laugh at, I mean with you.
Talk to them instead of posting.

I basically showed you that Favre had more yards per pass attempt than Peterson had per rushing attempt.
So to use your logic how are you proving the Vikings would have been in the game if Favre doesn't throw 50 times?
How in hell does that make you right?
I am sure I can find a game where a QB threw for 50 passes and they won.
What the hell does it prove?
Not a damn thing.

If anyone is making their argument look bad it is you.
How many people here agree with your argument that "the Vikings lost because Favre threw 50 times.
Plain and simple"?
Isn't that your argument.
It is not plain and simple just like TJs QB rating of 95.5 for 5.5 games in 2008 doesn't say he is a good QB plain and simply as you try to make it out.

You are taking one aspect of the game and trying to say that is why the Vikings lost.
People are saying that it is one aspect of the game that contributed to the loss.
So were other variables that I and others have already explained.
You always have to be so black and white that it blinds you to even listen to another person's opinion.



Well, golly... I guess passing 50 times and losing is justified!

So much for, "Favre only has to manage the game..." lol...


Great come back but you still fail to answer any of the logical questions asked in the post.
You have nothing to prove throwing the ball 50 times is what lost this game.
That is merely your "flimsy" opinion


Having professional sports writers from across the country agree with me is enough. I'm not really concerned if you disagree or want me to prove something...
seems to me that it's mostly the same crowd that was telling me Sage Rosenfells was our answer... lol. Sorry if I'm just not too worried about your opinion.

I've proven my point beyond a reasonable doubt in this thread... even with cited sources that agree with me.

But yes, the high number of pass attempts is what lost us this game. Poor planning and poor execution.

And as jmcdon00 stated...


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


And there are other professional sports writers that don't agree.
Who is right?
Le me ask again.
If these "professional sports writers" are such "experts" as you call them, why aren't they coaching?
I would think if they knew so much about the game they would be coaching instead of writing.

And you were trying to say TJ was the answer.
What's the difference?
Are you trying to take a non concurrent 4 quarters of preseason football to say TJ is better than Sage?
Give it up already.

You have no idea of the game plan.
We went into a hostile crowd at the world champion Steelers and beat them offensively and defensively.
Unfortunately the score didn't go our way because of a variety of variables that you refuse to acknowledge.
We had more yardage offensively and gave up less yardage defensively.
Yes htat was by throwing the ball 50 times.


Again if you believe the Vikings throwing the ball 50 times is the sole reason why they lost the game so be it.
How is that not myopic?
You know that word you like to call others?
You still have not been able to prove, although you've been asked several times, how that is the sole reason for the Vikings losing.
Hell they didn't throw 50 times last week yet you were pretty adamant that they should have lost.
Your reasoning was because they were conservative.
So your logic contradicts itself.
Here they weren't conservative and they lost.
To me and others the only thing you are trying to do is find fault with Favre or Childress.



You guys must be bored today. :)

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 06:39 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:




At 3:21, yes, I agree, its all about passing.
As to the initial drive that started in the 4th quarter.
We were definately trying to keep thier base package on the field and we were getting to the line quickly to ensure that didn't happen.

At one point, it was getting to a point I was starting to worry, 3 quick penalties in a row.




The quick snaps and false-start penalties were a direct response by a HoF QB to the fact that the Steelers were (initially) only putting the nose-tackle in a down position and then having the other 2 D-Linemen and 4 LBs stand about 4 yards off the line of scrimmage in an effort to disguise the rush package.



Hmmmm, isn't that thier base package?

::)


Not the way they were setting up.
Pardon me if you missed it.
But late in the 3rd quarter, the Steelers stopped putting the 3 d-linemen into down positions and started putting only the nosetackle in position over Sullivan.
The DEs and the LBs were 4 yards (or so) off the ball and milling about and ONLY moved into stances after the Vikings got into their pre-snap configurations.
Favre recognized this and started going for quick snaps to counter.


Again, we have determined that it was in fact thier base package.
We have also determined, I think (not sure if you got it) that our staff was trying to put them in situations that they couldn't handle.

Maybe I didn't spell it out in depth enough, but isn't the looks they were showing an attempt to counter the hurry up with thier base package?

Maybe you missed that.


What hurry up?
The Vikings weren't playing a hurry up in the 3rd quarter.
And I already stated - while they may have been employing base personnel, the change to only the NT getting into a downstance started only in the 3rd quarter.
As did Favre's attempt to counter that with quick snaps, NOT a hurry up.

=Z=

OK, so now your gonna talk around the next bush and try to say what they were doing wasn't a "Hurry Up" offense.
And how did we get into the 3rd quarter when we were talking about the 4th qtr.

Wow, you double talk better than a politician. LOL.

ejmat
10-29-2009, 06:48 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


















Law of averages... you pass that many times with Favre, you're asking for trouble

Hence, we lost that game because we passed the ball 50 times.


Faulty logic.
The Vikings lost that game because the other team scored more points.
There are probably 20 individual plays in the game where a points swing was in place.
Picking just 2 of them to prove a point is a fallacy.

=Z=


Faulty logic? I don't think so, I think it was rather obvious... in fact, I believe most of the argument for getting Favre was that he WOULDN'T have to throw the ball 50 times...

I guess some have forgotten that though.

At least the professionals agree with me though...


http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

Brett Favre threw 51 passes against Pittsburgh. That's way too many attempts for a team with Adrian Peterson.
- Jeffri Chadiha




If this person was a professional wouldn't he be coaching instead of writing?
Hmmmmmm.

I know it is hard for you to comprehend but writer's aren't always correct either.
By theory that statement is correct.
However, you cannot always play standardized football.
You have to go with the situation.
For the record everyone on this site knows how many times Favre threw the ball.
Why do you find it necessary to post the same thing 20 times?


because not even the known favre-haters agree with him.
he's not sure if they just haven't seen his posts, or choose not to get involved because of how rediculous his arguments are.


I see.
I knew it was something like that.
I still would like to see CMac's comments on the whole coach vs. writer question.
Should be interesting.
But I know that makes to much sense for him to have a one stat tell all for it so he will ignore it as usual.


See, for me this is very basic and simple.

You don't have an argument anymore because it's quite obvious that the number of passing attempts is what lost us the game... so now you have to criticize the fact that I used professional writers to support my opinion. I'm using it to show that even the simple mind of a sports writer can comprehend that... when you have arguably the best backfield in football and a 40-year old QB... probably shouldn't pass 50 times.

Again, you can attack me or the article writer all you want, but it's merely out of anger and frustration of me being right. I still have yet to see anything resembling an intelligent argument from you on the topic other than, "It was the flow of the game..." which I completely disagree with. Your opinions are flimsy at best.

But, if you must reach back to something I said about sports writers 2 or 3 weeks ago to make my argument look bad, please be my guest.


Flimsy at best.
I have several arguments on here that you continue choosing to ignore.
I don't attack you or the article. I
disagree with you and the article as does other people here and other sports writers.
Again, for the umpteenth time, 50 passes is a lot of attempts for Favre.
What makes you think I don't agree with that.
However, different circumstances call for different things.
So with your theory against the flow of the game you believe they should run the ball no matter what?

I have just as much as a right to my opinions and "argument" as you have to yours.
Don't come in here and tell me I have no argument or that one of my many arguments are flimsy.
You are the one basing your argument on one aspect of the game.
Where have I attacked you?
Why are you always the Whoa is me person?
Poor CMac.
Everyone attacks him.
Do you ever wonder why people reply to your posts like they do?
There is a reason for that and if you don't like it I would suggest go somewhere else and post.
Your coworkers seem to laugh at, I mean with you.
Talk to them instead of posting.

I basically showed you that Favre had more yards per pass attempt than Peterson had per rushing attempt.
So to use your logic how are you proving the Vikings would have been in the game if Favre doesn't throw 50 times?
How in hell does that make you right?
I am sure I can find a game where a QB threw for 50 passes and they won.
What the hell does it prove?
Not a damn thing.

If anyone is making their argument look bad it is you.
How many people here agree with your argument that "the Vikings lost because Favre threw 50 times.
Plain and simple"?
Isn't that your argument.
It is not plain and simple just like TJs QB rating of 95.5 for 5.5 games in 2008 doesn't say he is a good QB plain and simply as you try to make it out.

You are taking one aspect of the game and trying to say that is why the Vikings lost.
People are saying that it is one aspect of the game that contributed to the loss.
So were other variables that I and others have already explained.
You always have to be so black and white that it blinds you to even listen to another person's opinion.



Well, golly... I guess passing 50 times and losing is justified!

So much for, "Favre only has to manage the game..." lol...


Great come back but you still fail to answer any of the logical questions asked in the post.
You have nothing to prove throwing the ball 50 times is what lost this game.
That is merely your "flimsy" opinion


Having professional sports writers from across the country agree with me is enough. I'm not really concerned if you disagree or want me to prove something...
seems to me that it's mostly the same crowd that was telling me Sage Rosenfells was our answer... lol. Sorry if I'm just not too worried about your opinion.

I've proven my point beyond a reasonable doubt in this thread... even with cited sources that agree with me.

But yes, the high number of pass attempts is what lost us this game. Poor planning and poor execution.

And as jmcdon00 stated...


Favre is now 3-9 for his career when passing 50 or more times.
In those 12 games favre has 26 interceptions.
Favre has never thrown 50 times and not had atleast 1 interception.
Prior to the Steelers game Favre had not thrown 50 times in a game since 2006(a 9-6 win against the Vikings).


And there are other professional sports writers that don't agree.
Who is right?
Le me ask again.
If these "professional sports writers" are such "experts" as you call them, why aren't they coaching?
I would think if they knew so much about the game they would be coaching instead of writing.

And you were trying to say TJ was the answer.
What's the difference?
Are you trying to take a non concurrent 4 quarters of preseason football to say TJ is better than Sage?
Give it up already.

You have no idea of the game plan.
We went into a hostile crowd at the world champion Steelers and beat them offensively and defensively.
Unfortunately the score didn't go our way because of a variety of variables that you refuse to acknowledge.
We had more yardage offensively and gave up less yardage defensively.
Yes htat was by throwing the ball 50 times.


Again if you believe the Vikings throwing the ball 50 times is the sole reason why they lost the game so be it.
How is that not myopic?
You know that word you like to call others?
You still have not been able to prove, although you've been asked several times, how that is the sole reason for the Vikings losing.
Hell they didn't throw 50 times last week yet you were pretty adamant that they should have lost.
Your reasoning was because they were conservative.
So your logic contradicts itself.
Here they weren't conservative and they lost.
To me and others the only thing you are trying to do is find fault with Favre or Childress.



You guys must be bored today. :)


LOL.
I wish that was the case.
I don't know why I get into these useless debates with him.
I end up saying the same thing time and time again that get ignored anyway.

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 06:50 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


LOL.
I wish that was the case.
I don't know why I get into these useless debates with him.
I end up saying the same thing time and time again that get ignored anyway.


......SNICKER.......
That happens to most of the better posters.
;)
;)
;)
;)

singersp
10-29-2009, 06:58 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Vikings' strange strategy backfires (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/2009-10-28/story/midweek_confidential_vikings_strange_strategy_backfires)

The Minnesota Vikings have the best young running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, who is just starting to reach his prime at 24.

They have an aging quarterback in Brett Favre, who sometimes acts his age, which is 40.

So what did Vikings coach Brad Childress do against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday? He ran Peterson 18 times and had Favre throw 51 passes....



lol... exactly what I was saying yesterday, yet I was vilified for it. Hilarious.

Yeah, good read Singer.


Just because your point of view is shared with some sports hack doesn't mean you were right or vilified for your thoughts.
In fact, who is to say the writer watched the game and knew the entire circumsstance surrounding the play calling.
I watched it and had no issues with it.
Was it ideal?
No.
But considering the team was down by 10 in the 4th quarter what are the options?
You pass.
Whether or not you agree is another thing.
There are many articles in which Singer has posted that look at it differently so again, as always you take one thing and make it into a tell all.
What else is new?

Look at some variables for once that you seem to always ignore.



If the defense is giving up a lot of yardage in the running game & not the pass, then I would have run the ball. That was not the case this Sunday, as they were giving up more in the passing game. So yes, on Sunday passes would have been the better call in the 4th. IMO, it would also have been the better call on 3rd & 15 & 3rd & 19 as well.

swardsooner
10-29-2009, 07:34 AM
I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.

I know I drink the AD kool-aid, but this comment can't help but make me chime in that this was exactly the case at OU....Ad's best performances were in the fourth quarter.
Not only was the D getting tired, but he seemed to get stronger.
"But this is the NFL"...I know, I know......

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 07:39 AM
"swardsooner" wrote:



I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.

I know I drink the AD kool-aid, but this comment can't help but make me chime in that this was exactly the case at OU....Ad's best performances were in the fourth quarter.
Not only was the D getting tired, but he seemed to get stronger.
"But this is the NFL"...I know, I know......

Don't worry my friend.
There are a couple on here who have poooooh poooohed the notion that the run wasn't working away only to the sound of crickets.

Being down only 3, going into the 4th Qtr, one would think that one would go to thier strength to get it done.
Fact of the matter was that was what was happening, AD was getting his, hell even PH had a nice run.
Tells me the coaching staff might have been putting in running plays despite what alot on here think.

Maybe, just maybe, the QB does have permission to audible.
;) snicker
;D

Zeus
10-29-2009, 08:08 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:






At 3:21, yes, I agree, its all about passing.
As to the initial drive that started in the 4th quarter.
We were definately trying to keep thier base package on the field and we were getting to the line quickly to ensure that didn't happen.

At one point, it was getting to a point I was starting to worry, 3 quick penalties in a row.




The quick snaps and false-start penalties were a direct response by a HoF QB to the fact that the Steelers were (initially) only putting the nose-tackle in a down position and then having the other 2 D-Linemen and 4 LBs stand about 4 yards off the line of scrimmage in an effort to disguise the rush package.



Hmmmm, isn't that thier base package?

::)


Not the way they were setting up.
Pardon me if you missed it.
But late in the 3rd quarter, the Steelers stopped putting the 3 d-linemen into down positions and started putting only the nosetackle in position over Sullivan.
The DEs and the LBs were 4 yards (or so) off the ball and milling about and ONLY moved into stances after the Vikings got into their pre-snap configurations.
Favre recognized this and started going for quick snaps to counter.


Again, we have determined that it was in fact thier base package.
We have also determined, I think (not sure if you got it) that our staff was trying to put them in situations that they couldn't handle.

Maybe I didn't spell it out in depth enough, but isn't the looks they were showing an attempt to counter the hurry up with thier base package?

Maybe you missed that.


What hurry up?
The Vikings weren't playing a hurry up in the 3rd quarter.
And I already stated - while they may have been employing base personnel, the change to only the NT getting into a downstance started only in the 3rd quarter.
As did Favre's attempt to counter that with quick snaps, NOT a hurry up.


OK, so now your gonna talk around the next bush and try to say what they were doing wasn't a "Hurry Up" offense.
And how did we get into the 3rd quarter when we were talking about the 4th qtr.

Wow, you double talk better than a politician. LOL.


A "hurry up" offense generally involves no huddle and calling the plays at the line-of-scrimmage.
You brought up 3rd quarter first (go back and read).


When the flood of penalties happened in the 4th quarter (on the drive which ended in the fumble) the Vikings were NOT playing a "hurry up".
Favre tried to rush the snap a couple times (resulting in the illegal shift penalty and the false start on Hutch penalty) because of how Pittsburgh was getting into their pre-snap setup.
Again - since the Vikings were calling the plays in the huddle, it was not a "hurry up" as anyone but you would define it.

http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/54561/PIT_Gamebook.pdf

=Z=

marstc09
10-29-2009, 08:42 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"swardsooner" wrote:



I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.

I know I drink the AD kool-aid, but this comment can't help but make me chime in that this was exactly the case at OU....Ad's best performances were in the fourth quarter.
Not only was the D getting tired, but he seemed to get stronger.
"But this is the NFL"...I know, I know......


Maybe, just maybe, the QB does have permission to audible.

;) snicker
;D


LMFAO! Did you hear BRETT FAVRE in the post game press conference. He wanted to run. That is why I label you a hater. You might want to do some more research.

C Mac D
10-29-2009, 08:54 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"swardsooner" wrote:



I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.

I know I drink the AD kool-aid, but this comment can't help but make me chime in that this was exactly the case at OU....Ad's best performances were in the fourth quarter.
Not only was the D getting tired, but he seemed to get stronger.
"But this is the NFL"...I know, I know......


Maybe, just maybe, the QB does have permission to audible.

;) snicker
;D


LMFAO! Did you hear BRETT FAVRE in the post game press conference. He wanted to run. That is why I label you a hater. You might want to do some more research.


So, it was the coaches decision to pass?

lol, I'm just joking around... no interest in arguing that point yet again today.

marstc09
10-29-2009, 08:58 AM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"swardsooner" wrote:



I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.

I know I drink the AD kool-aid, but this comment can't help but make me chime in that this was exactly the case at OU....Ad's best performances were in the fourth quarter.
Not only was the D getting tired, but he seemed to get stronger.
"But this is the NFL"...I know, I know......


Maybe, just maybe, the QB does have permission to audible.

;) snicker
;D


LMFAO! Did you hear BRETT FAVRE in the post game press conference. He wanted to run. That is why I label you a hater. You might want to do some more research.


So, it was the coaches decision to pass?

lol, I'm just joking around... no interest in arguing that point yet again today.


Chilly or Bevell. Not sure which one to hate on that one.

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 09:14 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:








At 3:21, yes, I agree, its all about passing.
As to the initial drive that started in the 4th quarter.
We were definately trying to keep thier base package on the field and we were getting to the line quickly to ensure that didn't happen.

At one point, it was getting to a point I was starting to worry, 3 quick penalties in a row.




The quick snaps and false-start penalties were a direct response by a HoF QB to the fact that the Steelers were (initially) only putting the nose-tackle in a down position and then having the other 2 D-Linemen and 4 LBs stand about 4 yards off the line of scrimmage in an effort to disguise the rush package.



Hmmmm, isn't that thier base package?

::)


Not the way they were setting up.
Pardon me if you missed it.
But late in the 3rd quarter, the Steelers stopped putting the 3 d-linemen into down positions and started putting only the nosetackle in position over Sullivan.
The DEs and the LBs were 4 yards (or so) off the ball and milling about and ONLY moved into stances after the Vikings got into their pre-snap configurations.
Favre recognized this and started going for quick snaps to counter.


Again, we have determined that it was in fact thier base package.
We have also determined, I think (not sure if you got it) that our staff was trying to put them in situations that they couldn't handle.

Maybe I didn't spell it out in depth enough, but isn't the looks they were showing an attempt to counter the hurry up with thier base package?

Maybe you missed that.


What hurry up?
The Vikings weren't playing a hurry up in the 3rd quarter.
And I already stated - while they may have been employing base personnel, the change to only the NT getting into a downstance started only in the 3rd quarter.
As did Favre's attempt to counter that with quick snaps, NOT a hurry up.


OK, so now your gonna talk around the next bush and try to say what they were doing wasn't a "Hurry Up" offense.
And how did we get into the 3rd quarter when we were talking about the 4th qtr.

Wow, you double talk better than a politician. LOL.


A "hurry up" offense generally involves no huddle and calling the plays at the line-of-scrimmage.
You brought up 3rd quarter first (go back and read).


When the flood of penalties happened in the 4th quarter (on the drive which ended in the fumble) the Vikings were NOT playing a "hurry up".
Favre tried to rush the snap a couple times (resulting in the illegal shift penalty and the false start on Hutch penalty) because of how Pittsburgh was getting into their pre-snap setup.
Again - since the Vikings were calling the plays in the huddle, it was not a "hurry up" as anyone but you would define it.

http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/54561/PIT_Gamebook.pdf

=Z=

Who did?
I would never type drivel like this.
::)


Not the way they were setting up.
Pardon me if you missed it.
But late in the 3rd quarter, the Steelers stopped putting the 3 d-linemen into down positions and started putting only the nosetackle in position over Sullivan.
The DEs and the LBs were 4 yards (or so) off the ball and milling about and ONLY moved into stances after the Vikings got into their pre-snap configurations .
Favre recognized this and started going for quick snaps to counter.

Rush to snap, hurry up.
Are you really gonna try to spin it around the bush that way.
Comeon my friend.
I'm no lawyer or anything but you are double talking again.
::)

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 09:16 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"swardsooner" wrote:



I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.

I know I drink the AD kool-aid, but this comment can't help but make me chime in that this was exactly the case at OU....Ad's best performances were in the fourth quarter.
Not only was the D getting tired, but he seemed to get stronger.
"But this is the NFL"...I know, I know......


Maybe, just maybe, the QB does have permission to audible.

;) snicker
;D


LMFAO! Did you hear BRETT FAVRE in the post game press conference. He wanted to run. That is why I label you a hater. You might want to do some more research.

ahhhhhhhh, yet again the "Hater" word/approach when it really isn't needed.
Are you going to try to tell me now that he isn't allowed to audible?

Wow, lots of walls coming down. First you admit he isn't gonna be perfect, then you admit he isn't a game manager anymore, now, he can't audible.

LOL, ........And then, desparation set in.
;D

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 09:18 AM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"swardsooner" wrote:



I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.

I know I drink the AD kool-aid, but this comment can't help but make me chime in that this was exactly the case at OU....Ad's best performances were in the fourth quarter.
Not only was the D getting tired, but he seemed to get stronger.
"But this is the NFL"...I know, I know......


Maybe, just maybe, the QB does have permission to audible.

;) snicker
;D


LMFAO! Did you hear BRETT FAVRE in the post game press conference. He wanted to run. That is why I label you a hater. You might want to do some more research.


So, it was the coaches decision to pass?

lol, I'm just joking around... no interest in arguing that point yet again today.

I don't know who is talking in circles faster today, Z or Mars........ ;D
Anyway, both are providing a constant source of entertainment, thats for sure.
LMAO.

marstc09
10-29-2009, 09:20 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"swardsooner" wrote:



I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.

I know I drink the AD kool-aid, but this comment can't help but make me chime in that this was exactly the case at OU....Ad's best performances were in the fourth quarter.
Not only was the D getting tired, but he seemed to get stronger.
"But this is the NFL"...I know, I know......


Maybe, just maybe, the QB does have permission to audible.

;) snicker
;D


LMFAO! Did you hear BRETT FAVRE in the post game press conference. He wanted to run. That is why I label you a hater. You might want to do some more research.

ahhhhhhhh, yet again the "Hater" word/approach when it really isn't needed.
Are you going to try to tell me now that he isn't allowed to audible?

Wow, lots of walls coming down. First you admit he isn't gonna be perfect, then you admit he isn't a game manager anymore, now, he can't audible.

LOL, ........And then, desparation set in.

;D


Ahhhhh, I love your hatter attitude. When did I ever say that he can't audible? You failed to address my original point.

What desperation? We are 6-1 and BRETT FAVRES stats are one of the best in the league. The only desperation I see is the haters that said Favre is washed up.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

NodakPaul
10-29-2009, 09:27 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"swardsooner" wrote:



I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.

I know I drink the AD kool-aid, but this comment can't help but make me chime in that this was exactly the case at OU....Ad's best performances were in the fourth quarter.
Not only was the D getting tired, but he seemed to get stronger.
"But this is the NFL"...I know, I know......


Maybe, just maybe, the QB does have permission to audible.

;) snicker
;D


LMFAO! Did you hear BRETT FAVRE in the post game press conference. He wanted to run. That is why I label you a hater. You might want to do some more research.

ahhhhhhhh, yet again the "Hater" word/approach when it really isn't needed.
Are you going to try to tell me now that he isn't allowed to audible?

Wow, lots of walls coming down. First you admit he isn't gonna be perfect, then you admit he isn't a game manager anymore, now, he can't audible.

LOL, ........And then, desparation set in.

;D


You two are confusing me.
What the hell does Favre being allowed to audible have to do with the run versus pass playcalling in the 4th?
We have all seen Favre audible, even in the Pittsburgh game (at least once, early in the second quarter), so I don't know where that is coming from...

As far as running in the 4th - I agree, AD's best performances have always been in the 4th.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to say that AD should have been running more in the 4th, especially in the goal line situations.
But had we run the ball and gotten stuffed in the redzone, or if AD had fumbled the ball (something he has done before), we would have a lot of the same people complaining about the playcalling and citing Favre's success in the redzone in the first six games.
It is a no win situation, no matter what there will be people who think they can call a game better in hindsight than the coach can in real time.

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 09:29 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"swardsooner" wrote:



I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.

I know I drink the AD kool-aid, but this comment can't help but make me chime in that this was exactly the case at OU....Ad's best performances were in the fourth quarter.
Not only was the D getting tired, but he seemed to get stronger.
"But this is the NFL"...I know, I know......


Maybe, just maybe, the QB does have permission to audible.

;) snicker
;D


LMFAO! Did you hear BRETT FAVRE in the post game press conference. He wanted to run. That is why I label you a hater. You might want to do some more research.

ahhhhhhhh, yet again the "Hater" word/approach when it really isn't needed.
Are you going to try to tell me now that he isn't allowed to audible?

Wow, lots of walls coming down. First you admit he isn't gonna be perfect, then you admit he isn't a game manager anymore, now, he can't audible.

LOL, ........And then, desparation set in.

;D


You two are confusing me.
What the hell does Favre being allowed to audible have to do with the run versus pass playcalling in the 4th?
We have all seen Favre audible, even in the Pittsburgh game (at least once, early in the second quarter), so I don't know where that is coming from...

As far as running in the 4th - I agree, AD's best performances have always been in the 4th.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to say that AD should have been running more in the 4th, especially in the goal line situations.
But had we run the ball and gotten stuffed in the redzone, or if AD had fumbled the ball (something he has done before), we would have a lot of the same people complaining about the playcalling and citing Favre's success in the redzone in the first six games.
It is a no win situation, no matter what there will be people who think they can call a game better in hindsight than the coach can in real time.

LOL, sorry my friend.
I was trying to get Z and Mars to talk in circles some more.
Just trying to have a bit of lightheartedness today.


Seems we all could use some of that I think.
;D

marstc09
10-29-2009, 09:30 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"swardsooner" wrote:



I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.

I know I drink the AD kool-aid, but this comment can't help but make me chime in that this was exactly the case at OU....Ad's best performances were in the fourth quarter.
Not only was the D getting tired, but he seemed to get stronger.
"But this is the NFL"...I know, I know......


Maybe, just maybe, the QB does have permission to audible.

;) snicker
;D


LMFAO! Did you hear BRETT FAVRE in the post game press conference. He wanted to run. That is why I label you a hater. You might want to do some more research.


So, it was the coaches decision to pass?

lol, I'm just joking around... no interest in arguing that point yet again today.

I don't know who is talking in circles faster today, Z or Mars........ ;D
Anyway, both are providing a constant source of entertainment, thats for sure.
LMAO.


BRETT FAVRE
69%, 12 TDs, 3 INTs, and 102.2 Rating with a 6-1 record
http://packingcheese.com/files/2009/10/brett-favre-vikings.jpg

No circles here, just facts.

NordicNed
10-29-2009, 09:52 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:





I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.

I know I drink the AD kool-aid, but this comment can't help but make me chime in that this was exactly the case at OU....Ad's best performances were in the fourth quarter.
Not only was the D getting tired, but he seemed to get stronger.
"But this is the NFL"...I know, I know......


Maybe, just maybe, the QB does have permission to audible.

;) snicker
;D


LMFAO! Did you hear BRETT FAVRE in the post game press conference. He wanted to run. That is why I label you a hater. You might want to do some more research.


So, it was the coaches decision to pass?

lol, I'm just joking around... no interest in arguing that point yet again today.

I don't know who is talking in circles faster today, Z or Mars........ ;D
Anyway, both are providing a constant source of entertainment, thats for sure.
LMAO.


BRETT FAVRE
69%, 12 TDs, 3 INTs, and 102.2 Rating with a 6-1 record
http://packingcheese.com/files/2009/10/brett-favre-vikings.jpg

No circles here, just facts.


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!
Ned's New NFL STAT
;D

TeamSoftware
10-29-2009, 09:59 AM
"NordicNed" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:







I think we should have ran it more. Right before the interception you saw Peterson break a big one, and look unstoppable doing it. He got stronger as the game went on, had he got 30 carries he may have had 150+ yards.

I know I drink the AD kool-aid, but this comment can't help but make me chime in that this was exactly the case at OU....Ad's best performances were in the fourth quarter.
Not only was the D getting tired, but he seemed to get stronger.
"But this is the NFL"...I know, I know......


Maybe, just maybe, the QB does have permission to audible.

;) snicker
;D


LMFAO! Did you hear BRETT FAVRE in the post game press conference. He wanted to run. That is why I label you a hater. You might want to do some more research.


So, it was the coaches decision to pass?

lol, I'm just joking around... no interest in arguing that point yet again today.

I don't know who is talking in circles faster today, Z or Mars........ ;D
Anyway, both are providing a constant source of entertainment, thats for sure.
LMAO.


BRETT FAVRE
69%, 12 TDs, 3 INTs, and 102.2 Rating with a 6-1 record
http://packingcheese.com/files/2009/10/brett-favre-vikings.jpg

No circles here, just facts.



You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D


I agree, a clearly tipped ball should be counted as a fumble as the intended receiver was the last offensive player to touch the ball.

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 10:15 AM
"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so damn hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.
::)

C Mac D
10-29-2009, 10:18 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so damn hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


I... I think he was kidding.

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 10:20 AM
"C" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


I... I think he was kidding.

Naw, he's said the exact same thing a couple of times already.
I used to let stuff like that slip when I was trying not to comment on INT"s.

V4L
10-29-2009, 10:36 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so damn hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth

NordicNed
10-29-2009, 10:51 AM
"V4L" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so damn hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth
I watched the game again last night, for my third time now, and replaid the BF to CT screen about 6 times.





It was not hot and it was about 6 inches over his dam head.
Two linemen on either side of him and downfiled about 1 yard.
Closest Steelrs player was a good 3 yards behind him ( when pass hit hands) but closing quickly.
Biggest problem I noticed, CT moved his head down and scanned to his left, at about the same exact time he should have been looking the ball into his hands.
His arms where still bent and not even close to being fully extended, they didn't need to be. More like a 100 deg. angle.....Very catchable ball and very much not CT Like.
CT is probably our best recieving back to begin with.
But I beleive he did take his eyes off the ball and was worried more about his next step than looking the ball into his hands and securing the pass first.






So this does go into Nordicneds new Stat of " Reciever ERROR"








As for BB,
I never have and never will believe in a " TO HOT" pass.
Your a dam reciever and if the ball hit's you in the hands, your one and only job at that moment is to catch and secure the pass.
BB didn't !
Probably to worried about his next Hammy pull :(

marstc09
10-29-2009, 10:53 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so damn hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?! LOL this is the NFL not Pee Wee.
::)

C Mac D
10-29-2009, 11:01 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so damn hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?! LOL this is the NFL not Pee Wee.
::)


Odd... I remember some people saying Jackson threw it too hard in situations.

marstc09
10-29-2009, 11:04 AM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so damn hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?! LOL this is the NFL not Pee Wee.
::)


Odd... I remember some people saying Jackson threw it too hard in situations.


I bet it wasn't Marrdro. Doesn't TJ have a stronger arm? Interesting.......

NodakPaul
10-29-2009, 11:25 AM
"V4L" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth


+1 to V4L.

Here is the video:
Steelers Return Favre Interception for TD to Secure the Win (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZhS95PFMD4#)

It was not hot at all.
In fact, it was very lightly thrown.
It even arcs a little bit in the 5 yards it was in the air.
I think my 5 year old can throw hotter than that. ;)


Watch the replay at :25.
It was a high, misplaced ball.
The more I watch it, the more I think that the blame should be even between Favre and CT.
The ball was in a bad place, but CT should also be able to make that catch.


But he didn't, and the defender happened to be in the exact right place.
It was a fluke play.
Favre would put that ball in a better spot 9 times out of 10, and CT would catch that ball 99 times out of 100 IMHO, so I am simply not too worked up over it.

C Mac D
10-29-2009, 11:29 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth


+1 to V4L.

Here is the video:
Steelers Return Favre Interception for TD to Secure the Win (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZhS95PFMD4#)

It was not hot at all.
In fact, it was very lightly thrown.
It even arcs a little bit in the 5 yards it was in the air.
I think my 5 year old can throw hotter than that. ;)


Watch the replay at :25.
It was a high, misplaced ball.
The more I watch it, the more I think that the blame should be even between Favre and CT.
The ball was in a bad place, but CT should also be able to make that catch.


But he didn't, and the defender happened to be in the exact right place.
It was a fluke play.
Favre would put that ball in a better spot 9 times out of 10, and CT would catch that ball 99 times out of 100 IMHO, so I am simply not too worked up over it.


That video just showed that it was a bad choice to throw it to Chester in general... he wasn't going to gain any ground and he was surrounded by defenders.

Hot or not, it was a bad choice.

NodakPaul
10-29-2009, 11:31 AM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth


+1 to V4L.

Here is the video:
Steelers Return Favre Interception for TD to Secure the Win (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZhS95PFMD4#)

It was not hot at all.
In fact, it was very lightly thrown.
It even arcs a little bit in the 5 yards it was in the air.
I think my 5 year old can throw hotter than that. ;)


Watch the replay at :25.
It was a high, misplaced ball.
The more I watch it, the more I think that the blame should be even between Favre and CT.
The ball was in a bad place, but CT should also be able to make that catch.


But he didn't, and the defender happened to be in the exact right place.
It was a fluke play.
Favre would put that ball in a better spot 9 times out of 10, and CT would catch that ball 99 times out of 100 IMHO, so I am simply not too worked up over it.


That video just showed that it was a bad choice to throw it to Chester in general... he wasn't going to gain any ground and he was surrounded by defenders.

Hot or not, it was a bad choice.


I don't dispute that.
I posted it primarily because Marrdro has said that the pass was uncatchable because it was so hot something like 1,000,004 times... today alone. ;)

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 11:38 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth


+1 to V4L.

Here is the video:
Steelers Return Favre Interception for TD to Secure the Win (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZhS95PFMD4#)

It was not hot at all.
In fact, it was very lightly thrown.
It even arcs a little bit in the 5 yards it was in the air.
I think my 5 year old can throw hotter than that. ;)


Watch the replay at :25.
It was a high, misplaced ball.
The more I watch it, the more I think that the blame should be even between Favre and CT.
The ball was in a bad place, but CT should also be able to make that catch.


But he didn't, and the defender happened to be in the exact right place.
It was a fluke play.
Favre would put that ball in a better spot 9 times out of 10, and CT would catch that ball 99 times out of 100 IMHO, so I am simply not too worked up over it.


That video just showed that it was a bad choice to throw it to Chester in general... he wasn't going to gain any ground and he was surrounded by defenders.

Hot or not, it was a bad choice.


I don't dispute that.
I posted it primarily because Marrdro has said that the pass was uncatchable because it was so hot something like 1,000,004 times... today alone. ;)

Not sure if I ever said it was uncatchable.


And if it will help, I will quit using the word "Hot" and type a lot more words and describe it as "it got there sooner than CT thought it would".

On a side note, first I am being picked on for a typo, now I am getting picked on for poor use of words.
I think I need to go get a Lit degree or something before I post anything else.
;) ;D

If it will help everyone I will quit using the word "Hot".

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 11:40 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?! LOL this is the NFL not Pee Wee.
::)


Odd... I remember some people saying Jackson threw it too hard in situations.


I bet it wasn't Marrdro. Doesn't TJ have a stronger arm? Interesting.......

Well, I have hacked on TJ a couple of times for throwing to hard.
Can't remember exactly what game but it was along the lines of TJ needing to understand that at times touch instead of zip is a good thing.
Kindof along the same lines as I said early to Ned about that pass to BB.

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 11:41 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?! LOL this is the NFL not Pee Wee.
::)

So you don't think that "Touch" on a pass is important?
::)

marstc09
10-29-2009, 11:43 AM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth


+1 to V4L.

Here is the video:
Steelers Return Favre Interception for TD to Secure the Win (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZhS95PFMD4#)

It was not hot at all.
In fact, it was very lightly thrown.
It even arcs a little bit in the 5 yards it was in the air.
I think my 5 year old can throw hotter than that. ;)


Watch the replay at :25.
It was a high, misplaced ball.
The more I watch it, the more I think that the blame should be even between Favre and CT.
The ball was in a bad place, but CT should also be able to make that catch.


But he didn't, and the defender happened to be in the exact right place.
It was a fluke play.
Favre would put that ball in a better spot 9 times out of 10, and CT would catch that ball 99 times out of 100 IMHO, so I am simply not too worked up over it.


That video just showed that it was a bad choice to throw it to Chester in general... he wasn't going to gain any ground and he was surrounded by defenders.

Hot or not, it was a bad choice.


I disagree. Play looked good until Hutch let up on his block.

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 11:44 AM
"NordicNed" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth
I watched the game again last night, for my third time now, and replaid the BF to CT screen about 6 times.





It was not hot and it was about 6 inches over his dam head.
Two linemen on either side of him and downfiled about 1 yard.
Closest Steelrs player was a good 3 yards behind him ( when pass hit hands) but closing quickly.
Biggest problem I noticed, CT moved his head down and scanned to his left, at about the same exact time he should have been looking the ball into his hands.
His arms where still bent and not even close to being fully extended, they didn't need to be. More like a 100 deg. angle.....Very catchable ball and very much not CT Like.
CT is probably our best recieving back to begin with.
But I beleive he did take his eyes off the ball and was worried more about his next step than looking the ball into his hands and securing the pass first.







So this does go into Nordicneds new Stat of " Reciever ERROR"








As for BB,
I never have and never will believe in a " TO HOT" pass.
Your a dam reciever and if the ball hit's you in the hands, your one and only job at that moment is to catch and secure the pass.
BB didn't !
Probably to worried about his next Hammy pull :(

Ned, were do you think is the proper place to throw the ball to a reciever in a screen play?

And back to BB, yet again the ole "hit him in the hands" cliche'.
LOL.
Cracks me up everytime I hear it.
Another question then......

Do you think that the QB should take something off of a throw?

......Marrdro chuckles to himself....."hit him in the hands"....... ;D

marstc09
10-29-2009, 11:46 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?! LOL this is the NFL not Pee Wee.
::)

So you don't think that "Touch" on a pass is important?

::)


Looked like touch to me. Glaucoma.

C Mac D
10-29-2009, 11:47 AM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?! LOL this is the NFL not Pee Wee.
::)

So you don't think that "Touch" on a pass is important?

::)


Looked like touch to me. Glaucoma.


So, you're saying this is pee-wee football then?

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 12:00 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?! LOL this is the NFL not Pee Wee.
::)

So you don't think that "Touch" on a pass is important?

::)


Looked like touch to me. Glaucoma.

Didn't to me.
Guacamole

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 12:01 PM
"C" wrote:


So, you're saying this is pee-wee football then?

Hey, C Mac D, you see all the ammo we will have at our disposal when our new QB takes over after this one goes away?

Gonna be alot of fun. ;D
;D
;D

marstc09
10-29-2009, 12:16 PM
"C" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?! LOL this is the NFL not Pee Wee.
::)

So you don't think that "Touch" on a pass is important?

::)


Looked like touch to me. Glaucoma.


So, you're saying this is pee-wee football then?


lol What?

marstc09
10-29-2009, 12:17 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


So, you're saying this is pee-wee football then?

Hey, C Mac D, you see all the ammo we will have at our disposal when our new QB takes over after this one goes away?

Gonna be alot of fun. ;D
;D
;D


He will never go away.

C Mac D
10-29-2009, 12:18 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


So, you're saying this is pee-wee football then?

Hey, C Mac D, you see all the ammo we will have at our disposal when our new QB takes over after this one goes away?

Gonna be alot of fun. ;D
;D
;D


He will never go away.


Just like herpes.

marstc09
10-29-2009, 12:19 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?! LOL this is the NFL not Pee Wee.
::)

So you don't think that "Touch" on a pass is important?

::)


Looked like touch to me. Glaucoma.

Didn't to me.
Guacamole


http://blog.healia.com/files/u5/Eye-chart.jpg

NodakPaul
10-29-2009, 12:23 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:






You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth


+1 to V4L.

Here is the video:
Steelers Return Favre Interception for TD to Secure the Win (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZhS95PFMD4#)

It was not hot at all.
In fact, it was very lightly thrown.
It even arcs a little bit in the 5 yards it was in the air.
I think my 5 year old can throw hotter than that. ;)


Watch the replay at :25.
It was a high, misplaced ball.
The more I watch it, the more I think that the blame should be even between Favre and CT.
The ball was in a bad place, but CT should also be able to make that catch.


But he didn't, and the defender happened to be in the exact right place.
It was a fluke play.
Favre would put that ball in a better spot 9 times out of 10, and CT would catch that ball 99 times out of 100 IMHO, so I am simply not too worked up over it.


That video just showed that it was a bad choice to throw it to Chester in general... he wasn't going to gain any ground and he was surrounded by defenders.

Hot or not, it was a bad choice.


I don't dispute that.
I posted it primarily because Marrdro has said that the pass was uncatchable because it was so hot something like 1,000,004 times... today alone. ;)

Not sure if I ever said it was uncatchable.


And if it will help, I will quit using the word "Hot" and type a lot more words and describe it as "it got there sooner than CT thought it would".

On a side note, first I am being picked on for a typo, now I am getting picked on for poor use of words.
I think I need to go get a Lit degree or something before I post anything else.

;) ;D

If it will help everyone I will quit using the word "Hot".


lol.
Oh hell no!
You aren't going to be able to get out of this one that easily. ;)

So you are trying to say that when you said that the ball was "hot" so many times, you meant that it got there before CT was ready?

Marty, first of all that was NOT that case - look at the video. CT stopped, turned around, and was ready for the ball.
The ball went high where he was not expecting it, but it was in absolutely no way early or there before CT was expecting it.

Second, I call bullshit on your excuse.
It isn't like you exclusively used the word hot to complain about that pass.
Take this quote:
"Marrdro" wrote:


Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.
::)


Too hard?
Does that also mean that it got there before CT was expecting it? ;)

Suck it up Marr.
;) You convinced yourself that the ball was thrown too hard or too "hot" without even looking at the video, and you built several arguments around that very belief (I actually have three different quotes from you on this... I am refraining from pouring it on too heavy right now, but I am ready to post them as needed).
The fact is that your very perception of this play - as well as most of the game - is off because you are looking so very hard for anything and everything that Favre does wrong.
Sometimes when you look for something hard enough, you start to see it even if it isn't there...

Time to break out one of your smileys... you've been caught with your pants down on this one... ;D

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 12:25 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


So, you're saying this is pee-wee football then?

Hey, C Mac D, you see all the ammo we will have at our disposal when our new QB takes over after this one goes away?

Gonna be alot of fun. ;D
;D
;D


He will never go away.

LOL, how boring would it be if he did?
;)

C Mac D
10-29-2009, 12:25 PM
lol... this thread is cracking me up today.

Everyone pretty much agrees, but we'll argue it into the ground anyways. Great PPO day!

marstc09
10-29-2009, 12:26 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


So, you're saying this is pee-wee football then?

Hey, C Mac D, you see all the ammo we will have at our disposal when our new QB takes over after this one goes away?

Gonna be alot of fun. ;D
;D
;D


He will never go away.

LOL, how boring would it be if he did?

;)


I'd probably cheer for the Bungals.

Overlord
10-29-2009, 12:36 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so damn hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?! LOL this is the NFL not Pee Wee.
::)


I don't think this one to Chester was too hard, and I don't remember the B-Twice pass you're talking about.
But there is such a thing as throwing a ball too hard, and there is such a thing as a touch pass.

I bring this up not so much because I think you don't know this as much as I want to laugh at Byron Leftwich.
That guy has some arm strength, but whenever I've watched him it didn't matter if he was throwing it a receiver 20 yards downfield or a running back 2 feet in front of him, it was coming out full speed.
What a disaster.
Although overall not the worst QB in the world by a longshot.

"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


A "hurry up" offense generally involves no huddle and calling the plays at the line-of-scrimmage.
You brought up 3rd quarter first (go back and read).


When the flood of penalties happened in the 4th quarter (on the drive which ended in the fumble) the Vikings were NOT playing a "hurry up".
Favre tried to rush the snap a couple times (resulting in the illegal shift penalty and the false start on Hutch penalty) because of how Pittsburgh was getting into their pre-snap setup.
Again - since the Vikings were calling the plays in the huddle, it was not a "hurry up" as anyone but you would define it.

http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/54561/PIT_Gamebook.pdf

=Z=

Who did?
I would never type drivel like this.
::)


Not the way they were setting up.
Pardon me if you missed it.
But late in the 3rd quarter, the Steelers stopped putting the 3 d-linemen into down positions and started putting only the nosetackle in position over Sullivan.
The DEs and the LBs were 4 yards (or so) off the ball and milling about and ONLY moved into stances after the Vikings got into their pre-snap configurations .
Favre recognized this and started going for quick snaps to counter.

Rush to snap, hurry up.
Are you really gonna try to spin it around the bush that way.
Comeon my friend.
I'm no lawyer or anything but you are double talking again.
::)


I don't think you understand what Zeus is trying to say.
The Vikings were huddling up, allowing plenty of time for the Steelers to see what personnel package the Vikes had in and to substitute accordingly.


But when the Vikings came to the line of scrimmage, the Steelers were milling about.
They were almost certainly doing so in an effort to disguise their alignment as long as possible.
Either that or they are just a very laid back team.

Favre, whether thanks to his own experience or some word from the coaches (or a helpful and loud fan?), recognized this and brought the team quickly to the line a couple times and snapped the ball immediately.
On the first try it resulted in a quick 5 yard pass to Greg Lewis.
On the second try it resulted in a penalty.

Here's a snapshot of the 1st attempt immediately after the snap (during the exchange):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3535/4055455515_e0e7e64213.jpg

Notice that the Steelers are not even close to set, with some guys even facing the wrong direction.


I'm pretty sure that's what Zeus is talking about, this sequence that actually occurred early in the 4th quarter.
It wasn't about keeping a certain package on the field and I wouldn't generally call it a hurry up because the Vikes huddled and allowed the Steelers to substitute.
It was trying to take advantage of the way the Steelers were lining up (or failing to do so).

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 12:38 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:








You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth


+1 to V4L.

Here is the video:
Steelers Return Favre Interception for TD to Secure the Win (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZhS95PFMD4#)

It was not hot at all.
In fact, it was very lightly thrown.
It even arcs a little bit in the 5 yards it was in the air.
I think my 5 year old can throw hotter than that. ;)


Watch the replay at :25.
It was a high, misplaced ball.
The more I watch it, the more I think that the blame should be even between Favre and CT.
The ball was in a bad place, but CT should also be able to make that catch.


But he didn't, and the defender happened to be in the exact right place.
It was a fluke play.
Favre would put that ball in a better spot 9 times out of 10, and CT would catch that ball 99 times out of 100 IMHO, so I am simply not too worked up over it.


That video just showed that it was a bad choice to throw it to Chester in general... he wasn't going to gain any ground and he was surrounded by defenders.

Hot or not, it was a bad choice.


I don't dispute that.
I posted it primarily because Marrdro has said that the pass was uncatchable because it was so hot something like 1,000,004 times... today alone. ;)

Not sure if I ever said it was uncatchable.


And if it will help, I will quit using the word "Hot" and type a lot more words and describe it as "it got there sooner than CT thought it would".

On a side note, first I am being picked on for a typo, now I am getting picked on for poor use of words.
I think I need to go get a Lit degree or something before I post anything else.

;) ;D

If it will help everyone I will quit using the word "Hot".


lol.
Oh hell no!
You aren't going to be able to get out of this one that easily. ;)

So you are trying to say that when you said that the ball was "hot" so many times, you meant that it got there before CT was ready?

Marty, first of all that was NOT that case - look at the video. CT stopped, turned around, and was ready for the ball.
The ball went high where he was not expecting it, but it was in absolutely no way early or there before CT was expecting it.

Second, I call kaka del rio on your excuse.
It isn't like you exclusively used the word hot to complain about that pass.
Take this quote:
"Marrdro" wrote:


Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?
Does that also mean that it got there before CT was expecting it? ;)

Suck it up Marr.
;) You convinced yourself that the ball was thrown too hard or too "hot" without even looking at the video, and you built several arguments around that very belief (I actually have three different quotes from you on this... I am refraining from pouring it on too heavy right now, but I am ready to post them as needed).
The fact is that your very perception of this play - as well as most of the game - is off because you are looking so very hard for anything and everything that Favre does wrong.
Sometimes when you look for something hard enough, you start to see it even if it isn't there...

Time to break out one of your smileys... you've been caught with your pants down on this one... ;D

LOL, quit cracking me up.

Your correct, I haven't looked at the play today, but I have several times since.
Its the most popular clip on this site.
You guys that think the QB isn't at fault have kept trying to convince me, using the clip, that our QB did no wrong.


So you are trying to say that when you said that the ball was "hot" so many times, you meant that it got there before CT was ready?
I still say he threw it to hot.
I was only trying to put it in words that you guys like.
Again, it isn't like I am saying he ran and chucked it like a javelin.
I am saying he threw it to hard.

I will make this simple....

Were would you throw the ball if you were the QB?

Were would you expect the ball if you were the RB?

If he wasn't gonna throw it to the correct spot he should have at least lead the RB away from the trouble (if CT was that ready for it) instead of throwing it high (and hot).


Another quick question related to this little nugget, .......


The fact is that your very perception of this play - as well as most of the game - is off because you are looking so very hard for anything and everything that Favre does wrong.

Since when is that outlawed? Are you trying to tell me that us fans shouldn't look at a game with the intent to see bad along with the good? If thats not the case, then, how come your not hacking on me for picking out Kluwe's gaffs?

Should I go and dredge up some of your stuff on our other QB's?
You know I won't, ignore that question.
LOL, you caught me.
I'm over critical of him. ::) Lots of em
::)

NodakPaul
10-29-2009, 12:56 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:

LOL, quit cracking me up.

Your correct, I haven't looked at the play today, but I have several times since.
Its the most popular clip on this site.
You guys that think the QB isn't at fault have kept trying to convince me, using the clip, that our QB did no wrong.


So you are trying to say that when you said that the ball was "hot" so many times, you meant that it got there before CT was ready?
I still say he threw it to hot.
I was only trying to put it in words that you guys like.
Again, it isn't like I am saying he ran and chucked it like a javelin.
I am saying he threw it to hard.

I think you need to look at it again.
That ball was not thrown hard at all.
Not even a little bit.

And let's get this clear.
There are very, very few people who think that the QB is blameless.
Where do you keep getting that from.
In fact, in I (and most people) have said over and over again that the fault lies with both.
The ball was high, and CT should have still caught it.
Fault to Favre for throwing it high, and fault to CT for not catching a catchable ball.

"Marrdro" wrote:

I will make this simple....

Were would you throw the ball if you were the QB?

Were would you expect the ball if you were the RB?

If he wasn't gonna throw it to the correct spot he should have at least lead the RB away from the trouble (if CT was that ready for it) instead of throwing it high (and hot).


Correct.
He threw it high.
That was a mistake.
It was not hot, and I don't understand why you can't admit that you were wrong here...

"Marrdro" wrote:

Another quick question related to this little nugget, .......


The fact is that your very perception of this play - as well as most of the game - is off because you are looking so very hard for anything and everything that Favre does wrong.

Since when is that outlawed? Are you trying to tell me that us fans shouldn't look at a game with the intent to see bad along with the good? If thats not the case, then, how come your not hacking on me for picking out Kluwe's gaffs?

Because with Favre you aren't looking at the game with the intent to see bad along with the good.
You are looking so hard for the bad in every play that sometimes you unintentionally manufacture it.
Just like you have convinced yourself that Favre had a bad game against Pittsburgh.
There is a difference between pointing out mistakes and imagining them.
You want Favre to make mistakes so badly that you are seeing mistakes that simply aren't there.

"Marrdro" wrote:

Should I go and dredge up some of your stuff on our other QB's?
You know I won't, ignore that question.
LOL, you caught me.
I'm over critical of him. ::) Lots of em
::)




Dredge away/
I admit my bias against our second string QB.
I believe that my stance on Jackson has been rather constant - that he makes a great backup but isn't ready to be a starter. Maybe he will in the future, but he is NOT there now.
And when overwhelming evidence shows that I was wrong about something that Jackson did, I don't stubbornly stick to my guns and refuse to admit that I was wrong.
I also think that there might be a bit of a difference between Jackson's play and Favre's, don't you?

jargomcfargo
10-29-2009, 01:03 PM
We're so busy trying to blame the QB or RB, but there was a bit of luck involved in the play.
It was quite fortunate, for the Steelers that the ball deflected almost perfectly into the defenders breadbasket.
Though inconceivable to me, it was also fortunate, that not one single Viking offensive player was fast enough to catch and tackle the defender.

Zeus
10-29-2009, 01:04 PM
"Overlord" wrote:


Here's a snapshot of the 1st attempt immediately after the snap (during the exchange):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3535/4055455515_e0e7e64213.jpg

Notice that the Steelers are not even close to set, with some guys even facing the wrong direction.


I'm pretty sure that's what Zeus is talking about, this sequence that actually occurred early in the 4th quarter.
It wasn't about keeping a certain package on the field and I wouldn't generally call it a hurry up because the Vikes huddled and allowed the Steelers to substitute.
It was trying to take advantage of the way the Steelers were lining up (or failing to do so).


Yup - that's *exactly* the situation to which I was referring.
Thanks for the backup and snapshot.

=Z=

Zeus
10-29-2009, 01:06 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


We're so busy trying to blame the QB or RB, but there was a bit of luck involved in the play.
It was quite fortunate, for the Steelers that the ball deflected almost perfectly into the defenders breadbasket.
Though inconceivable to me, it was also fortunate, that not one single Viking offensive player was fast enough to catch and tackle the defender.


I've been wondering why, on 1st down, they didn't run the ball.
Been wondering that since Sunday.
They were in FG position (ball on the 18), on the closed end of the field with the wind at their back.
At least one run - even with Chester - should have been called to milk more of the clock away.

=Z=

C Mac D
10-29-2009, 01:08 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


We're so busy trying to blame the QB or RB, but there was a bit of luck involved in the play.
It was quite fortunate, for the Steelers that the ball deflected almost perfectly into the defenders breadbasket.
Though inconceivable to me, it was also fortunate, that not one single Viking offensive player was fast enough to catch and tackle the defender.


I've been wondering why, on 1st down, they didn't run the ball.
Been wondering that since Sunday.
They were in FG position (ball on the 18), on the closed end of the field with the wind at their back.
At least one run - even with Chester - should have been called to milk more of the clock away.

=Z=


+1

Zeus
10-29-2009, 01:10 PM
"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


We're so busy trying to blame the QB or RB, but there was a bit of luck involved in the play.
It was quite fortunate, for the Steelers that the ball deflected almost perfectly into the defenders breadbasket.
Though inconceivable to me, it was also fortunate, that not one single Viking offensive player was fast enough to catch and tackle the defender.


I've been wondering why, on 1st down, they didn't run the ball.
Been wondering that since Sunday.
They were in FG position (ball on the 18), on the closed end of the field with the wind at their back.
At least one run - even with Chester - should have been called to milk more of the clock away.


+1


'Course, the week before, you wanted them to take shots at the end zone rather than just run the ball to milk the clock and make the Ravens call timeouts.
Flip-flopper!

=Z=

C Mac D
10-29-2009, 01:13 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


We're so busy trying to blame the QB or RB, but there was a bit of luck involved in the play.
It was quite fortunate, for the Steelers that the ball deflected almost perfectly into the defenders breadbasket.
Though inconceivable to me, it was also fortunate, that not one single Viking offensive player was fast enough to catch and tackle the defender.


I've been wondering why, on 1st down, they didn't run the ball.
Been wondering that since Sunday.
They were in FG position (ball on the 18), on the closed end of the field with the wind at their back.
At least one run - even with Chester - should have been called to milk more of the clock away.


+1


'Course, the week before, you wanted them to take shots at the end zone rather than just run the ball to milk the clock and make the Ravens call timeouts.
Flip-flopper!

=Z=


They called three run plays... just one pass would have been nice, but I see what you mean.

snowinapril
10-29-2009, 01:14 PM
"C" wrote:


lol... this thread is cracking me up today.

Everyone pretty much agrees, but we'll argue it into the ground anyways. Great PPO day!



Love that when that happens....... not!

opps I think we just did it again...... Brittany Spears

Overlord
10-29-2009, 01:18 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


We're so busy trying to blame the QB or RB, but there was a bit of luck involved in the play.
It was quite fortunate, for the Steelers that the ball deflected almost perfectly into the defenders breadbasket.
Though inconceivable to me, it was also fortunate, that not one single Viking offensive player was fast enough to catch and tackle the defender.


I've been wondering why, on 1st down, they didn't run the ball.
Been wondering that since Sunday.
They were in FG position (ball on the 18), on the closed end of the field with the wind at their back.
At least one run - even with Chester - should have been called to milk more of the clock away.

=Z=


Ehh.... check the play-by-play again (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009102504/2009/REG7/vikings@steelers/analyze/box-score#analyze-channels:cat-post-playbyplay).

First down was back on the 26 with 1:49 to play.
They threw a short one to Chester, got 7 yards and burned about 35 seconds off the clock.
You can run there, but you do want to go for the win, or at least a field goal shorter than 43 yards in an outdoor stadium.
It worked out that they did get to let time run off as well.

I think you can also run on 2nd-and-3 with 1:15 to go and two timeouts.
But I don't think that you need to be worrying too much about the clock either way there.
Plenty of time to score, not too much time if you give the ball back.
Ideal in that situation is always score to take the lead as time expires, but there were stilll multiple good options at that point.

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 01:24 PM
"Overlord" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?! LOL this is the NFL not Pee Wee.
::)


I don't think this one to Chester was too hard, and I don't remember the B-Twice pass you're talking about.
But there is such a thing as throwing a ball too hard, and there is such a thing as a touch pass.

I bring this up not so much because I think you don't know this as much as I want to laugh at Byron Leftwich.
That guy has some arm strength, but whenever I've watched him it didn't matter if he was throwing it a receiver 20 yards downfield or a running back 2 feet in front of him, it was coming out full speed.
What a disaster.
Although overall not the worst QB in the world by a longshot.

"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


A "hurry up" offense generally involves no huddle and calling the plays at the line-of-scrimmage.
You brought up 3rd quarter first (go back and read).


When the flood of penalties happened in the 4th quarter (on the drive which ended in the fumble) the Vikings were NOT playing a "hurry up".
Favre tried to rush the snap a couple times (resulting in the illegal shift penalty and the false start on Hutch penalty) because of how Pittsburgh was getting into their pre-snap setup.
Again - since the Vikings were calling the plays in the huddle, it was not a "hurry up" as anyone but you would define it.

http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/54561/PIT_Gamebook.pdf

=Z=

Who did?
I would never type drivel like this.

::)


Not the way they were setting up.
Pardon me if you missed it.
But late in the 3rd quarter, the Steelers stopped putting the 3 d-linemen into down positions and started putting only the nosetackle in position over Sullivan.
The DEs and the LBs were 4 yards (or so) off the ball and milling about and ONLY moved into stances after the Vikings got into their pre-snap configurations .
Favre recognized this and started going for quick snaps to counter.

Rush to snap, hurry up.
Are you really gonna try to spin it around the bush that way.
Comeon My Farvish Friend.
I'm no lawyer or anything but you are double talking again.

::)


I don't think you understand what Zeus is trying to say.
The Vikings were huddling up, allowing plenty of time for the Steelers to see what personnel package the Vikes had in and to substitute accordingly.


But when the Vikings came to the line of scrimmage, the Steelers were milling about.
They were almost certainly doing so in an effort to disguise their alignment as long as possible.
Either that or they are just a very laid back team.

Favre, whether thanks to his own experience or some word from the coaches (or a helpful and loud fan?), recognized this and brought the team quickly to the line a couple times and snapped the ball immediately.
On the first try it resulted in a quick 5 yard pass to Greg Lewis.
On the second try it resulted in a penalty.

Here's a snapshot of the 1st attempt immediately after the snap (during the exchange):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3535/4055455515_e0e7e64213.jpg

Notice that the Steelers are not even close to set, with some guys even facing the wrong direction.


I'm pretty sure that's what Zeus is talking about, this sequence that actually occurred early in the 4th quarter.
It wasn't about keeping a certain package on the field and I wouldn't generally call it a hurry up because the Vikes huddled and allowed the Steelers to substitute.
It was trying to take advantage of the way the Steelers were lining up (or failing to do so).

Good stuff my friend.

I know what Z is talking about. He doesn't know what I am talking about.
Thats what makes it so fun my friend.
;)

Excellent post by the way.

Zeus
10-29-2009, 01:30 PM
"Overlord" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


We're so busy trying to blame the QB or RB, but there was a bit of luck involved in the play.
It was quite fortunate, for the Steelers that the ball deflected almost perfectly into the defenders breadbasket.
Though inconceivable to me, it was also fortunate, that not one single Viking offensive player was fast enough to catch and tackle the defender.


I've been wondering why, on 1st down, they didn't run the ball.
Been wondering that since Sunday.
They were in FG position (ball on the 18), on the closed end of the field with the wind at their back.
At least one run - even with Chester - should have been called to milk more of the clock away.


Ehh.... check the play-by-play again (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009102504/2009/REG7/vikings@steelers/analyze/box-score#analyze-channels:cat-post-playbyplay).

First down was back on the 26 with 1:49 to play.
They threw a short one to Chester, got 7 yards and burned about 35 seconds off the clock.
You can run there, but you do want to go for the win, or at least a field goal shorter than 43 yards in an outdoor stadium.
It worked out that they did get to let time run off as well.

I think you can also run on 2nd-and-3 with 1:15 to go and two timeouts.
But I don't think that you need to be worrying too much about the clock either way there.
Plenty of time to score, not too much time if you give the ball back.
Ideal in that situation is always score to take the lead as time expires, but there were stilll multiple good options at that point.


Yeah - 2nd & 3 - thanks, Overlord - got that one wrong.
Thought I remembered the pass to Chester as a 1st-down conversion.

=Z=

Zeus
10-29-2009, 01:31 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


Good stuff my friend.

I know what Z is talking about. He doesn't know what I am talking about.
Thats what makes it so fun my friend.

;)

Excellent post by the way.


God, you can go beyond the point of "fun" sometimes.
Really.
Must you be so incredibly condescending?

=Z=

jmcdon00
10-29-2009, 01:33 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


We're so busy trying to blame the QB or RB, but there was a bit of luck involved in the play.
It was quite fortunate, for the Steelers that the ball deflected almost perfectly into the defenders breadbasket.
Though inconceivable to me, it was also fortunate, that not one single Viking offensive player was fast enough to catch and tackle the defender.


I've been wondering why, on 1st down, they didn't run the ball.
Been wondering that since Sunday.
They were in FG position (ball on the 18), on the closed end of the field with the wind at their back.
At least one run - even with Chester - should have been called to milk more of the clock away.

=Z=

There is a good chance they would have ran on 2nd down, we'll never know. I probably would have called a run there. The fact that you, me and probably the steelers thought they should run is probably why they passed. Being predictable in the NFL is a good way to get beat.

Kinda funny how in the Ravens game the Vikings get ripped for running when they are in range for a tying field goal and in the Steelers game they get ripped for trying to pass the football while in range for a tying field goal.

NodakPaul
10-29-2009, 01:34 PM
Screw it.
I am done with the Pittsburgh game.

BRING ON GREEN BAY!!!!!

;D

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 01:35 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:

LOL, quit cracking me up.

Your correct, I haven't looked at the play today, but I have several times since.
Its the most popular clip on this site.
You guys that think the QB isn't at fault have kept trying to convince me, using the clip, that our QB did no wrong.


So you are trying to say that when you said that the ball was "hot" so many times, you meant that it got there before CT was ready?
I still say he threw it to hot.
I was only trying to put it in words that you guys like.
Again, it isn't like I am saying he ran and chucked it like a javelin.
I am saying he threw it to hard.

I think you need to look at it again.
That ball was not thrown hard at all.
Not even a little bit.

And let's get this clear.
There are very, very few people who think that the QB is blameless.
Where do you keep getting that from.
In fact, in I (and most people) have said over and over again that the fault lies with both.
The ball was high, and CT should have still caught it.
Fault to Favre for throwing it high, and fault to CT for not catching a catchable ball.

"Marrdro" wrote:

I will make this simple....

Were would you throw the ball if you were the QB?

Were would you expect the ball if you were the RB?

If he wasn't gonna throw it to the correct spot he should have at least lead the RB away from the trouble (if CT was that ready for it) instead of throwing it high (and hot).


Correct.
He threw it high.
That was a mistake.
It was not hot, and I don't understand why you can't admit that you were wrong here...

"Marrdro" wrote:

Another quick question related to this little nugget, .......


The fact is that your very perception of this play - as well as most of the game - is off because you are looking so very hard for anything and everything that Favre does wrong.

Since when is that outlawed? Are you trying to tell me that us fans shouldn't look at a game with the intent to see bad along with the good? If thats not the case, then, how come your not hacking on me for picking out Kluwe's gaffs?

Because with Favre you aren't looking at the game with the intent to see bad along with the good.
You are looking so hard for the bad in every play that sometimes you unintentionally manufacture it.
Just like you have convinced yourself that Favre had a bad game against Pittsburgh.
There is a difference between pointing out mistakes and imagining them.
You want Favre to make mistakes so badly that you are seeing mistakes that simply aren't there.

"Marrdro" wrote:

Should I go and dredge up some of your stuff on our other QB's?
You know I won't, ignore that question.
LOL, you caught me.
I'm over critical of him. ::) Lots of em
::)




Dredge away/
I admit my bias against our second string QB.
I believe that my stance on Jackson has been rather constant - that he makes a great backup but isn't ready to be a starter. Maybe he will in the future, but he is NOT there now.
And when overwhelming evidence shows that I was wrong about something that Jackson did, I don't stubbornly stick to my guns and refuse to admit that I was wrong.
I also think that there might be a bit of a difference between Jackson's play and Favre's, don't you?

You know that I won't go through a multiple quote thread this late in the day.
No fair.


The ball was high, and CT should have still caught it.
Fault to Favre for throwing it high, and fault to CT for not catching a catchable ball.
Thank you.
All I wanted to hear.
;)


Because with Favre you aren't looking at the game with the intent to see bad along with the good.
You are looking so hard for the bad in every play that sometimes you unintentionally manufacture it.
Just like you have convinced yourself that Favre had a bad game against Pittsburgh.
There is a difference between pointing out mistakes and imagining them.
You want Favre to make mistakes so badly that you are seeing mistakes that simply aren't there.
Again, I agree with most of this, however, I look at the whole game with a critical eye.
Who else do you know that takes his own game notes?
Again, no one said a word when I hacked on Kluwe.


I also think that there might be a bit of a difference between Jackson's play and Favre's, don't you?
I don't think you can find a place were I said TJ plays better than our current starter.
I have, however, said, that I believe he could be very effective this year and used the preseason and the shot he got in the Rams games as evidence.

By the way, you've brought your "A" game to the table today my friend.
;D

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 01:36 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


Screw it.
I am done with the Pittsburgh game.

BRING ON GREEN BAY!!!!!

;D

Passed the week though didn't we?

NordicNed
10-29-2009, 01:36 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!
Ned's New NFL STAT
;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.
::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth
I watched the game again last night, for my third time now, and replaid the BF to CT screen about 6 times.





It was not hot and it was about 6 inches over his dam head.
Two linemen on either side of him and downfiled about 1 yard.
Closest Steelrs player was a good 3 yards behind him ( when pass hit hands) but closing quickly.
Biggest problem I noticed, CT moved his head down and scanned to his left, at about the same exact time he should have been looking the ball into his hands.
His arms where still bent and not even close to being fully extended, they didn't need to be. More like a 100 deg. angle.....Very catchable ball and very much not CT Like.
CT is probably our best recieving back to begin with.
But I beleive he did take his eyes off the ball and was worried more about his next step than looking the ball into his hands and securing the pass first.






So this does go into Nordicneds new Stat of " Reciever ERROR"








As for BB,
I never have and never will believe in a " TO HOT" pass.
Your a dam reciever and if the ball hit's you in the hands, your one and only job at that moment is to catch and secure the pass.
BB didn't !
Probably to worried about his next Hammy pull :(

Ned, were do you think is the proper place to throw the ball to a reciever in a screen play?

And back to BB, yet again the ole "hit him in the hands" cliche'.
LOL.
Cracks me up everytime I hear it.
Another question then......

Do you think that the QB should take something off of a throw?

......Marrdro chuckles to himself....."hit him in the hands"....... ;D



Number 1 Marr,
I guess we just see things differently at times, but thats okay because, things would get old very fast if we all always agreed on everything.
ONE:
I personaly think that this play to CT is not even a screen at all.
It neverflows to the outside and surely not outside the tackle slot, which I believe screens are ment to do. This I would call more of an inside dump off.
In a perfect worlkd, you should hit the reciever in the mid chest area, but then again, the reciever shold catch the ball with his hands in front of him, and the ball should not even reach hitting the chest.
In a perfect world, mid chest area or in front of and idealy leading the runner in full stride so that the reciever dowsn't have to slow down or even push for more speed or lay out.
Sure, the pass was high, about 6 inches to 1 foot over his head, not even high enough for making CT have to leave his feet and jump up for it. So yes, high, but not nearly high enough to make it a hard catch.
Again, I believe my eyes and CT took his eyes off the ball for that very important split second, which led to his not secureing the ball.
So yes also, brett could have placed the ball in a better spot also.
Cliche?
I've said it always, if the ball hits the recievers in the hands, or let me say, if the reciever gets his hands to the ball, it should always be caught!
I'm not talking about finger tips on outstretched hands and just having it glance off of those tips, but in the hands, in this case, slipping right thru his grasp.
Yup, at that point it's all on CT's concentration and hands.
Honestly, I'm very suprised he didn't catch it, because 9 out of 10 times, CT brings that down for a reception, he's that good of a reciever for a RB.....
TWo: Now to the subject of touch and or bullet.
Come on Marr, you know as well as I do, there is a place and time for both.
Touch usually comes with the deep pass, when defenders are in tight coverage and you need to drop one in their over the recievers shoulder.
Also some red zone passes into the endzone need to have a touch pass on them, like a fade to the corner.
Most screens and dumps are more of a touch pass than being thrown like a bullet.
Some deep crossing patterns need to be a combo of touch and bullet type passes.
I could go on forever, but one thing for sure, Brett usually and I said usually knows what type of pass is needed at that time and play and he usually delivers.
He's proven that over the years to us all.
In this case, I don't think the pass was thrown over hard, but it was a little high, but still dead center of target. My opinion, a very catchable ball that just wasnt'.
Wouldn't suprise me one bit, we see a very similar play again this week, only this time brett will be closer to the ideal target area, and CT follows thru the way he should have, and looks and secures the pass like it should have been done.




NN'S BF INT and Recievers Stat line:
1 INT
2 RErrors = 3 Passing Play TO's



PS:
I totaly agree with you Marr that our Recievers, espeicaly, Rice, Shanko, & even CT and AD, have all shown great effort and skill, in their receptions this year.
Lewis also gets a solid nod, he seems to catch everything that is thrown to him, just wish his legs where as good as his hands, but he does have a nice initial move after catching the ball I noticed.
Savy vet, thats what he is.
BB, will this guy ever have healthy hams for a whole season?
I'm starting to think not ! :(

C Mac D
10-29-2009, 01:39 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


Screw it.
I am done with the Pittsburgh game.

BRING ON GREEN BAY!!!!!

;D


Phew... we agree on something!!!

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 01:55 PM
"NordicNed" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NordicNed" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!
Ned's New NFL STAT
;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.
::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth
I watched the game again last night, for my third time now, and replaid the BF to CT screen about 6 times.





It was not hot and it was about 6 inches over his dam head.
Two linemen on either side of him and downfiled about 1 yard.
Closest Steelrs player was a good 3 yards behind him ( when pass hit hands) but closing quickly.
Biggest problem I noticed, CT moved his head down and scanned to his left, at about the same exact time he should have been looking the ball into his hands.
His arms where still bent and not even close to being fully extended, they didn't need to be. More like a 100 deg. angle.....Very catchable ball and very much not CT Like.
CT is probably our best recieving back to begin with.
But I beleive he did take his eyes off the ball and was worried more about his next step than looking the ball into his hands and securing the pass first.






So this does go into Nordicneds new Stat of " Reciever ERROR"








As for BB,
I never have and never will believe in a " TO HOT" pass.
Your a dam reciever and if the ball hit's you in the hands, your one and only job at that moment is to catch and secure the pass.
BB didn't !
Probably to worried about his next Hammy pull :(

Ned, were do you think is the proper place to throw the ball to a reciever in a screen play?

And back to BB, yet again the ole "hit him in the hands" cliche'.
LOL.
Cracks me up everytime I hear it.
Another question then......

Do you think that the QB should take something off of a throw?

......Marrdro chuckles to himself....."hit him in the hands"....... ;D



Number 1 Marr,
I guess we just see things differently at times, but thats okay because, things would get old very fast if we all always agreed on everything.
ONE:
I personaly think that this play to CT is not even a screen at all.
It neverflows to the outside and surely not outside the tackle slot, which I believe screens are ment to do. This I would call more of an inside dump off.
In a perfect worlkd, you should hit the reciever in the mid chest area, but then again, the reciever shold catch the ball with his hands in front of him, and the ball should not even reach hitting the chest.
In a perfect world, mid chest area or in front of and idealy leading the runner in full stride so that the reciever dowsn't have to slow down or even push for more speed or lay out.
Sure, the pass was high, about 6 inches to 1 foot over his head, not even high enough for making CT have to leave his feet and jump up for it. So yes, high, but not nearly high enough to make it a hard catch.
Again, I believe my eyes and CT took his eyes off the ball for that very important split second, which led to his not secureing the ball.
So yes also, brett could have placed the ball in a better spot also.
Cliche?
I've said it always, if the ball hits the recievers in the hands, or let me say, if the reciever gets his hands to the ball, it should always be caught!
I'm not talking about finger tips on outstretched hands and just having it glance off of those tips, but in the hands, in this case, slipping right thru his grasp.
Yup, at that point it's all on CT's concentration and hands.
Honestly, I'm very suprised he didn't catch it, because 9 out of 10 times, CT brings that down for a reception, he's that good of a reciever for a RB.....
TWo: Now to the subject of touch and or bullet.
Come on Marr, you know as well as I do, there is a place and time for both.
Touch usually comes with the deep pass, when defenders are in tight coverage and you need to drop one in their over the recievers shoulder.
Also some red zone passes into the endzone need to have a touch pass on them, like a fade to the corner.
Most screens and dumps are more of a touch pass than being thrown like a bullet.
Some deep crossing patterns need to be a combo of touch and bullet type passes.
I could go on forever, but one thing for sure, Brett usually and I said usually knows what type of pass is needed at that time and play and he usually delivers.
He's proven that over the years to us all.
In this case, I don't think the pass was thrown over hard, but it was a little high, but still dead center of target. My opinion, a very catchable ball that just wasnt'.
Wouldn't suprise me one bit, we see a very similar play again this week, only this time brett will be closer to the ideal target area, and CT follows thru the way he should have, and looks and secures the pass like it should have been done.




NN'S BF INT and Recievers Stat line:
1 INT
2 RErrors = 3 Passing Play TO's



PS:
I totaly agree with you Marr that our Recievers, espeicaly, Rice, Shanko, & even CT and AD, have all shown great effort and skill, in their receptions this year.
Lewis also gets a solid nod, he seems to catch everything that is thrown to him, just wish his legs where as good as his hands, but he does have a nice initial move after catching the ball I noticed.
Savy vet, thats what he is.
BB, will this guy ever have healthy hams for a whole season?
I'm starting to think not ! :(

You can really wing up a good one when you aren't all over our current QB's tip my friend......Excellent post.
;D

Not much to disagree with you on in there.
Just one comment though, we already saw a correct dump off throw (if you will) thrown perfectly by our QB in this game.

Someone posted a clip of that pass to AD, AD not only caught in stride, he was able to get that quick peek (all players do it by the way) to see what was in his way as he turned up field.

No one, absolutely no one, said a word when I mentioned in the thread that it was a good throw by the way.
All of you ran to this thread in defense of....., well, you know were I am going with this.


Again, excellent post my friend.

Purple Floyd
10-29-2009, 06:34 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:






You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!
Ned's New NFL STAT
;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.
::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth


+1 to V4L.

Here is the video:
Steelers Return Favre Interception for TD to Secure the Win (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZhS95PFMD4#)

It was not hot at all.
In fact, it was very lightly thrown.
It even arcs a little bit in the 5 yards it was in the air.
I think my 5 year old can throw hotter than that. ;)


Watch the replay at :25.
It was a high, misplaced ball.
The more I watch it, the more I think that the blame should be even between Favre and CT.
The ball was in a bad place, but CT should also be able to make that catch.


But he didn't, and the defender happened to be in the exact right place.
It was a fluke play.
Favre would put that ball in a better spot 9 times out of 10, and CT would catch that ball 99 times out of 100 IMHO, so I am simply not too worked up over it.


That video just showed that it was a bad choice to throw it to Chester in general... he wasn't going to gain any ground and he was surrounded by defenders.

Hot or not, it was a bad choice.


I don't dispute that.
I posted it primarily because Marrdro has said that the pass was uncatchable because it was so hot something like 1,000,004 times... today alone. ;)

Not sure if I ever said it was uncatchable.


And if it will help, I will quit using the word "Hot" and type a lot more words and describe it as "it got there sooner than CT thought it would".

On a side note, first I am being picked on for a typo, now I am getting picked on for poor use of words.
I think I need to go get a Lit degree or something before I post anything else.
;) ;D

If it will help everyone I will quit using the word "Hot".


How about a compromise? You can still use hot, but you must agree to post something like this when you do.



http://www.purplepride.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/jennifer-love-hewitt.jpg (http://www.purplepride.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/jennifer-love-hewitt.jpg)

Purple Floyd
10-29-2009, 06:36 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!
Ned's New NFL STAT
;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.
::)


Too hard?! LOL this is the NFL not Pee Wee.
::)

So you don't think that "Touch" on a pass is important?
::)


Looked like touch to me. Glaucoma.

Didn't to me.
Guacamole


Lol. That made me chuckle

Purple Floyd
10-29-2009, 06:44 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:








You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!
Ned's New NFL STAT
;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.
::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth


+1 to V4L.

Here is the video:
Steelers Return Favre Interception for TD to Secure the Win (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZhS95PFMD4#)

It was not hot at all.
In fact, it was very lightly thrown.
It even arcs a little bit in the 5 yards it was in the air.
I think my 5 year old can throw hotter than that. ;)


Watch the replay at :25.
It was a high, misplaced ball.
The more I watch it, the more I think that the blame should be even between Favre and CT.
The ball was in a bad place, but CT should also be able to make that catch.


But he didn't, and the defender happened to be in the exact right place.
It was a fluke play.
Favre would put that ball in a better spot 9 times out of 10, and CT would catch that ball 99 times out of 100 IMHO, so I am simply not too worked up over it.


That video just showed that it was a bad choice to throw it to Chester in general... he wasn't going to gain any ground and he was surrounded by defenders.

Hot or not, it was a bad choice.


I don't dispute that.
I posted it primarily because Marrdro has said that the pass was uncatchable because it was so hot something like 1,000,004 times... today alone. ;)

Not sure if I ever said it was uncatchable.


And if it will help, I will quit using the word "Hot" and type a lot more words and describe it as "it got there sooner than CT thought it would".

On a side note, first I am being picked on for a typo, now I am getting picked on for poor use of words.
I think I need to go get a Lit degree or something before I post anything else.
;) ;D

If it will help everyone I will quit using the word "Hot".


lol.
Oh hell no!
You aren't going to be able to get out of this one that easily. ;)

So you are trying to say that when you said that the ball was "hot" so many times, you meant that it got there before CT was ready?

Marty, first of all that was NOT that case - look at the video. CT stopped, turned around, and was ready for the ball.
The ball went high where he was not expecting it, but it was in absolutely no way early or there before CT was expecting it.

Second, I call bullshit on your excuse.
It isn't like you exclusively used the word hot to complain about that pass.
Take this quote:
"Marrdro" wrote:


Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.
::)


Too hard?
Does that also mean that it got there before CT was expecting it? ;)

Suck it up Marr.
;) You convinced yourself that the ball was thrown too hard or too "hot" without even looking at the video, and you built several arguments around that very belief (I actually have three different quotes from you on this... I am refraining from pouring it on too heavy right now, but I am ready to post them as needed).
The fact is that your very perception of this play - as well as most of the game - is off because you are looking so very hard for anything and everything that Favre does wrong.
Sometimes when you look for something hard enough, you start to see it even if it isn't there...

Time to break out one of your smileys... you've been caught with your pants down on this one... ;D

As P.A would say


BOX



http://www.purplepride.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/cardboard_box.jpg (http://www.purplepride.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/cardboard_box.jpg)

Purple Floyd
10-29-2009, 06:50 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


We're so busy trying to blame the QB or RB, but there was a bit of luck involved in the play.
It was quite fortunate, for the Steelers that the ball deflected almost perfectly into the defenders breadbasket.
Though inconceivable to me, it was also fortunate, that not one single Viking offensive player was fast enough to catch and tackle the defender.


I've been wondering why, on 1st down, they didn't run the ball.
Been wondering that since Sunday.
They were in FG position (ball on the 18), on the closed end of the field with the wind at their back.
At least one run - even with Chester - should have been called to milk more of the clock away.


+1


'Course, the week before, you wanted them to take shots at the end zone rather than just run the ball to milk the clock and make the Ravens call timeouts.
Flip-flopper!

=Z=


And i was just about to say that they should have taken a shot into the end zone on that play. Thanks for pointing it out first.

Formo
10-29-2009, 06:58 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:










You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth


+1 to V4L.

Here is the video:
Steelers Return Favre Interception for TD to Secure the Win (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZhS95PFMD4#)

It was not hot at all.
In fact, it was very lightly thrown.
It even arcs a little bit in the 5 yards it was in the air.
I think my 5 year old can throw hotter than that. ;)


Watch the replay at :25.
It was a high, misplaced ball.
The more I watch it, the more I think that the blame should be even between Favre and CT.
The ball was in a bad place, but CT should also be able to make that catch.


But he didn't, and the defender happened to be in the exact right place.
It was a fluke play.
Favre would put that ball in a better spot 9 times out of 10, and CT would catch that ball 99 times out of 100 IMHO, so I am simply not too worked up over it.


That video just showed that it was a bad choice to throw it to Chester in general... he wasn't going to gain any ground and he was surrounded by defenders.

Hot or not, it was a bad choice.


I don't dispute that.
I posted it primarily because Marrdro has said that the pass was uncatchable because it was so hot something like 1,000,004 times... today alone. ;)

Not sure if I ever said it was uncatchable.


And if it will help, I will quit using the word "Hot" and type a lot more words and describe it as "it got there sooner than CT thought it would".

On a side note, first I am being picked on for a typo, now I am getting picked on for poor use of words.
I think I need to go get a Lit degree or something before I post anything else.

;) ;D

If it will help everyone I will quit using the word "Hot".


lol.
Oh hell no!
You aren't going to be able to get out of this one that easily. ;)

So you are trying to say that when you said that the ball was "hot" so many times, you meant that it got there before CT was ready?

Marty, first of all that was NOT that case - look at the video. CT stopped, turned around, and was ready for the ball.
The ball went high where he was not expecting it, but it was in absolutely no way early or there before CT was expecting it.

Second, I call bullshit on your excuse.
It isn't like you exclusively used the word hot to complain about that pass.
Take this quote:
"Marrdro" wrote:


Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)


Too hard?
Does that also mean that it got there before CT was expecting it? ;)

Suck it up Marr.
;) You convinced yourself that the ball was thrown too hard or too "hot" without even looking at the video, and you built several arguments around that very belief (I actually have three different quotes from you on this... I am refraining from pouring it on too heavy right now, but I am ready to post them as needed).
The fact is that your very perception of this play - as well as most of the game - is off because you are looking so very hard for anything and everything that Favre does wrong.
Sometimes when you look for something hard enough, you start to see it even if it isn't there...

Time to break out one of your smileys... you've been caught with your pants down on this one... ;D

As P.A would say


BOX




HAHA +1 to UffDa for the BOX

And +1 to NodakPaul for.. well..
the BOX.

Marrdro
10-30-2009, 06:19 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


How about a compromise? You can still use hot, but you must agree to post something like this when you do.

Now thats a deal I can live with.
Hell, if our current QB looked like that, even I'd start to like him.
;)

ejmat
10-30-2009, 07:24 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:








You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth


+1 to V4L.

Here is the video:
Steelers Return Favre Interception for TD to Secure the Win (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZhS95PFMD4#)

It was not hot at all.
In fact, it was very lightly thrown.
It even arcs a little bit in the 5 yards it was in the air.
I think my 5 year old can throw hotter than that. ;)


Watch the replay at :25.
It was a high, misplaced ball.
The more I watch it, the more I think that the blame should be even between Favre and CT.
The ball was in a bad place, but CT should also be able to make that catch.


But he didn't, and the defender happened to be in the exact right place.
It was a fluke play.
Favre would put that ball in a better spot 9 times out of 10, and CT would catch that ball 99 times out of 100 IMHO, so I am simply not too worked up over it.


That video just showed that it was a bad choice to throw it to Chester in general... he wasn't going to gain any ground and he was surrounded by defenders.

Hot or not, it was a bad choice.


I don't dispute that.
I posted it primarily because Marrdro has said that the pass was uncatchable because it was so hot something like 1,000,004 times... today alone. ;)

Not sure if I ever said it was uncatchable.


And if it will help, I will quit using the word "Hot" and type a lot more words and describe it as "it got there sooner than CT thought it would".

On a side note, first I am being picked on for a typo, now I am getting picked on for poor use of words.
I think I need to go get a Lit degree or something before I post anything else.

;) ;D

If it will help everyone I will quit using the word "Hot".


How about a compromise? You can still use hot, but you must agree to post something like this when you do.




I second that motion.
LOL.

Zeus
10-30-2009, 08:21 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:








You meen 1 INT,
two of the three should be stated as Reciever ERORS!

Ned's New NFL STAT

;D

Talk about me loosing credibility with posts......

Comeon Ned, the one to BB was so gol 'darnit hot even the defender didn't want to catch it and that one to CT was high and to hard as well.

::)



Why do you always say that CT pass came out hot.. Certainly was high.. I won't deny that.. But it wasn't hot

And im not just stickin up for Brett.. Just tellin the actual truth


+1 to V4L.

Here is the video:
Steelers Return Favre Interception for TD to Secure the Win (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZhS95PFMD4#)

It was not hot at all.
In fact, it was very lightly thrown.
It even arcs a little bit in the 5 yards it was in the air.
I think my 5 year old can throw hotter than that. ;)


Watch the replay at :25.
It was a high, misplaced ball.
The more I watch it, the more I think that the blame should be even between Favre and CT.
The ball was in a bad place, but CT should also be able to make that catch.


But he didn't, and the defender happened to be in the exact right place.
It was a fluke play.
Favre would put that ball in a better spot 9 times out of 10, and CT would catch that ball 99 times out of 100 IMHO, so I am simply not too worked up over it.


That video just showed that it was a bad choice to throw it to Chester in general... he wasn't going to gain any ground and he was surrounded by defenders.

Hot or not, it was a bad choice.


I don't dispute that.
I posted it primarily because Marrdro has said that the pass was uncatchable because it was so hot something like 1,000,004 times... today alone. ;)

Not sure if I ever said it was uncatchable.


And if it will help, I will quit using the word "Hot" and type a lot more words and describe it as "it got there sooner than CT thought it would".

On a side note, first I am being picked on for a typo, now I am getting picked on for poor use of words.
I think I need to go get a Lit degree or something before I post anything else.

;) ;D

If it will help everyone I will quit using the word "Hot".


How about a compromise? You can still use hot, but you must agree to post something like this when you do.


Good Lord!
They photoshopped the BFA right outta that picture!
That's some mad skeelz there.

=Z=

Marrdro
10-30-2009, 08:59 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


Good Lord!
They photoshopped the BFA right outta that picture!
That's some mad skeelz there.

=Z=

Admit it.
Its OK.
She is hot.
;)

Zeus
10-30-2009, 09:15 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


Good Lord!
They photoshopped the BFA right outta that picture!
That's some mad skeelz there.


Admit it.
Its OK.
She is hot.
;)


I have never disputed that, above the waist, she's a very attractive gal.
But, as an ass man, I have a hard time getting past the BFA.

http://hellosunshine.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/1128_jennifer_love_hewitt_bikini_06.jpg

=Z=

Marrdro
10-30-2009, 09:19 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


Good Lord!
They photoshopped the BFA right outta that picture!
That's some mad skeelz there.


Admit it.
Its OK.
She is hot.
;)


I have never disputed that, above the waist, she's a very attractive gal.
But, as an jiggly butt man, I have a hard time getting past the BFA.



=Z=

Comeon. You know thats an old picture of when she let herself go when I started pining over Laura....
http://www.buffalojills.net/roster/pics/2008/036-Laura.jpg
I've since apologized and she now understands I have enough room in my life for WW, Laura and her.
;D

V4L
10-30-2009, 02:27 PM
Lol marr ur nuts

josdin00
10-30-2009, 03:31 PM
"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


And I'm using the overwhelming lack of hot FB female support on your page to counter the "elephant dick" remark, as well.

=Z=


Big ears, small trunk.


...and would do almost anything for it's nuts.
:o

Purple Floyd
10-30-2009, 07:03 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


Good Lord!
They photoshopped the BFA right outta that picture!
That's some mad skeelz there.


Admit it.
Its OK.
She is hot.
;)


I have never disputed that, above the waist, she's a very attractive gal.
But, as an ass man, I have a hard time getting past the BFA.

http://hellosunshine.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/1128_jennifer_love_hewitt_bikini_06.jpg

=Z=




http://www.purplepride.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/jennifer-love-hewitt-20060307-113944.jpg (http://www.purplepride.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/jennifer-love-hewitt-20060307-113944.jpg)

jmcdon00
10-30-2009, 07:26 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


Good Lord!
They photoshopped the BFA right outta that picture!
That's some mad skeelz there.


Admit it.
Its OK.
She is hot.

;)


I have never disputed that, above the waist, she's a very attractive gal.
But, as an jiggly butt man, I have a hard time getting past the BFA.

http://hellosunshine.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/1128_jennifer_love_hewitt_bikini_06.jpg

=Z=




http://www.americangirl.co.uk/images/jennifer_love_hewitt9.jpg

http://www.short-hair-styles-magazine.com/images/2006-short-hair-style-pictures-11.jpg

ejmat
10-30-2009, 08:08 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


Good Lord!
They photoshopped the BFA right outta that picture!
That's some mad skeelz there.


Admit it.
Its OK.
She is hot.

;)


I have never disputed that, above the waist, she's a very attractive gal.
But, as an jiggly butt man, I have a hard time getting past the BFA.

http://hellosunshine.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/1128_jennifer_love_hewitt_bikini_06.jpg

=Z=




http://www.americangirl.co.uk/images/jennifer_love_hewitt9.jpg

http://www.short-hair-styles-magazine.com/images/2006-short-hair-style-pictures-11.jpg


Talk about hijacking a thread but I don't mind one but
;)
JLH is awesome with a BFA or a not so BFA

Purple Floyd
10-30-2009, 08:17 PM
"ejmat" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




Good Lord!
They photoshopped the BFA right outta that picture!
That's some mad skeelz there.


Admit it.
Its OK.
She is hot.
;)


I have never disputed that, above the waist, she's a very attractive gal.
But, as an jiggly butt man, I have a hard time getting past the BFA.

http://hellosunshine.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/1128_jennifer_love_hewitt_bikini_06.jpg

=Z=




http://www.americangirl.co.uk/images/jennifer_love_hewitt9.jpg

http://www.short-hair-styles-magazine.com/images/2006-short-hair-style-pictures-11.jpg


Talk about hijacking a thread but I don't mind one but
;)
JLH is awesome with a BFA or a not so BFA


One look at that BFA and a guys just wants to -How do you spell it?--
Blubbabdaubbadahwubbadadah.

Zeus
10-30-2009, 10:09 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:
[quote]
Good Lord!
They photoshopped the BFA right outta that picture!
That's some mad skeelz there.


Admit it.
Its OK.
She is hot.

;)


I have never disputed that, above the waist, she's a very attractive gal.
But, as an ass man, I have a hard time getting past the BFA.

http://hellosunshine.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/1128_jennifer_love_hewitt_bikini_06.jpg
/quote]




Your picture is from 2005, mine is from 2007.

=Z=

V4L
10-30-2009, 10:14 PM
Lol u guys

There's a rule against thread hijackin!!